Welcome to the Good Life, Mo**********!

[murlough23]

So, how many of you belong to churches where the congregation would have an absolute fit if someone played a Kanye West song in the middle of a church service?

It appears that I've started a bit of a quarrel with some folks in my church over this exact scenario. Over the past few Sundays, we've started a new sermon series on Creation which has actually been quite fascinating. Our thing with the sermon series we've done this year has been to have a little intro video that gets played each week right before the pastor comes up to speak, just a brief "bumper" that sets up the theme of the series. As an example, during this summer's series about God finding strength in our weaknesses, the intro video used clips from the various incarnations of Superman, showing him crumbling under the influence of kryptonite, to the tune of Five For Fighting's "It's Not Easy". Nice thematic tie-in, huh? Well, this time around, for the Creation series, we've got images of space and the earth and alleged footage of the universe coming into being. Very tongue-in-cheek; very cute. The theme song that our staff chose this time around? Kanye West's "The Good Life".

Now I'd never heard the song before this, truth be told. (I'm not a big Kanye fan, but I can set aside the fact that he's a pompous jerk and try to jydge a song objectively.) This one appeared to be your usual hip-hop party anthem fare on the surface - just a breezy, sunny song about being on top of the world. That's cool. Except for the intro, where T-Pain starts to yell "Mo---!" and is clearly silenced by the censorship of a radio edit. Later, in part of the song that is audible in the clip we use, a line gets edited out about "n*ggaz sellin' D". The song in general brags about copious material wealth, which is nothing shocking for a rap song. But it seemed to me to be a bit of a stretch for a "theme song" about God creating the universe and saying that it was good. And while I don't object to anyone listening to it and fully enjoying it on their own time, it just struck me as really wrong to have a song like this - even with the objectionable parts not audible - in the middle of a church service.

Our senior pastor's a pretty cool guy. Likes to think outside the box, likes to consider the sides of an argument logically and not jump to conclusions. Not a knee-jerk reaction sort of Christian. I knew that he had signed off on this after our youth director came up with the idea at the eleventh hour. So I figured that if I wanted to discuss this and see what the different sides of the discussion were, it would make the most sense to bring it up on my pastor's Facebook Wall (you laugh, but many of the young adult members of our church - and some not so young - interact with him frequently on Facebook). That started a discussion that quickly revealed that I was in the minority, with the general argument being "for a rap song, it's honestly not that bad compared to other stuff" and then some business about how the Church is supposed to love the world and not be judgmental. Basically, missing the entire point that I was trying to express.

The pastor responded eventually with a more well-thought-out comment about how a lot of our hymns were repurposed from vulgar bar songs, and how he saw this sort of thing as a metaphor for Jesus redeeming crass, rude sinners. I can't say that I disagree on that point. But this still isn't sitting right with me. Sometimes I feel like churches use popular music thoughtlessly, just to turn young people's heads with a "cool song" and not thinking about the implications. I wonder if some people will see it as an endorsement, go track down the song, and wonder how a church could make such a major oversight as to recommend music to them that contains racial slurs, drug references, and crass remarks about checking out women's asses. I don't judge Christians for listening to stuff like that on their own - I've got Green Day and Dave Matthews in my collection. But I wouldn't play even a snippet of one of their songs in church if it contained that sort of a message.

So what do you think, am I being a prude here? I suppose it says something about the church I go to, if I'm the one on the socially conservative side of an argument and the majority of folks seem to be on the other side... on the one hand, it makes me proud that the church can be forward thinking and not condemning of everything secular. But on the other hand, it makes me wonder if I'm just getting more crotchety as I get older. Have we really reached an age where this sort of talk in popular music is so commonplace that it's not really seen as a big deal any more? Man, what a rock I must have been hiding under.

