Jesus Songs
One of the blogs I frequent is a watchdog-watchdog site, i.e. they critique the content of blogs they DON'T like that critique the content of blogs they DO like. It makes for some interesting (and sometimes mind-numbing) dialog. They are particularly fond of words that NO ONE uses in everyday conversation, e.g. missive, missional, emerging/emergent, and abstruse. (I guess I should clarify "no one" as being me and the people with whom I conversate...man, that sounded really pretty smart, didn't it?!) Anyway, they have a post today that I'm still trying to figure out:
- Is it real?
- I mean, do they really, REALLY think like this?
I was toying with the idea of what entrance music would be appropriate for Jesus after the resurrection (or if you want to think of it this way, what could be playing on the soundtrack during/after the resurrection). The idea here is to capture the kind of moment that it is. The song doesn’t have to be completely relevant (as in some of the lyrics may not quite fit), but it should set the proper mood/feeling of the moment. This can be for the resurrection itself, or the appearances Jesus made afterwards. I only have two stipulations:
1. The song needs to be well known enough that people will generally be familiar with it.
2. Provide some explanation.
The writer then went on to make a few suggestions-- one of which REALLY caught my attention. He suggested, and I quote: "Back in Black – AC/DC. Mark Driscoll describes Jesus at the second coming as an ultimate fighter. Totally sweet, and he’s got a tattoo. The b***s to the wall attitude of this song is perfect. It lets everyone know that the man is back in town." (My edit)
You can read the rest of the suggestions and comments here. By the way, I was the only person that suggested hymns such as "He Arose" or "Christ the Lord is Risen Today." I know, I know. Too traditional, and not very easy to dance to.
32 comments:
My comments agreed in part with yours. So where does someone like me go? The watchman blogs are dripping with self serving pride and in house congratulations while the blog you mention has brothers who are much looser in their lifestyle than I am however mostly friendly.
I guess I would much rather dialogue with emrgent leaning brothers than harsh and scornful brothers. I think pride trumps most everything else.
Rick:
I guess I don't see the "watchdogs" in the same way as you. Yes, they can be somewhat dogmatic at times, but I am concerned that we--as the church--are "too kind" in some situations in order to avoid offending people. I am reminded of Jesus' response to the money-changers and the Pharisees. Now, I understand He is God in flesh and has more authority than I do, but I look at those incidents and see an uncompromising indignation toward those who would pervert God's law/church/etc.
So much silliness goes on in the name of God, His Word, the church. I think we need to speak out against those things, e.g. "brothers who are much looser in their lifestyle." There should be something different about us (i.e. "do not love the world")--Jesus referred to it as "salt" and "light."
I read and post on the CRN.Info site sometimes just to aggitate, but sometimes to make sure a different perspective is interjected in the conversation. Those guys feed off each other. They come across just as arrogant and hateful to me. At times, their comments take on the tone of "since you don't see it my way, you're obviously not as schooled, deep, Christian, saved..." I think you know what I mean.
I'm not the president of the Ken Silva Fan Club, but some of those guys manage to malign the guy NO MATTER WHAT he says. They can take a thread topic on just about anything and within two to three posts, one of them in particular will start in with the "Ken bashing" --even when Mr. Silva hasn't even posted on that thread.
The whole emergent movement smacks of "you're not the boss of me" mentality and frankly, most days it's like talking to third graders. They act like they invented the wheel and the rest of us, especially those that disagree with them, as just idiots.
You do a good job of throwing them curveballs, though. It's fun to watch them scramble.
I didn't think anyone said that they didn't like hymns. And no one on the blog uses "missional, emerging/emergent, and abstruse", except to define the difference between emerging and emergent. And "missive" is a Ken Silva word.
I actually like the old hymns. And I thought the b•lls to the wall comment was innappropriate.
"There should be something different about us (i.e. "do not love the world")--Jesus referred to it as "salt" and "light."
