Six Steps Records has become the home of much of the “new worship” music. Artists like Matt Redman, Chris Tomlin, David Crowder, and then, oh yeah, there’s Charlie Hall too. At least that’s been the trend. Hall has stood in the shadow of several of his contemporaries for some time now. But his new album presents him on the verge of finally stepping out with confidence on his own.
While not as immediately accessible as Tomlin or Redman, or as experimental as David Crowder, Hall nonetheless has proven to be both consistent and growing, continually pushing himself and his creativity.
Hall describes this album as “a little artsy, a little rocky, but accessible,” which is as good a summary you’re likely to find. Building on his knack for melodic experimentation, Flying Into Daybreak is a brighter, stronger outing. Focusing a bit more on the rock aspect, some of the songs hit slightly harder than previous outings, but still commend themselves to corporate worship adaptation. Hall takes the time to develop strong hooks and deep melodies, which helps to carry the listener consistently through, even as the songs themselves vary.
Guitar features a bit more prominently on this release as well do some of the electronic effects that artist like David Crowder and Mute Math incorporate for added depth. Daybreak very much comes across as a “rock” album whereas something like On the Road to Beautiful might have fit comfortably for some in the electronic realm.
Lyrically, the album falls squarely in the “modern worship” camp, focusing on explicitly Christian lyrics from a heart of worship, often directly quoting Scripture. For example, album opener Micah 6:8’s refrain of “Help us love mercy, Help us do justly,
Help us walk humbly with you, God” is a near direct quotation. “Song of the Redeemed” cries, “We sing to You the song of the Redeemed, You beautified our hearts and made us clean. You’ve rescued us from death and set us free.” The album is very much an unapologetic worship album and, largely suceeds in lifting one’s heart by lifting one’s thoughts.
However, lyrics have often been one of Hall’s shortcomings. Not that the content is poor, it’s just often slight. As Christianity Today notes, “Most of these songs only amount to ten short lines of text.” Though Daybreak does see Hall expanding slightly, he largely sticks to the same pattern. He has a good use of words and I for one would like to see him expand on that a bit in future releases, using his skills to delve a bit deeper than simply a couple of lines of verse and catchy choruses.
Flying Into Daybreak isn’t a ground-breaking release. But it’s also not a disappointment. Perhap’s that’s what makes Hall so difficult to peg. He lacks the flair of someone like Crowder and the mainstream success of Redman or Tomlin. But he consistently proves himself consistent, turning out God-centered, musically strong material and this album is no exception. When you want something that will deliver God-centered worship with solid presentation, you’ll be hard-pressed to find one as reliable as Charlie Hall.
- Read Christianity Today’s review.
- Visit Charlie Hall’s official website.
As you know if you’ve read here for any bit of time, or if you’ve known me for years, I love music. I love all kinds of music, I love to listen to music, I love to talk about music, I love to research music and the fact that I have no musical talent of my own simply seems to reinforce this in me.
One of my favorite kinds of music is jazz. I’ve often thought about why it is that I’m so drawn to jazz, it is after all, for many, an aquired taste. Maybe that’s it in and of itself, the fact that many “don’t get it” might draw me to jazz, but I think (and I hope) that there’s more to it than that. So allow me the pleasure of simply waxing (I hope eloquently) for a short bit about jazz.
Since reading Donald Miller’s Blue Like Jazz (wonderful title), I’ve been listenening to much jazz and trying to analyze (if you can do such a thing) what it is about jazz that I’ve always connected with. Miller notes in the preface (Author’s Note) to Blue Like Jazz:
I never liked jazz music because jazz music doesn’t resolve. But I was outside the Bagdad Theater in Portland one night when I saw a man playing the saxophone. I stood there for fifteen minutes, and he never opened his eyes.
After that I liked jazz music.
Sometimes you have to watch somebody love something before you can love it yourself. It is as if they are you showing you the way.
I’ve thought particularly about that idea, “jazz music doesn’t resolve.” While I understand Miller’s point, the statement has never sat well with me because I don’t think it’s asking the right question. It imports the assumption that art, particularly music must “resolve.” In other words, not to accuse Miller of anything, or to try to read his thoughts, but it seems that we’ve imported the “sitcom mentality” even into our art. If it’s not wrapped up neatly at the end, somehow we feel cheated.