[chrisnu]

I don't think you're being a prude. To me, this can get dangerously close to becoming like the world in order to attract the world. What I mean by that is that the focus can become more and more shifted to being 'cool' than being truthful and Biblically substantive. The only thing I could think of when I read about the dramatic video before the pastor comes up to speak was a parody video on YouTube called Ignatius the Ultimate Youth Pastor:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLGLBVSpBzY

This is an extreme example, but I think the point is clear. The message can't be lost beneath the veneer. (Also, I think that the "real Christians" response to Ignatius is almost as poor as his message is deluded.)

[Vlad!]

My problem with this scenario is the message it sends by implicitly endorsing the song, the language therein, and even the lifestyle it lauds and stems from. I feel like Romans 12:2 is relevant here: "Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect." [ESV].  I agree very much with your statement that

Sometimes I feel like churches use popular music thoughtlessly, just to turn young people's heads with a "cool song" and not thinking about the implications. I wonder if some people will see it as an endorsement, go track down the song, and wonder how a church could make such a major oversight as to recommend music to them that contains racial slurs, drug references, and crass remarks about checking out women's asses.

Putting on my scientist hat for a moment and looking at it from a first principles perspective, I see that if our ultimate goal is to love God and bring him glory, the "goodness" of an act can be judged by the degree to which it pleases or glorifies God. I see in many instances that Jesus praised actions that were done with the intention of pleasing God either directly or by serving fellow humans, and this praise was irrespective of whether the action was condemned by some precept.

I have no desire to pass judgment on this situation, and since I don't know the circumstances or the people involved (except for you, obviously) then I couldn't do so effectively even if I wanted to. But I will say that in the long run I have rarely regretted paying attention to the fact that something makes me uncomfortable and I have often regretted ignoring it.

I will end with a story that I heard from the pulpit several months ago:
A few years ago there was an aspiring pastor fresh out of seminary who had a heart for what some would consider the sketchiest areas of San Fransisco. He started a church there. The church began to grow and was beginning to make an impact in the community. In an effort to reach out to the homosexual population, he began inviting them specifically and eventually took on an openly and unrepentantly homosexual assistant pastor. As he spent more time with this group, he began imitating the mannerisms and attitudes himself, and finally he fell into that lifestyle and decided to leave the church altogether. Lacking a leader, the church fell into chaos and soon disbanded.

I consider this story relevant because my personal conviction is that it is the job of the church leadership to take a hard-line stand against all sorts of immorality. I see this example played out by Paul in his advice to church leadership and in the examples given by Biblical elders, such as those in Jerusalem whose open hearts and minds towards the adoption of gentiles into the church were tempered with caution over their moral behavior. It can be tempting to dip into secular culture a bit, to excuse a little drop of being "of the world" by saying that it's to draw people into the church. And maybe it would--but I tell you what, the thing that attracted and continues to attract me isn't what's the same between us and the world but what's different. When I talk to my co-workers and see the futility of their thinking and their lifestyles (Eph 4:17), and I see that the things the Bible commands me to do aren't just arbitrary but are actually for both my good and the good of the church, and I see the deep respect running throughout the New Testament for the church as the bride of Christ...that's what makes me stick with it. If I look at the church and I see the same things going on that I see in secular culture, it just makes me ask "where's the difference?".

[murlough23]

I don't think you're being a prude. To me, this can get dangerously close to becoming like the world in order to attract the world.

Just to be clear, "attracting the world" isn't the issue here. it's gonna be heard by folks who are already attending our church. I'd consider us seeker-sensitive, but not the kind of place tons of non-believers are going to flock to out of curiosity on an average week. Sure, the music will probably get the attention of folks in the church who are familiar with the artist or who listen to mainstream radio or whatever. But it was probably chosen simply because the youth director, who made the video, liked the song. (And just to clarify, this wasn't shown in youth group. Just "big church".)

What I mean by that is that the focus can become more and more shifted to being 'cool' than being truthful and Biblically substantive. The only thing I could think of when I read about the dramatic video before the pastor comes up to speak was a parody video on YouTube called Ignatius the Ultimate Youth Pastor:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLGLBVSpBzY

That was about as hilariously uncomfortable as an episode of Parks and Recreation. But that's not quite what's going on here. Remove this one blip and I think the sermon series and overall structure of the church service have been quite profound without needing to be "cool".

