Digging up the root of my confusion
If no one planted it, then how does it grow
And why are some hell bent upon there being an answer
While some are quite content to answer I don’t know
Curse Your Branches, David Bazan
We’re finishing up a workshop at church entitled Just Walk Across the Room by mega-church pastor Bill Hybels. He contrasts two approaches to outreach that seriously impact our relationships with unbelievers or spiritual seekers:
- Spiritual refereeing, or
- Radical inclusion
Jesus was “radically inclusive,” associating with people whom the religious establishment frowned upon. Rather than referee everyone’s morality, He extended grace. As a result, Christ was often misunderstood, charged with being “a glutton and a drunkard” (Matt. 11:19) and banished from the “in crowd.”
It made me wonder: Am I misunderstood enough?
So I was listening to David Bazan’s Curse Your Branches. That album makes me very uncomfortable. Bazan was once the iconic frontman for Pedro the Lion, “Christian indie rock’s first big crossover star.” And then he became an agnostic.
It’s sad. But hey, it happens all the time. Perhaps even more intriguing than David Bazan’s defection is how the Christian community grappled with him. I mean, how did one approach the wayward musician? Should we shun him? Interrogate him? Organize a record burning session?
Enter Cornerstone.
Cornerstone remains one of the premiere Christian music festivals in the world. The year Bazan went public with his departure from Christianity, he was invited back to perform at Cornerstone. But after his very public divorce (or separation) from the Church, why?
“I know David has a long history of being a seeker and trying to navigate through his faith. Cornerstone is open to that,” says John Herrin, the festival’s director. “We welcome plenty of musicians who may not identify themselves as Christians but are artists with an ongoing connection to faith. . . . We’re glad to have him back. We don’t give up on people; we don’t give up on the kids here who are seeking, trying to figure out what they don’t believe and what they do. This festival was built on patience.”
So Cornerstone welcomes “musicians who may not identify themselves as Christians but are artists with an ongoing connection to faith.” That’s a fairly fuzzy line, don’t you think? And in the case of Bazan, his “ongoing connection to faith” involved questioning God, using profanity, and distancing himself from the Church. So what’s someone like this doing performing at a Christian music festival?
It makes the “spiritual referee” in me just want to scream.
Which is probably why so much Christian art is so… unambiguous. Let’s face it, folks, the “Christian art industry” doesn’t like a lot of greys. Message is supreme. And messengers need measured. Sure, God loves the David Bazans of the world… provided they stay off our stages. Of course, we accept tax collectors and sinners… as long as they wash up and get in line. It’s as if we have a checklist, a three point theological inspection. We want our reps homogenized, sterilized, and adequately vetted. Our artists must be non-smokers, non-drinkers, free of foul language, happily married, and active in a local church. They must articulate, in their art, a clear commitment to orthodoxy. Their work must reflect Christian values. They can’t be a “seeker,” they must be a “finder.” Kind of like an academy of referees.
It’s almost like Christians refuse to let their stories, songs, and films be misunderstood.
Unlike Jesus, who didn’t seem to mind being misunderstood.
D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, the famous Welsh preacher, in his classic 14 volume commentary on the Book of Romans, said this about grace and its implications:
… If it is true that where sin abounded grace has much more abounded (Rom. 5:20), well then, ‘shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound yet further?’ (Rom. 6:1)
First of all let me make a comment, to me a very important and vital comment. The true preaching of the gospel of salvation by grace alone always leads to the possibility of this charge being brought against it. There is no better test as to whether a man is really preaching the New Testament gospel of salvation than this, that some people might misunderstand it and misinterpret it to mean that it really amounts to this, that because you are saved by grace alone it does not matter at all what you do; you can go on sinning as much as you like because it will redound all the more to the glory of grace. That is a very good test of gospel preaching. If my preaching and presentation of the gospel of salvation does not expose it to that misunderstanding, then it is not the gospel. (emphasis mine)
Being misunderstood is necessary part of fleshing out the Gospel of grace.
So why don’t we incorporate that into our art?