Agreed. We should show love, one to another, regardless of how we feel about someone's brand of doctrine. The fact that there is so much in-fighting makes us look foolish - or unsalty and dark, if you will.
"Those guys feed off each other. They come across just as arrogant and hateful to me. At times, their comments take on the tone of "since you don't see it my way, you're obviously not as schooled, deep, Christian, saved..." I think you know what I mean."
It's funny to read that from another perspective - that's exactly how WE feel about the SOL-type sites. I'm not always a fan of the rhetoric or pointless articles on CRN.info, but I do think that there is less "feeding off" and more fruitful dialog.
"The whole emergent movement smacks of "you're not the boss of me" mentality and frankly, most days it's like talking to third graders. They act like they invented the wheel and the rest of us, especially those that disagree with them, as just idiots."
I hate to play the "I know you are but what am I card" again, but seriously, can't you see this is happening on both sides? Don't you, in your heart, believe that we are idiots?
Matt:
1) "I didn't think anyone said that they didn't like hymns." They didn't...and I didn't say they did. What I DID say was that I was the only one that suggested hymns. I thought it was interesting that the author of the post went entirely with secular tunes rather than hymns written specifically with Christ's resurrection as the theme.
2) "No one uses..." Check out this post, this post, this post, . Nathan and Joe (regular contributors) seem to be fond of the word "missive." I think the use of "abstruse" was in an email Iggy sent to me...so I'll give you that one.
3) "I thought the b•lls to the wall comment was innappropriate." As did I...and there you have it-- WE HAVE AGREED ON SOMETHING! There may be hope for us yet!
Again, the word "missive" is a word that Ken Silva uses. People refer to Ken's articles using the term because that is the term he uses.
Missive means "a letter, esp. a long or official." I don't use the term missive to describe my posts and neither do others at CRN.info. That's Ken's thing.
Keith,
I do use "missive" with some of my writings. In the sense I use it: a written communication.
http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/missive
Well, did I not communicate in writing? But as they are wont to do it's making much ado about nothing.
Matt:
I realize we're splitting hairs here, but did you read the posts I linked? In all three, the author DID NOT use quotes for the word "missive" (see, just like I did) indicating they were quoting someone. Looks to me like they were USING the word--which is OK. It's not a bad word. And Ken didn't invent it, although he does admit to it's use. 8^)>
Todd:
"more fruitful dialog" at CRN.Info? I guess that depends on the topic.
I do see some of the same tactics on both sides, but from I've seen, their side seems to look for ways to be outrageous or offensive. How do you explain Scott Hodges implied/actual use of the "f-word" on his baptism video? I emailed him about that and never got a reply. I'm sure he's busy, but until he states otherwise, I'm going with the video. Or what about the following quote from Tony Jones: "I think the Bible is a f***ing scary book (pardon my French, but that's the only way I know how to convey how strongly I feel about this)." Just a couple of examples--and why are they necessary?
No. I don't think you are idiots. I think some are starved for attention--and they've certainly discovered a way to attract some.
So I wasn't involved in the thread you've posted about but I am one of the contributors who used/uses the word "missive." I'm not really sure what that has to do with your post. Are you saying we shouldn't use the word, or it's ok if we do. In the immortal words of the Geico Caveman, "Um, What?!"
Hey Joe:
"Missive" is a good word. OK to use. The original statement was that some on CRN.Info like to use the word and Matt attempted to inform me that "no one on the blog" uses that word -- it's "...a Ken Silva word." I linked to your post to show him your usage of the word.
Keep on keepin' on.
Since you enjoyed this post so much I thought maybe you'd enjoy another of my ... wait for it.... wait for it... missives.
http://www.moviewatchingmessiah.com/archives/15
Its called Everything I Need to Know About Christianity I Learned from Zombie Movies.
Man I'm so happy God willed me to write these things.
Tim: Why would you insult God's name by claiming He willed you to write something like that? He spells better than that.