This is an extreme example, but I think the point is clear. The message can't be lost beneath the veneer.

We've had other instances of mainstream music being used for illustrative purposes or as background music in a video, or brief clips from movies shown, etc., that I haven't had a problem with because I've found that they help support the point being made. Sometimes they're from very popular, mainstream movies or artists; other times they're obscure. I appreciate this and support it; it's a way of using sight and sound to help folks think critically about a topic. But when it's thrown in there just for fun, that's when it gets dangerous.

My problem with this scenario is the message it sends by implicitly endorsing the song, the language therein, and even the lifestyle it lauds and stems from.

That was more or less my issue; the defense I got from some other folks roughly my age in the church was, "That's what all our kids are listening to anyway." So? What people listen to on their own time isn't really something I expect us to control, but I also don't want us to come across as saying that this is OK across the board. Some music is better left for adults who can discern properly. There's a difference between someone like us folks here listening to Kanye West (several folks here do and I don't object to that), and a teenager or perhaps a new Christian listening to it.

I have no desire to pass judgment on this situation, and since I don't know the circumstances or the people involved (except for you, obviously) then I couldn't do so effectively even if I wanted to. But I will say that in the long run I have rarely regretted paying attention to the fact that something makes me uncomfortable and I have often regretted ignoring it.

I probably wouldn't have brought it up if I didn't feel like I had a good relationship with the senior pastor. Being "Facebook friends" is honestly just a superficial reflection of that; I've had very good conversations with him at retreats and social gatherings and basically whenever I can get a moment to pick his brain. I feel like I can say anything around the guy and he'll respond thoughtfully and honestly. I have a great deal of respect for him and for our church leadership in general. I have a little less respect for the youth director who made this call for other past reasons that I won't get into right now, but still, the senior pastor signed off on it and it preceded his sermon. I figured it was best to discuss it where he and the other folks he knew on FB (which is a good chunk of the church) could discuss it, rather than doing it somewhere else and looking like I was criticizing him behind his back.

I will end with a story that I heard from the pulpit several months ago:

Interesting story. Sounds to me like a case of trying too hard to be relevant. that doesn't mean being relevant is wrong, it just means that it has to be done without compromise. (Question: What IS compromise? Are you compromising by using mainstream music in your church service at all? What if a member of your worship band is gay? Even if he's not miked? Et cetera.)

I consider this story relevant because my personal conviction is that it is the job of the church leadership to take a hard-line stand against all sorts of immorality.

The tricky part here is that I don't think anyone's excusing Kanye's immorality or his glorification of it. Maybe they're belittling the fact that I'm making a big deal out of it, but none of those folks think it's OK to throw around racial slurs or sell/use drugs or ogle women. (Though one woman stood up for the bits about ogling woman by saying she wasn't offended. That's nice and all, but you're the exception. Just because something does not offend me does not mean that no one has the right to be offended.) Perhaps folks are a bit too resigned to just let our youth listen to whatever rebellious stuff they're gonna listen to, but again, I don't know if this is really about our youth, since only grown-ups (and maybe a few babies too young to know the English language) were exposed to it in "big church". Does not approving of the message of a song mean that we should never use even an innocent-sounding part of that song in church? Erring on the side of caution would say "yes", but not erring on the side of caution isn't necessarily a sin.

I should probably quote the replies that my pastor has written, just for the sake of fairness.

The first time he chimed in, after some of us folks had been debating for a bit (italics added for clarification):

DM (addressing me): I've discussed your points with Tina (the woman who mixed the sound for the video) and Jason (the youth pastor who suggested the song). I was completely unfamiliar with the actual lyrics and can fully appreciate your concerns. As I was re-pondering your basic question today, it dawned on me that what Tina and Jason did with this crass song is in line with what Jesus does with all of us crass and hopeless sinners, namely, redeem us. With redemption in mind, I'm starting to think that what they did with this popular but vulgar rap song is akin to what John Wesley and others did with then-popular but vulgar bar songs in England > turning them into some of the greatest hymns of the church (with recognizable tunes!). With this well-known historical precedence in mind, let's all allow this matter to rest. If Jesus can redeem the darkest soul, then Jesus can redeem just about any song.