No, I’m not inferring that we abandon our Message, that we cavort on the fringes of society and accepted social conduct, but that living a life of grace and producing art that reflects it will, on occasion, be misunderstood and go against the grain of conventional religious wisdom. In fact, the best test of Christianity may be the degree to which we are misunderstood. Are we, occasionally, accused of licensing sin, freedom, hedonism, or philosophical adventure? If so, we’re in good company.
The problem with “radical inclusion” is that we are potentially misunderstood. But sadly, our quest to avoid being misunderstood has led to a generation of “spiritual referees.”
Hmmm. It’s good to say that we are saved by grace alone. And it’s fine to say that a musician need not be a Christian to be enjoyed. It seems to be another thing to have a musician who is opposed to Christian truth–who has tasted and rejected Christ–performing at a place where people expect to be edified spiritually by the music.
I mean, I would be fine with going to a concert with my children and talking to them about the man’s lyrics. I have such a problem with so many young Christians today who seem to be biblically illiterate and who can’t tell the difference between good theology and bad theology in books and music.
I don’t like any of those Christian concerts anyway. My children have been to a few, and I hate it. Loud, obnoxious screaming, that throws the name of Jesus in every once in a while and seems to be totally self-centered.
Yes, I’m a cranky old women. What’s wrong with these kids today? 🙂
But getting back on track with your post–radical welcoming is great. Jesus welcomed the sinners. Radically putting the unsaved on stage as if they are to teach us, is not such a great thing. Jesus didn’t sit at the prostitutes feet, they sat at his. He loved them and because he loved them he gave them the words of truth. He didn’t expect them to teach him. And neither did any of the apostles, as far as I can tell, sit and listen to other people talk about their spiritual struggles and the journeys that took them away from Christ.
Sally, if Christ’s approach is any indication, “good theology and bad theology” — especially as it’s found or not found in art — is not so cut and dried. I’m not necessarily endorsing that we put David Bazan or someone like him in front of our churches, but that there is an element of risk we should embrace. I just think we opt for too clear-cut parameters in our art, which is a reflection of a narrow theology.
Thanks for another thought-provoker, Mike! The Bible has plenty to say about Christians who’ve turned their backs on God. Yes, we can love them, but where’s the place for church discipline? When what they’re doing is maligning the name of God?
I needed this post today. I’ve just decided to add a Faith/Family feature to my blog. I have lots of non-Christian followers, which I love, but I don’t want to offend them. I’ve given them a heads-up that this feature is coming.
I welcome debate, but have been wondering if I should post something this Friday (mentioning spanking!). It might be MISUNDERSTOOD. But I’ve decided it’s what I need to post. It might help someone. Like me or hate me, I’m a Christian, and I want to encourage other Christians along the way, and make non-Christians think about things they might not have contemplated before.
Thanks for blazing a trail for me here!
Heather,
I post on topics I know are not popular and sometimes it worries me. But I have to post what God directs otherwise there is no point to it. I know God will bless you in your postings. You desire to follow him and he will guide you. Look forward to your Friday posts!
We’ve had a speaker come to our church for a few years. One of his memorable messages contained the idea of Belong, Believe, Behave. If we love on people and help them feel like they belong, then we go a long ways in helping them to Believe. Once they Believe, then they will learn what it means to Behave as a child of God.
We were discussing this in Bible study last night. I think there is a time to hold up a standard and say, “This is what God’s Word says.” But I think we whip out the measuring stick to whap people more than we do to call them to better things. Overall I think we should default to showing love and blessing people and listen to the Holy Spirit when to “referee.” Because He is the ultimate Judge anyway.
Powerful Post!
This topic has been on my heart for a while. I sit in church and see generations of families sitting in “their” pews and wonder how many of them associate with the outside world?
I hate that I am judging, but I wonder if the body of Christ is too busy sitting in pews instead of reaching the lost?
Maybe I feel this way because of my upbringing. I was raised in church, with a long line of church going family. However, my father was a functioning alcoholic. He couldn’t see his drinking as a problem because he never missed work, he went to church, he donated to charities, he helped the homeless, did prison ministry and so on.
But his drinking lead me to realize we are not perfect, we live in this world. My dad witnessed to people many in the pews today can’t even if they wanted to. Many in the world will not and cannot relate to the people in the pews. It takes people from all walks of life to witness to this world. We need to remember that Jesus loves us all and we don’t have to fit a certain form in order to receive salvation.