Are we to assume that since God willed you to write that post--it is inspired? (Revelation, Version 2).
The question we ask is not “what would Jesus watch”? But “how would Jesus watch”? I think the better question is WHY would Jesus watch? He only had three years. I can't see Him wasting time watching tripe like The Simpsons Movie or Knocked Up.
Hey you tell me. You're the reformed one here. If God only acts, never reacts and is sovereign then he willed for me to write all of these things.
Tim: Sometimes I wonder if you're really that ignorant re: reformed theology...then you post something and remove all doubt. I'll sleep better tonite realizing my first impression was dead on!
Like I've already stated elsewhere--it's like dangling yarn in front of cat with you guys. Too easy. You'll bite everytime. That's what makes it fun.
Don't worry Keith, I'm only this way because God willed me to be this way. You'll really have to take it up with him.
Also, I see you have this listed under "emergent". I'm not emergent, and I don't pastor an emergent church.
Tim:
Since your blogger profile is "blocked", how would I know what OR who you are.
Throw some info out there.
Alright then. The author of the article you're so critical of isn't emergent. And since he's been open about his personal blogs over at CRN.info you can see that he's not emergent.
Tim: You're dodging my question. I asked YOU for information. Why are you hiding your profile/info?
Keith,
It doesn't matter what's in my profile (especially since its nothing, other than my email address which is reserved for people I actually want to email me). You've been informed that you have mislabeled your post. Now you can fix your error, or continue to knowingly misinform your readers and blame emergents for something they did not do.
Tim:
You said: The author of the article you're so critical of isn't emergent. Well, from where I'm sitting, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck...you've got yourself an EMERGENT!
You said: You've been informed that you have mislabeled your post... By who?! Casper the Friendly Ghost?!
You said: Now you can fix your error, or continue to knowingly misinform your readers and blame emergents for something they did not do. Misinform them of what!? I pointed them to a blog that speculated what music Jesus might use to to announce His return (AC/DC was one of the selections if you recall). That's what the original post was about (in case you didn't read it). I don't think pointing people to what someone else said is misinforming.
"Fix the error?" No error to fix. If you don't like the label, don't act or talk like it.
As far as I'm concerned, I've been WAY more up front than you and some of the others on CRN.Info. I notice many of them post anonymously. You claim you're not emergent (or whaterver), but you've linked no information that I can see to prove otherwise.
What I do know about you I've summized from your "movie review" blog and your comments here. You come across as the epitome of the emergent movement. (I'd send you one of Phil Johnson's "emergent posters" on Rob Bell's birthday, but I don't have your address.)
Go "fix" your own blog if you don't like what you see here.
Keith,
You do realize that Christians other than emergents watch movies, don't you? Its become abundantly clear that you have no idea what an emergent is. Have you seen a single reference to missional living, narrative theology, or any of the other emergent buzz words out there on anything I've written (which includes one blog that goes back over three years)? The answer is no. In other words, the problem isn't that I look like a duck, the problem is you have no idea what a duck is. I've been quite open in posting who I am and what stream of Christianity I come out of, pretending that because I watch movies and view them through a Christian worldview makes me an emergent either makes you ignorant or deceptive.
Also, there's no one at CRN.info posting anonymously on the front page, unlike, say, CRN.com which has one regularly anonymous poster.
Rick,
Have you contrasted the scriptural veracity and doctrinal purity of the "watchman blogs" you decry with that of the "friendly emergents" whom you praise?
I'd caution you in the Lord to be mindful not to base your preferences on how others make you feel, and instead stick to what the Bible has to say about fidelity to scripture vs a corrupt and man-centered faithlessness which is but pretence of genuineness.
There is a false humility that is much more devastating and spiritually cancerous than common boastful arrogance - both of which are forms of pride that are frowned upon by the Lord of Glory.
Truly emotionalism and false piety are a dangerous and combustible combination for the soul. For a deep dive on these subjects you might consider reading Dr. John MacArthur's book "The Gospel According to Jesus".