The second time, after a few of us ignored his request to "allow this matter to rest":

Hey, y'all, do you know what I just realized here? This open discourse, where there are differences of opinions openly shared and explained while offering the gift of understanding and respect is EXACTLY what I've been feeling from God. In other words, being able to do what you all have been doing here is the NEXT LEVEL for our becoming more of a Faith Village > > convicted civility.

So he's making a great effort to be gracious here, which is more than I'd expect when someone else posts a link on your Facebook wall and starts an argument potentially criticizing your leadership abilities. (But then again, he regularly takes heat from more conservative folks for a lot of other decisions he makes, so this is probably small potatoes.)

[Vlad!]

Interesting story. Sounds to me like a case of trying too hard to be relevant. that doesn't mean being relevant is wrong, it just means that it has to be done without compromise. (Question: What IS compromise? Are you compromising by using mainstream music in your church service at all? What if a member of your worship band is gay? Even if he's not miked? Et cetera.)

I think it's more his attitude than his current status. If a member of your church, worship band or not, is unrepentant in sin of any kind, the Bible is very clear: cast the person out of the fellowship for his sake and for the sake of the body.

Does not approving of the message of a song mean that we should never use even an innocent-sounding part of that song in church? Erring on the side of caution would say "yes", but not erring on the side of caution isn't necessarily a sin.

I'm not really seeing this as a sin issue. Sin comes from the heart, and it sounds like the heart was at least mostly in the right place. I would call it a lack of prudence from the leadership.

As I was re-pondering your basic question today, it dawned on me that what Tina and Jason did with this crass song is in line with what Jesus does with all of us crass and hopeless sinners, namely, redeem us. With redemption in mind, I'm starting to think that what they did with this popular but vulgar rap song is akin to what John Wesley and others did with then-popular but vulgar bar songs in England > turning them into some of the greatest hymns of the church (with recognizable tunes!). With this well-known historical precedence in mind, let's all allow this matter to rest. If Jesus can redeem the darkest soul, then Jesus can redeem just about any song.

I don't agree that this song in any way has been 'redeemed'. Your pastor is misapplying the precedent. Yes, it was common to take songs with known tunes and give them new words (the song "My Country 'Tis of Thee", which every schoolkid learns (or at least learned, back when I was a schoolkid), is a repurposing of the British national anthem!). But would Wesley stand before the congregation and sing a bawdy, unaltered bar canty? I doubt it. I don't think we should lead lives so sterile that we're offended by the merest thought of impropriety--there's definitely the "be in the world" clause--but we are a priesthood, set apart for God (I Peter 5:9-10). Since when have the people of God needed to rely on Kanye West to spice up our services?

[murlough23]

I think it's more his attitude than his current status. If a member of your church, worship band or not, is unrepentant in sin of any kind, the Bible is very clear: cast the person out of the fellowship for his sake and for the sake of the body.

I was mostly throwing out examples that made this more of a grey area. You can draw a hard line about immoral actions, but dealing the people who committed those actions is another story. I know Kanye does immoral things; does that make everything he said or did useless for our purposes? What if it were a clip from "Jesus Walks" instead (a song which also contains a few profanities, but which has a more positive message in general)?

(I'm not sure why I'm playing the devil's advocate here. Just trying to satisfy my curiosities, I guess.)

I'm not really seeing this as a sin issue. Sin comes from the heart, and it sounds like the heart was at least mostly in the right place. I would call it a lack of prudence from the leadership.