Thank you for this post. I’m glad this message is being spoken.
Very interesting post, Mike, made more so by where our oldest son and his family are ministering. For the past fifteen years or so our son, his wife, and their two young boys (ages 12 and ten) have been heavily involved in the “Jesus hippie” movement in Northern California.
On a day in and day out they work with–and minister to–tweakers, meth heads, New Agers and Wiccans, and so on. The four of them are pretty musical, and so regularly find themselves sharing a stage with the unsaved, where they’ll intersperse bluegrass hymns and Woody Guthrie tunes.
So is there a difference between what they do, and what Cornerstone does? I dunno. But it’s worth pondering, isn’t it?
The whole checklist part sounds spot-on exactly like I was when I was religious. Even a slight misstep in one’s behavior/language and I wouldn’t like them as much as I did. If I did the same, though, I just asked for forgiveness. Good thing humans can change.
Boy, you said it, Mike. Thank you for this refreshing commentary!
One of the reasons why many Christians should be more “at home” among artists is because both of them stand to be misunderstood all the time. No matter how good of a job you do subtly threading themes and meanings together, someone is going to get stupid and entirely miss the point, or be misled by a bias.
If you would let me consider one example from cinema (though I could be the one misunderstanding it here), I think Quentin Tarantino is sold short whenever someone calls “Inglorious Basterds” a revenge fantasy. Tarantino kept all of the Basterds firmly flattened as one or two-dimenional characters, but went to incredible lengths to humanize the Nazis they were hunting and torturing. To me, it was a sobering reminder that humans are not only “flawed.” We are capable of unspeakable evil; we don’t get to revise history and call Nazis “monsters” or “less than human” because we hate the atrocities they committed. Any human-led society can become like them, given the right circumstances. Which seems to totally contradict the implications of the moniker “revenge fantasy,” where we’d get to have a great time vicariously living through the Basterds as they blow Adolf Hitler sky high. Instead we are forced to see them massacring human beings – fathers, husbands, officers trying to protect their men, and all with their own lives to lead, all gifted with inquisitive or creative minds. They are, in other words, human. Maybe some people have just gotten so used to Nazis being the faceless enemy you can gun down in movies with impunity (Hellboy, Indiana Jones, etc.) that we don’t know what to do with a movie like “Basterds” when it hits a little too close to home. It’s safer – and easier to keep yourself “more evolved” than the Nazis, morally – to call it fun and a revenge fantasy when it’s trying to tell you the opposite.
Anyway, sorry about the long post. I just thought it might be helpful. Thanks again for the post. It’s always enjoyable to read your stuff.
I think part of the differentiation is between an entertainment stage and a pulpit–a line that’s not clearly enough delineated due to the “religious entertainment” culture. If you ask me, a stage is not a pulpit.
On the other hand, I agree with Sally’s perspective that branding (and that’s what it is in the entertainment culture, when we stick Jesus’ name on it) has its purpose. As I see it, that purpose will flex over time, in keeping with the culture, because it’s branding, not a doctrinal position. The thing people are gravitating to is not necessarily Christian doctrine or praxis; it’s market affinity. Doctrine and spiritual praxis (of whatever kind) simply enhance that affinity for the target audience. Which is pretty much what Herrin said:
“…we don’t give up on the kids here who are seeking, trying to figure out what they don’t believe and what they do.”
Dude knows his audience. I’m with Sally; I am not that audience. 🙂
Call me a cynic, but as soon as events, churches or parachurch ventures get big enough to take on a corporate approach, I see both the rhetoric of exclusivism and that of inclusivism simply as components of branding for specific segments of the religiously-oriented culture. God can work through that too…or God can choose not to…depending on the needs of each individual He’s dealing with. Same as any other human social phenomenon. His ways are higher than our ways.
I’m a Christian because of a sermon once given in a church that denied the gospel’s core truths adamantly. It’s just that the pastor had one thing right that day, and one single scriptural principle sank in deep and came to fruition years later, in a completely different life context than I’d first heard it. So I think God’s neither limited by the extent of our faithfulness to the Gospel, nor required to brush off our unfaithfulness, even when He uses it for His purposes in spite of ours. I just know that He is perfectly righteous and gracious, both. And completely all-powerful.