Jazz doesn’t necessarily “resolve,” but then again it’s not meant to, It’s about exploration, it’s one of the few musical forms that’s truly about the creative process as much as it is about the finished product. It’s the epitome of poetry. Ludwig von Beethoven is reported to have said:”Music is a higher revelation than philosophy.” Instrumental music conveys as many emotions as lyrical music, if not more.
Though they are working within certain set frameworks, the very notion of jazz carries with it the ideas of improvisation and creativity. Whereas lyrical music is often limited to its immediate subject matter, instrumental music is open to many interpretations, only hemmed in by the feel of the music. Not as much about a certain slice of life as lyrical music, jazz is nonetheless about life.
Life is about working within the frameworks that God has set, but it is also about exploration (improvisation if you will); about repeated patterns until we get them right and until they ring in our ears and the ears of our Creator and Sustainer as praise. Jazz is about exploring the exploration, it’s about the nuances of theme, variation and repetition; the melody unfolds and blooms, disappearing only to reappear again in slightly different form. The players interact, prodding one another in the exploration of the theme.
The fact that jazz doesn’t resolve is to be expected, because it’s not about the destination as much as it is about the journey. Life is the perfect accompaniment for life, which we know all too well will not find resolution in this lifetime. Am I thinking too much about music, quite possibly. Maybe it’s the head-cold medication?
- Read Blue Like Jazz by Donald Miller.
- Download live Miles Davis from 1969 in Paris.
- Download live Herbie Hancock from 1973 in Michigan.
- Download Blue in Green by Miles Davis.
- Download Epistrophy by Thelonious Monk.
Finding the needles in the haystack of the internet through the lens of the blogosphere to save you the trouble, just because I care. It’s the least I can do. Really, it is the least I can do.
Browse the World Press Photo Awards for some amazing images (ht: Jonny Baker).
Who could pass up linking to Purgatorio’s “Supply the Caption” featuring James White with a sword, in a kilt?
Browse the newly finalized yet subject to change 2006 SXSW music schedule.
Read about Emir Caner’s accusation that John Piper is a hyper-Calvinist (ht: DR). Apparently Caner either read Let The Nations Be Glad a bit differently than I did, he hasn’t read it at all, or he doesn’t understand the charge of hyper-Calvinism. Also, read Michael Spencer’s account, “The Caner Contention.” Not to be shamed by the kilt photo, James White lays down an open invitation to Caner for “moderated, fair, respectful, biblically-based debate.” White also provides a link to an e-mail exchange, which White says, proves that “these men wish only for a loud and inaccurate monologue; they show no desire for a respectful, deeply exegetical, faith-based dialogue”
Choose from “33 Ways to Serve.”
Read Mohler’s “Anne Lamott and Her Evangelical Audience” which details her open and unashamed support for unrestricted abortion.
Read the Scotsman’s report of a Scottish reporter considering undergoing crucifixion as part of a controversial documentary about Christianity.
Read the JollyBlogger’s post linking to Scot McKnight’s article “Future or Fad: A Look At The Emerging Church Movement” (pdf file). McKnight makes the point “Instead of epistemology, the EM is concerned with ecclesiology,” to which the JollyBlogger asks “how do they know they should be more concerned with ecclesiology than epistemology?” Denny Burk also has some helpful thoughts on McKnight’s piece here.
Read Will’s great posts discussing Robert Reymond’s views on the permanency of the moral law of God for all Christians.
Read the Baptist Press‘ coverage of Jerry Rankin’s recent remarks concerning prayer language and the IMB.
Read USA Today’s “Drives to ban gay adoption heat up in 16 states.”
Read Nancy Pearcey’s “Creation vs. Evolution: What Our Children Need To Know and How Parents Can Teach Them.”
Take advantage of Covenant Seminary’s free online resources.
Read the LA Times‘ report of recent DNA tests that contradict some key Mormon claims (thanks Jim).
Read The ESV Blog’s blog about the origins of the ESV translation, correcting false assertions by Ben Witherington.
Read LaShawn Barber’s insightful post “Guns, Morning After Pills and Illegal Aliens.”
