Skip to main content

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?

Popular posts from this blog

No Zion, No Problem? Not So Fast.

Everyone in the media has wanted their piece of the pie with Zion this year. Each highlight reel dunk and spectacular block has only increased the media fervor and number of followers. As Duke looks to face Syracuse, and presumably Virginia Tech as well, without Zion, let's consider what Duke looks like without Zion, and what it must do against Syracuse to leave the Carrier Dome with a W. DUKE WITHOUT ZION Duke without Zion is not a cart without a horse. But it might be a sports car without its turbo. Or maybe a chef without her secret sauce. Here are the main points to consider: MAIN POINTS - A Five Spot 1. Without Zion, Duke can’t play “position-less basketball” since all bench players have limitations. Not only is Zion our best two-way player (offense and defense), but he also allows the greatest roster flexibility in terms of building around him. He wreaks havoc wherever he is on the floor. We don't have another player like that, certainly not from the bench

Processing US Women's World Cup Final loss

Without a doubt, this year's Women's World Cup was the most entertaining (on this side of the pond, as they say) since the 1999 edition of the global tournament. The USA's performance and "never say die" attitude endeared this team to many American fans rather quickly, which was no more apparent than when the team stormed back to tie Brasil in 120+ minute, before going to win in penalties. Unfortunately, the dream ended in penalty kicks to a resilient Japanese side who was more fit for the task. Here's my attempt to process and set expectations on yesterday's US loss: 1. The best team doesn't always win in soccer. Sometimes, even the most dominant team in a particular game doesn't win that game. (HT: Grant Wahl , Sports Illustrated) 2. Here are some notes on penalties ending this game: (a) Tough on USA, since Japan had data on US shooters, since they had just seen them against Brasil. There are players that take their penalties the same direction

BCS Postseason Analysis

If the controversy surrounding the BCS System and college football bowl format, it certainly is the most complex and misunderstood controversy. The morning after the BCS championship game, here are three talking points: 1 - We're closer than ever to seeing a change in the traditional bowl format. The 2011 bowl season again proved how difficult it is to sell out every bowl game. This usually results in the participating schools having to eat the cost of those tickets. That trend can't continue. Playing in a meaningless bowl game actually costs some schools more money than they make by participating in the game. You can read about one instance of this happening here , involving the 2011 Virginia Tech football team, which made it to the Orange Bowl. The school had to eat 9,500 tickets it couldn't sell. They lost a total of $421,000, and it could've been a lot worse. 2 - The BCS isn't the enemy of the playoff system. In fact, they could actually be really good friends