On being misunderstood: I’ve been accused of leading my children into demonic oppression (speculative fiction, egads) and being an artistic fake for my insistence on grace toward Christian publishing’s flaws and growth needs. I’m fine with both those misunderstandings. Time proves things out.
This type of thing is generally why I eschew “Christian ________” , whether it be Music Festivals, Church Carnivals, Women’s retreats, whathaveyou.
Too much effort is put into looking at others with a cultural yardstick and deciding if they are good enough. Pretty much exactly what we are told not to do by Jesus himself. There doesn’t seem to be as much effort put into worship and/or study of the Word and the Saviour.
As for the example given, I know a lot of musicians. I’m sure that all that was said about this fellow and the festival was just a blurb to sound nice when in reality what was going on is that the festival organisers and other musicians are this fellow’s friends and they know he needs a job, they like working with him and his name will attract ticket buyers. Musicians stick together when it comes to gigs–they are too used to starving.
I don’t know. . .neither approach has seemed to bear much fruit. Clarity offends, people accuse you, essentially, of legalism. Ambiguity is the inch that others turn into a mile, and they do this almost without fail. I think it’s more about circumstance than anything. I don’t, for example, agree that Bazan should have been invited back. A loving gesture, certainly, but also potentially confusing for new believers, which is dangerous. We should be okay with the world misunderstanding us, but we should be as clear as possible to those who are ready and willing to accept the truth.
Ambiguity in art, though? Yes, please. I think it works great. I recently finished your novella Winterland, which was ambiguous in a lot of ways. (and not, in a lot of others) Thought you pulled it off well. I’d like to see more Christian novelists take that approach. Honestly, I think they’re doing just that.
This post is interesting in that I just finished a book review for my small group communications class, and I posted part of it on my regular blog because I think this book is so important for Christian community groups.
Brad House uses the terms Bridges and Barriers. House’s (2011) discussion of bridges and barriers is an example of the kind of communication in which group members try to make decisions by fulfilling task obligations, using skillful communication to overcome obstacles like conflict, stress or even selfish attitudes, as well as reviewing and adjusting the processes. His view on culture and diversity is biblical . “Barriers are those issues of practice, culture, or perception which inhibits the progress of the gospel” (p. 128). Bridges are opportunities to reach people with the truth of the gospel through a variety of communication (House).
The Christ-led group will remove any barriers by using the bridge of acceptance of some practices, and idiosyncrasies of culture when these do not directly go against biblical prohibitions; and by shedding God’s truth to enlighten those without Jesus to change their perceptions in order to accept Jesus. I was amazed at how Mannix and Neale’s (2005) views on diversity match House’s view on diversity. “Perceptions of competition and power threats lead to increasing hostility and discrimination, which explains why so called ‘‘balanced’’ groups may be particularly dysfunctional” (Mannix & Neale). For small groups, the process of balancing perceptions is transforming both for the giver of the gospel and the receiver.
In other words, Jesus used multiple types of communication to reach the lost, and overlooked those problematical issues that weren’t in direct violation of God’s commands (like washing hands or healing the sick on the Sabbath).
It isn’t reaching the lost by any means possible, but reaching the lost through Christ-led means. It’s all about repentance, and nothing about self.
Pax,
Gina
I love that quote from Martyn Lloyd-Jones.
I think it is a very wise statement that we should risk being misunderstood in our art, just like in our preaching of the gospel of grace. Great post.
I’m not sure what your overall ideas on religion are, but I will say that “conventional” religiosity is a rather meaningless term. Two generations have been raised in a climate of watered down Christianity (and frankly, I don’t see the Protestant sects, given how accommodating they’ve been to the current culture, surviving long term, and the RCC needs a serious purge to cleanse it of the filth stewing in its ranks). Christianity is not about obscurantism, false charity, or misplaced compassion. Churches need to keep their clergy in line and authentic to prevent the corruption of the faith by heretics. This whole ‘religion built on ignorance’ nonsense evangelicals profess is just that, nonsense, although frankly the RCC is practically like that too these days, with the rainbow mafia occupying seminaries all over the place.
The biggest enemy of Christianity is mindlessness.