Read Salem Oregon’s Statesman Journal’s profile of one of my favorite guitarists, John Fahey.
Read the LA Times compare the lives of Michael Jackson and Oscar Wilde.
Participate in Paste magazine’s Top 20 Living Songwriters Survey.
Listen to Mark Coppenger’s There is Nothing Blue Under The Sun: A Grandpa’s Take on Donald Miller’s ‘Blue Like Jazz‘ (ht: Reformed Baptist Thinker: Coppenger Blue about Blue Like Jazz” (ht: John Divito). Read Steve McCoy’s comments regarding what he callls this “all too typical and not that thoughtful” lecture. I’ll let you be the judge and I look forward to your conclusions.
Read the (rough) transcript from my recent talk at Southwestern Seminary: Christians, Music and Christians Who Play Music.
Check out Mark Redfern’s new look and new theme, the witty “Where the Redfern Blogs.”
Read Rhett’s post “Christian marketing…Creativity…And How Far is Too Far?”
Read about and watch video from George Marsden’s recent presentation at Grove City College regarding Jonathan Edwards (ht: Matthew Hall).
Answer some questions posted by Adrian Warnock for “Pentecostals and Charismatics.”
I am speaking today at the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary at their Christian Faith and the Arts Conference. My topic is “Christians, Music and Christians Who Make Music.” Many of the thoughts have appeared in sorted blog entries here before and this presentation (I hope) pulls some of those thoughts together a bit. I’ve had several requests for the manuscript, so I just thought I’d post it here for anyone interested (yes, it’s a bit long for a blog, but that’s not what it was intended for, sorry!). Enjoy and please reply, I’m very interested in feedback:
There’s a quote attributed to Thelonious Monk, Elvis Costello, or Frank Zappa among others. Regardless of who said it, it sums up what we face today: Writing about music is like dancing about architecture. Here we are to discuss Christians, Music, and Christians Who Play Music.
Harold Best writes in Music Through the Eyes of Faith of growing up with parents who loved music, particularly a dad witha love for classical music. He says that his: “father did not find popular music acceptable.”
He continues, relating how, in spite of his father’s frowns, he discovered other kinds of music:
“I got wind of popular music, on the radio and from my friends: semiclassical, popular ballads, the emerging style of boogie-woogie, and swing. I also heard what we now call ethnic music. I knew that I needed all of these kinds of music as much as I needed the classical music that my father had personally singled out. To me, it was all one enchanting world, each part merging with the rest.”
But he soon experienced a shock to his newly developing musical sensibilities:
“Enchanting, that is, until I began to hear that all of this popular stuff wasn’t spiritual – that it was the music of the world, therefore of worldliness. Thus my one world of music became divided, not aesthetically, but spiritually, into “good” music and “bad’ music.”
Best’s account reminds us that. 1) For many, music is an integral part of life. Many, including myself, find that music accompanies us most of our days in most of our ways, there isn’t much of my life that’s not to the tune of music and many of my memory’s timelines are actually music-based. 2) There is terrible misunderstanding among many Christians regarding the ideas of “sacred,” “secular,” and “good or bad,” to the point where many argue that if Jesus is not explicitly mentioned, then it’s not “Christian” music, and therefore, it isn’t any good.
But it hasn’t always been this way. There was once a time when Christians were at the forefront of the arts, and music was no exception. Christians were once the trendsetters, the true creators in the arts, being fueled by their faith and inspired by their Lord. However, recently, most Christian music has lost credibility among music fans interested in creativity. To a large degree, the rest of the world looks at Christian music as sub-par mimicry and I’m not sure that, for the most part, their assessment is wrong.
Mimicry rather than creativity is par for the course. How many of us have ever looked at one of those “If you like this band, try this Christian version…” For many, the form is willingly sacrificed for the function, that is to say, they’re not concerned with actually being creative, they’re not interested in pushing boundaries, they just want to be sure they message is there and clearly understood. This is the banner under which much Christian music marches.
Francis Schaeffer in his booklet Art & The Bible notes that for some:
“art is only an embodiment of a message, a vehicle for the propagation of a particular message about the world or the artist or man or whatever.”