It's still a potentially serious issue, then, maybe not due to this one incident, but due to how similar situations could play out in the future. I think a lot of the congregation are the type of people who don't like to speak up or "rock the boat" - the church leadership is trying to encourage change in this area, but keep in mind that it's a mostly Asian congregation and "saving face" is a big deal. So some folks were actually offended by the fact that I dared to question the pastoral staff's decision-making process.

But would Wesley stand before the congregation and sing a bawdy, unaltered bar canty?

Probably not. What if he used a few lines from it that were not particularly offensive? (I doubt every single word of them was offensive.) That might get you a little closer to what's happening here.

Since when have the people of God needed to rely on Kanye West to spice up our services?

It's not a matter of "need". I can see that the intent here was just to find a creative way to try and capture how God must have felt when He created the world (overwhelming joy rather than an indifferent distance from it all). The mood of it was right; it just broke down when one examined the song used beyond its catchy chorus. There could likely be several other songs that could be used to communicate a similar feeling and that would be more appropriate lyrically, but music isn't "needed" to communicate this at all, honestly. If we threw out everything we didn't "need", we wouldn't bother using music or any form of art in our church services at all. The better question to ask is, which of these things are useful without having potentially detrimental side effects?

NP: "Resistance", Muse

[Vlad!]

I'm not a big fan of theorizing and what-if scenarios when it comes to faith and behavior, since I find that it's usually unproductive. So I'll just mention a few generalities:

"'Everything is permissible'--but not everything is beneficial. 'Everything is permissible'--but not everything is constructive." - I Cor 10:23 [NIV]

Just because you can do it and it's not going to hurt anything doesn't mean you should do it. And then later in that same passage

"So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God--even as I try to please everybody in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved." - I Cor 10:31-33

The leadership and those in charge of the church service have a grave charge: do not cause the church of God to stumble. In context, the passage is talking about doing a thing--eating meat sacrificed to idols--that offends the conscience of some. Paul says that even if something is OK for you to do, if it bothers someone else's conscience, don't do it. This isn't an easy pill to swallow, but it's the humble response and certainly the Godly response.

I'm not very good at saying why this is wrong or that isn't wrong or you should do this and shouldn't do that; I think at least in part this is why we are promised the Holy Spirit: so that we can know even if we don't know why. So why do certain things offend some and not others? Well, maybe some are less mature in their faith, or maybe some are more in step with the Spirit. I don't know.

A parting thought:
"But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God's holy people. Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving. For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person--such a man is an idolater--has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God." -- Eph 5:3-5 [NIV]

That's a pretty awesome charge. Not even a hint of impurity. To me, when I read this passage, it certainly makes me want to err on the side of caution!

[murlough23]

These are all good points, and principles that I try to live by. But taken down to the letter, one could go to ridiculous extremes trying never to offend anybody, never to say or do anything that could possibly give someone the wrong idea, and basically you're left paralyzed and unable to say or do much of anything. That's why I'm searching for practical applications and trying to figure out what really constitutes the things we need to avoid and what we might be avoiding out of irrational fear.

[Vlad!]

I'm certainly not saying that we should avoid offending people! In fact, I think Jesus is the most offensive person in the Bible, especially toward religious people. Also, in John 6:60-66, we see that people were following him for the wrong reasons, so he deliberately gave them a pill that was hard to swallow so they would leave him. I think if your services are not offending and challenging people, you're not doing your jobs.

On the other hand, as Sam Brown once said, never offend people with style when you can offend them with substance. There's no point to "challenging" your audience by playing a Kanye West song. Personally, if they played a song like that in my church I'd be offended to know that my church leaders listened to such crappy music, but that wouldn't challenge my soul or stir me up to do good deeds. I'll put it this way: there's only so much that a group of people can be challenged before they get overwhelmed and leave. So make each one count: challenge them by pointing out the dark places in their souls; challenge them by showing them the hard teachings of Jesus; challenge them by taking them out of their comfortable middle-class Christianity. Don't challenge them by playing a song that is at best mildly inappropriate for church and at worst deliberately at odds with the teachings of Jesus Christ.