Agenda, Agenda, Agenda

Another book (Can We Rock the Gospel?) has been printed regarding the 'conservative' approach to Christianity's ties to rock music, however you define that term. Dan Lucarini, having co-written the book, now has two titles that bear his name regarding this topic.

There are several words that come to mind when I think of the typical 'right-wing' conservative, fundamental (whatever other adj. u want to use) position on music. One is suspicious. Another is stubborn. "Text-pushing" and "horrible exegesis and application" come to mind as well. My favorite and seemingly the most common is agenda.

Now, do I doubt the sincerity of these men? Absolutely not. I believe all the way to my core that they are seeking to help the body of Christ by fighting this issue. So, just to get it out there, I (as much as possible) appreciate what they seem to be trying to do. However, it seems to me that no matter the book or article that comes out, the authors are simply trying to "bolster" their position(s) on 'rock music' more strongly than the last time they composed. Why do I say this? No matter what the title or author (of those who hold this position), the premise, assumptions, and applications are always the same. These are a few:

• All 'Rock' music is bad.
• All music that sounds like or has association with rock music is entirely rock music.
• The evil represented in the 'worst' of rock bands is equally represented by all music considered by the author to be 'rock' in genre.

My point is not that they are idiots. However, I have some problems with many of their 'assumptions.' (If you want to read more about the book in particular to see more examples of what I'm talking about, Challies.com has a great review.) Everything in their opinion is logical with premises that are undoubtedly Scripturally founded. I don't know if you've ever heard a presentation by a proponent of this view, but all the ones I have actually heard have been weak, with some even abusing Scripture. If you would like a sample, I can send you an .mp3 file of one.

I just wish this position was not so dogmatic on a position that is almost untenable. When you have to rely on science and history, and then wrap Scripture around the argument as a 'skin covering,' I don't see how you can be dogmatic. I'm not a post-modernist, but "where's the love? Where's the grace?"

But hey, "who am I?" right?