In other words, for many, the deciding factor in determining whether or not art or music may be understood to “Christian,” has become the message and nothing else. Not only the message, but is it explicitly stated? William Romanowski argues that by making faith the only issue, much Christian music has become nothing more than religious propaganda. It has ceased to be art and has become a billboard. Therefore, much of it has lost any claim to quality in the process.
For many, Christian music is not to be taken seriously. In an article entitled What Would Jesus Do: But More Importantly, What Were Jesus’ Fitness Secrets, GQ’s literary editor writes about Christian musicians, touching on the lack of quality often present, but also touching on the idea that much Christian music simply mimics the rest of the world. Kirn says:
“They’re not bad at all. And yet, in the same way one sensed that groups like ABBA were singing in a language they didn’t speak, one detects a certain falseness in these bands’ sound. They’re trying too hard, somehow. They sound a bit like foreigners – highly trained Asian prodigies whose governments have equipped them with guitars and trained them in some elite punk rock academy. These new Christian bands rock like Americans play soccer; skillfully but somehow not convincingly.”
For many artists, this actually becomes part of why they don’t wish to be identified with the moniker “Christian music.” While open and adamant about their faith, artists such as Sufjan Stevens or Mute Math and even U2 have intentionally distanced themselves from the Christian music scene for artistic reasons. In an interview with the Tucson Weekly, Paul Meany of Mute Math recounts how they actually broke from their record label because they were being pushed in the Christian market when they didn’t want to be. Meany explains:
“All of the sudden, we began to see ourselves getting pigeonholed into this particular world that we weren’t necessarily proud to be associated with, because we aren’t really fans of the music or fans of the cause of the music.”
Meany goes on to explain:
“We’ve always conditioned our show universally, and (we’re) just trying to speak to human beings; (we’re) not really conditioning it down to Christians, and that’s what the Christian music industry does. It’s for a certain sect of people. I don’t have anything against that-I’m one of them- but I don’t want to taper it just to that.”
There’s growing frustration within the artistic community at the way faith has become a marketing commodity rather than a point of artistic exploration. Non-Christians have seen it for years as Kirn reveals. Why is it that so few Christians see these same problems? I think that part of the problem is, as we’ve discussed, Christians have so focused on explicitly showing their faith that we’ve sacrificed quality. We’ve allowed the world to define the artistic elements; we look to see what they’re listening to, we try to replace the content and feed it back to them, but we don’t do it as well and then we don’t understand why Christian music isn’t more broadly accepted, but all the while, we limit what the artists are able to address if we’re still to consider it “Christian!” No wonder some Christians want nothing to do with it!
As for the content, broadly speaking, most “Christian” music falls into two major camps. Either “praise and worship”, or evangelistic (which poses the problem of a “Christian” Music market in which “Christians” are presenting the Gospel to other Christians) and you’ll be hard pressed to find much more in the mainstream Christian market. These messages must not be in question, they must be explicitly clear and if they’re not, it’s not uncommon to question the artist’s faith!
But why do you listen to music? Whatever the genre, whether it be classical, jazz or lyrical popular music. We listen to music because it connects with us at some level. We listen to music because it speaks to our condition, we can relate to it, it comforts us, it causes us to think, it challenges and soothes. For all these reasons and more, we listen to music.
In 1971, Rolling Stone editor Jann Werner summarized the editorial philosophy of his magazine:
“Rolling Stone was founded and continues to operate in the belief that rock n’ roll music is the energy center for all sorts of changes revolving rapidly around us: social, political, cultural, however you want to describe them. The fact is for many of us who’ve grown up since World War II, rock n’ roll provided the first revolutionary insight into who we are and where we are at in this country.”
Werner carries the radical idea that music communicates something about society, something that matters, something we connect to, and whether or not we realize it, we all agree, or we wouldn’t listen to music. However, by limiting the content, much “Christian” music lacks these very qualities for a large segment. There is nothing there for the world to connect to, thus removing the evangelistic component so strived for. Most “Christian” music is not about expressing a Christian worldview, it’s about reassuring already professing Christians about their faith, either recapping the Gospel or praising Him for it, both of which are appropriate, but both of which are not comprehensive.