The truth confronts error in love whereas deception welcomes all within its dark embrace.
God bless.
Tim:
Tell me--specifically -- WHERE you have "been quite open in posting who I am and what stream of Christianity I come out of"
I honestly don't recall seeing that.
You started down the "God willed this" and "God will that" road and that didn't go anywhere, now you're nitpicking whether you're "emergent" or not or someone called you emergent or a duck or whatever...good grief. What grade are you in?!
I did state you "come across as emergent" and YOU DO to someone like me. You called me "reformed" and you don't see me getting my BVD's in a twist about it.
If you didn't write the original post at CRN.Info, what's your beef! I wasn't talking about anything you'd written to begin with.
You do realize that Christians other than emergents watch movies, don't you? **GASP!!!** They DO!? Where in the world do they park their horse and buggies?
My comment about anonymous posters wasn't directed at the front page posts. I was referring to people that comment on blogs, such as yourself. Whenever I post on another blog, I don't hesitate to make my identity known. I believe what I post and if someone wants to look me up, fine. That's how you got here, isn't it?
You're beginning to sound like some of the people I used to go to church with. They attended the "emergent" conferences, read the emergent authors and implemented all the things they read and heard folks were doing at Mars Hill and places like "The Orchard", but boy howdy...don't call them emergent!!!
Keith,
The "God willed this" was me just riffing on your truly reformedness.
Keith, you don't come across as reformed. You are reformed. You're blog is called fivepoints, and I believe you've identified yourself as reformed (if not I apologize). If you didn't find yourself, theologically, within the mainstream of reformed theology, wouldn't you be a bit miffed if someone identified you as such?
Also, other than blogger which is annoying with its login and whatnot I do identify myself by pointing to one of my websites that has a bio section that identifies me by first and last name and the church I pastor.
Tim: Why didn't you just include the link? It seems like you're trying to make yourself hard to find. (I notice the link on your posts on CRN.Info is "http:///" Anyway, I found your church website (still didn't see a LINK on your movie review website). Interesting -- the church you pastor is in Owosso, I live in Owasso, OK. (God must have willed us to find one another.) Then name of your church is "Church of Christ." Affiliated in any way with the Stone-Campbell/Restoration Movement churhes?
Hmm. I must have posted the last comment or two from a church computer that didn't fill in all my info. Most of the rest of them have one of my two active blogs (MWM is pretty much dead at the moment).
And yes, I'm from the middle branch of the Restoration Movement. Meaning I'm not one of those non-instrumental nuts, nor am I one of those liberal Disciples of Christ.
Tim: See? And you may have wondered why I kept asking--and now you know.
We call those "Christian Churches" in our area. ( I have friends that have pastored Christian Churches in the north, and they were refer to them as "C of C Instrumental" or "Non-instrumental." I attended a CC for 18 years...left because of the Purpose Drivel cirriculum they were bringing in. I taught an Adult SS class for years, several after embracing reformed theology/droctrines of grace and flew under the radar of every Elder/Pastor there. At the last meeting we had, one Elder stated: "We don't discuss doctrine here. It's too divisive." Another Elder told me: "All you want to talk about is doctrine. Who the h*ll cares!" That church has since "joined" the Willow Creek Association, as well as identified itself as a PD Church (they are listed on the respective websites). That's MY experience with the CC/CofC.
Incidently, even though they never discussed doctrine, Elders and Pastors informed the congregation that I left over doctrinal issues. The truth is I left because I couldn't support a building program they were deceptively pushing--a story WAY too long to go into here.
Yeah, I like hwo things are down south of the Mason-Dixon line, where you know if its non-instrumental or not based on the name. It gets confusing up here because there's four churches in town that have the words "Church of Christ" in them and two of them are exactly the same doctrinely.
When tehy said doctrine wasn't important you should have started teaching that baptism doesn't matter. I bet that would have gotten a strong reaction over doctrine.
Post a Comment