For many, Christian music has no connection because, they’re not Christians, they don’t like being preached at and they’re not interested in praise and worship. We have performed a great disservice by allowing the development of such a “Christian” music market because we’re telling the world that the Gospel is limited in what it has to say to life and we’ve also subtly allowed the message to slip out that becoming a Christian robs you of creativity!
Instead of making content the only criteria in terms of asking whether or not it is “explicitly Christian,” we ought to be encouraging artist to put forth a body of work that demonstrates the true impact of the Gospel over all areas of life. In the words of William Romanowski:
“Christian artists should not just be singing that Jesus is a light unto our paths; they also need to create popular artworks that show how God’s Word is a light and direction for our journey in life.”
In other words, what we need more than explicit mentions of God is the demonstration of how He is Lord of our lives. We need expanded artistic palettes addressing real life; we need to encourage our artists to be real, to show when they hurt, to admit when life seems too big, because it’s exactly in those moments that we most connect with the rest of the world, but it’s also when we have the most opportunity to demonstrate the hope that has been implanted in us! It’s when we move into addressing real life that the opportunities for evangelism abound, not when they’re forced as an agenda.
We must be willing to show the world just how big the Gospel is, but this won’t happen until we drop the false notions that every sentence from an artist’s mouth must explicitly name God. If that’s the only criteria, then the book of Esther is questionable, isn’t it? If the Gospel is about all of life, then so should our music!
Returning to Schaeffer, he proposes four basic standards for judging works of art and I propose that these apply to music as well: 1) technical excellence, 2), validity, 3), intellectual content, the worldview which comes through and 4), the integration of content and vehicle. Adopting such criteria moves us beyond mere consideration of explicit content to incorporating the song itself as well as the integration of message and medium. It forces us to consider music as more than merely propaganda.
The medium matters and we cannot allow musical quality to be sacrificed on behalf of the message. We must show just how big our God is by displaying our worldview. This forces us to take a bigger picture view than an isolated song and such an approach would help to take some of the pressure off of the rigid classification systems we’ve come to adopt. We must be willing to re-examine what may be considered Christian and non-Christian music.
In all of this, we must remember that we are dealing with artists who claim the name of Christ as Savior, and therefore, must be expected to voice a worldview consistent with His Lordship. But many consumers have lost the art of discernment, or rather, it might be more appropriate to say that they have abdicated that role to Christian marketers. Because marketers have set up what we now call “Christian” bookstores, for many, the point of purchase determines the acceptability of content, not the actually content itself. Thus, if purchased at a so-called “Christian bookstore,” then its safe, but don’t go buy a CD from Best Buy, they’re not interested in content, they’re just out to make a buck.
The result has become a severe fracture among Christian artists and poor discernment from the masses. The artists lacking the explicit content are relegated to non-Christian outlets, and are therefore judged as inferior, if not even “worldly” by those shopping only at “Christian” stores. The questions of content and quality never come into play for some and this is just the way the marketers want it.
One artist who falls outside of the CCM market but with solidly Christian content would be Sufjan Stevens. Though open and even “explicit” with his faith, Stevens for many, is not considered to be a Christian artist at all. In a Reuters article discussing why Stevens is not considered a “Christian” artist, John Styll, President of the Christian Music Trade Association quips that Stevens “just doesn’t want to play the Christian music-market game, and that’s OK.”
In other words, Stevens has not sought distribution through the right channels, nor does he play the right venues or work with the right marketers. Apparently, good business means more to the CMTA than good theology. If Stevens has Christian content, which we’ll see he does, what is “Christian” music? Styll says that:
“albums must receive some national play on Christian radio, 25 percent of sales in the first week must be in Christian shops and lyrics must have some ‘Christian content.”
Styll goes on to say that lyrics must be in line with Scripture, but he acknowledges that these boundaries may be a “little loose.” That’s a problem because who defines what’s within the boundaries of Scripture? In most cases, no one as long as the business end is there.
Nashville independent artist affirms these thoughts, particularly relating to Sufjan Stevens. When asked his opinion why Stevens, openly Christian, was not considered a “Christian” artist, Casella says that Stevens
“is not considered one of the CCMers or GMTA’ers because his music doesn’t run in CCM industry circles. No business connections or touring connections. No label connections. No affiliation really. No Nashville bloodline/money.”
In other words, for the most part, the decision about what is and what is not to be sold in Christian bookstores, and therefore for many, considered “Christian” music is a business decision, not a question of content. We now have a situation in which an artist such as Sufjan Stevens is not available in “Christian” bookstores, while Phillips Craig and Dean continually top the Christian markets, while it has been demonstrated that all three deny the Trinity . Orthodoxy is certainly not the password to being sold in Christian bookstores. Marketing becomes the password to the Christian market, not content!
So we have told the world that the Gospel has little to say to everyday life, thus robbing ourselves of the very evangelism that so many chase after, we have allowed the lowering of discernment to a point of purchase decision, we have exiled openly professing Christians who either don’t use the right words, or choose not to play the marketing game or care about artistic integrity as much as content. As you can see, the current scenario is fraught with problems that the Christian community has brought upon itself.
While I realize that much of this raises more questions than it answers, it forces us with the realization that, to a large extent, we’ve been poor stewards, we’ve thought poorly about art, particularly about music, and we’ve needlessly alienated large segments of the population, both within our camp and outside!
We must encourage discussion, we must call for reform of the “Christian” marketing system, we must support artists who openly express their faith in other areas of life. We must broaden the lenses of our art that we
“may have strength to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, 19and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God (Ephesians 3:18-19).”
Sing to the LORD, for he has triumphed gloriously; (Exodus 15:21)Sing praises to the LORD, who sits enthroned in Zion (Psalm 9:11)May we say with the Psalmist that:He put a new song in my mouth (Psalm 40:3).
Next I want to play some clips, look briefly at their lyrics and then have some time for discussion. I want to start with Sufjan Stevens and Mute Math, two artists that are not well-embraced by the Christian mainstream and I want to show that it’s for marketing reasons:
Oh God, Where are You Now…. By Sufjan Stevens (from Michigan)
Oh God, hold me now
Oh Lord, hold me now
There’s no other man who could raise the dead
So do what you can to anoint my headOh God where are you now?
Oh Lord, say somehow
The devil is hard on my face again
The world is a hundred to one again
The Transfiguration By Sufjan Stevens (from Seven Swans)
When he took the three disciples
To the mountainside to pray,
His countenance was modified, his clothing was aflame.
Two men appeared: Moses and Elijah came;
They were at his side.
The prophecy, the legislation spoke of whenever he would die.Then there came a word
Of what he should accomplish on the day.
Then Peter spoke, to make of them a tabernacle place.
A cloud appeared in glory as an accolade.
They fell on the ground.
A voice arrived, the voice of God,
The face of God, covered in a cloud.What he said to them,
The voice of God; the most beloved son.
Consider what he says to you, consider what’s to come.
The prophecy was put to death,
Was put to death, and so will the Son.
And keep your word, disguise the vision till the time has come.
Peculiar People by Mute Math (from Reset EP)
We can fly on the wings of eagles
We can fly with the wings of eagles
We are peculiar people this I know
We must set our hope and future in the sky
We will shed our human skin and learn to fly
With a word we can drown a mountain
Into the seas surrounding, don’t you know?
I don’t want to leave you with the impression that the only people doing it well are outside of the Christian music industry. For example:
New Law by Derek Webb (from Mockingbird)
Don’t teach me about politics and government
Just tell me who to vote for
Don’t teach me about truth and beauty
Just label my music
Don’t teach me how to live like a free man
Just give me a new law
I don’t want to know if the answers aren’t easy
So just bring it down from the mountain to me
I want a new law
One of the things about my job, about being a pastor, is that I am able to see Scripture work in lives in a way that many others will never have the opportunity to see. With each passing day, and every new scenario that presents itself, I am continually amazed at the depth and the power of Scripture. It’s one thing to claim the “sufficiency of Scripture” in an academic setting. It’s an entirely different thing to live it.
Scripture is powerful on so many more levels than we realize. It truly is a lamp unto our feet (Psalm 119:105) and nourishment to our souls (Deuteronomy 8:3). We miss much of its power because we often see it so one-dimensionally, rather than understanding the many levels of life to which it speaks. We might turn to a text for a specific purpose, for example to comfort those who have lost a loved one, without realizing that that same text provides not only comfort in death, but also strength for living. I recently had the humbling opportunity to preach at the graveside service of a fellow minister and I was struck by this very reality. I preached from 2 Corinthians 4:16-5:9:
So we do not lose heart. Though our outer nature is wasting away, our inner nature is being renewed day by day. For this slight momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison, as we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen. For the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal. For we know that if the tent, which is our earthly home, is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this tent we groan, longing to put on our heavenly dwelling, if indeed by putting it on we may not be found naked. For while we are still in this tent, we groan, being burdened–not that we would be unclothed, but that we would be further clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who has given us the Spirit as a guarantee. So we are always of good courage. We know that while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord, for we walk by faith, not by sight. Yes, we are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord. So whether we are at home or away, we make it our aim to please him.
Paul here presents several ideas that in reality serve dual purposes. He presents several ideas that give the dying and those losing loved ones great comfort. He says that “this slight momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison” assuring both the dying and the bereaved that there is a better outcome. He also assures us that the dying exchange the “tent” of the body for “a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.” Compare the warmth of a tent to a building, compare the protection of a tent to a building, compare the permanancy of a tent to a building. Paul assures his readers those dying in the Lord are being freed from affliction and being rewarded with glory.
But Paul’s words , when taken to heart, not only provide comfort in dying, they also provide untold strength for living. Notice how he begins this sections “So we do not lose heart!” We don’t lose heart, we live heartily because the very thing which comforts us in dying prods us in living: “though our outer nature is wasting away, our inner nature is being renewed day by day!”
Only once this process of sanctification is realized can we then truly share the perspective that “this slight momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison” because only then will be able to say that “we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen.” When these truths take residence in our hearts, then we will truly be able to say “we are always of good courage,” and live lives in which we are honestly able to say that “whether we are at home or away, we make it our aim to please him.”
It’s easy to miss many of the riches of Scripture because we go to it looking for a certain coin. We remember that there is a particular tree in the forest that is really helpful and we negelect the power of the forest before our very eyes. Living the sufficiency of Scripture means that we listen to what it says rather than telling it what we want to hear.
If your doctrine does not result in doxology, you’re not living the sufficiency of Scripture. If comfort for the dying does not also provide you with strength for life, you’ve not been ministered to fully by the text, or the Spirit. The truth of the future that awaits us ought to ignite our present circumstances for God’s glory or we’re not fully convinced of the sufficiency of Scripture. Are you?
Sometimes you come across something that just stops you in your tracks. It’s so unbiblical that you can’t believe someone actually wrote it trying to justify themselves with Scripture. Recently I had just such an experience.
I am preaching Genesis and a recent sermon focused on the fact that creation itself reveals God’s majesty and His care for His people. I was looking for a good quote towards the end of the sermon. I am a fan of John Piper, so I was hoping to find a quote relating God’s glory to His creation, but instead I stumbled on an article entitled John Piper Forsakes His People: Racial Harmony and Interracial Marriage with Comments by Harold Seabrook.
The article is in response to this sermon: “Racial Harmony and Interracial Marriage” preached on January 16, 2005 covering Deuteronomy 7:3-4 & Colossians 3:9-11. Piper argues “from Scripture and experience that interracial marriage is not only permitted by God but is a positive good in our day. That is, it is not just to be tolerated, but celebrated.” I don’t know who Harold Seabrook is, but he cerainly takes issue with Piper’s comments
While I have neither the space nor the stomach to deal with all Seabrook’s comments, I want to touch on his basic arguments. Seabrook’s comments speak for themselves when he argues that “The problem with “separate but equal” is that the races were neither separate nor equal.” Seabrook’s arguments center against “miscegenation” which Wikipedia defines as ” the mixing of different ethnicities.” This is the true target of Seabrook’s ire, not only within marriage, but within churches. He argues:
No multiracial church will ever become a monoracial church. In the near future, pastors will face increasing pressure to explicitly distance themselves from the folkways of their ancestors. They will abandon millennia of heritage and wed themselves to an alien people. Why would anyone do this unless he is ashamed of how God created him? Is it any wonder that so many have lost faith? They don’t know who they are.
In response to the argument that all races have one ancestor, Seabrook simply chides “It was necessary for all men to come from one blood because Adam was the federal head of all men, and in Adam all men died.” In response to the argument that all men bear the image of God, bearing what Piper calls “beautiful, God-designed ethnic and cultural diversity,” Seabrook has the audacity to remark:
we absolutely agree that there is “beautiful, God-designed ethnic and cultural diversity in the world.” We distrust anyone who prefers global uniformity to diversity. The irony is that we, and not the neo-Babelists, are called racists. We love the races and want to preserve them.
That last sentence appears to be the core of Seabrook’s proposed but not actual argument: preservation of the races and much of his argument seems to be based upon Acts 17:26:
And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place
Seabrook argues that the fact that God determined the “allotted periods” and “the boundaries of their dwelling place” means that the races are to remain within those appointed boundaries and are not to mix. He bases this on the account of Babel, arguing that God did not want mankind to come together, which was the real sin of Babel. Fleshing out his argument, he goes on to ask “Why do neo-Babelists always ignore Ezra and Nehemiah, who forced Jews returning from exile to divorce their foreign wives and send away their mongrel children?” He goes on to try to explain his position:
There are many members in one body, many races in one world, and this is why the peace of Christ is called the peace that passes understanding. In Christ alone we may have common purpose. Our Triune God desires worship that befits His character. He decreed distinctions among mankind, and then He told us to be unified, even as the three distinct Persons of the Trinity are unified. The neo-Babelist denies the distinctions that God Himself imposed and seeks to undo them in the name of love. This is evil. We ask that he be consistent enough to call for one universal language and an end to national borders. The separation at Babel makes absolute unification impossible, and this minimizes the effects of our sin on a large scale.
While I could continue to quote Seabrook’s meanderings, it’s best that we actually get back to Scripture rather than mankind’s sinful presuppositions. The astute reader will have already noted that Seabrook is either a liar, confused or both. While claiming to cling to God-ordained distinctions between the races for their “beauty” and “protection,” Seabrook let his racism poke its ugly head with the passing comment “”The problem with “separate but equal” is that the races were neither separate nor equal.” That statement alone negates any other Scriptural arguments Seabrook might try to make and shows the true nature of his heart.
While I would like to deal with Seabrook’s arguments more in-depth at some point, let me simply cut to the heart of this issue: It is both foolish and wicked to claim any sense of superiority in the name of Christ and we must not allow racism to continue to wear the sheep’s clothing. God’s love transcends ethnicities (John 3:16), it shatters man-made barriers (Galatians 3:28, Colossians 3:9-11, etc.) and we may not once again erect those barriers in the name of anything. Favoritism of all kinds is against the heart of the Gospel (James 2:1, Jude 1:16, etc.). Seabrook’s argument that we show favoritism to our families is a moot point and must be shown to be such.
The Body of Christ is one but with many members (Romans 12) and we look towards that day when “every tribe and language and people and nation” (Revelation 5:9) will, even against Seabrook’s wishes will together, without borders, without boundaries, without discintion, be made “a kingdom” (Revelation 5:10). We cannot allow hatred to clothe itself in love and we cannot allow that racism has any place in the Kingdom. In the words of Revelation 22:20-21:
He who testifies to these things says, “Surely I am coming soon.” Amen. Come, Lord Jesus! The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all. Amen.
- Read Racial Harmony and Interracial Marriage by John Piper.
- Listen to Racial Harmony and Interracial Marriage by John Piper.
- Read John Piper Forsakes His People (John Piper is a Lying Traitor): Racial Harmony and Interracial Marriage, with comments by Harry Seabrook
- Read my previous post against racism: Trouble in Paradise.
If you stopped by the blog much at all this past weekend, you surely noticed a series of template changes (I’m pretty sure it was 4 to be exact). After receiving several e-mails regarding many formatting difficulties with the other template I decided to switch to one that could (hopefully) accomodate most browsers. I think I finally found one that works (though I lose the header image in IE for Mac, which I’m trying to fix, but then again, if you’re using a Mac, you’re probably not using IE!).
