A god Who Loves 'Funk' & Those Who Defend him

I try to give a reasonable amount of slack to professed Christians who don't understand God the exact way that I do, but every once in a while something is said that rips open the curtain of the Seeker Sensitive movement and reveals how desperately twisted it's mindset can be. It makes you wonder if some of them are even talking about the same God that the bible describes as 'holy, holy, holy'. I had one such glimpse behind that curtain over the weekend as I interacted with some defending a popular 'funk' song with lyrics relating to "how well built" a female is. Yes, music in church!
I've seen a lot of shenanigans in the past several years of covering the Church Growth Movement but this one hit me like a couple of high voltage CPR paddles. And what I find almost as reprehensible as the idea itself, is the defense of it, by a group of folks who were willing to fight and die on a hill of support for this pew-packing stunt. For service to the cause of pragmatism, I am awarding them this edition of our Athenian Spirit Award.
It started last week when the owner of a fantastic new website called The Museum of Idolatry (recently added to my blogroll) sent me an email asking for more information on the "friends in low places, whisky drowns, beer chases" video which was recorded in a popular megachurch. He posted his thoughts on that video but added some additional coverage of another (even more troubling) song that was adopted by the same church. Here's what he said:
We received a tip from a reader that "Pastor" Tony Morgan of NewSpring Church commented on the "American Idol" sermon series at his blog. Here is what he said:
"The vote for next weekend's opening song included Brick House by the Commodores. I'm just praying that God loves funk."
Here is the link.
Yep, "Pastor" Tony was personally pulling for the funk song 'Brick House'. This is a song that is about the female anatomy. And yes, this song was sung in their church as part of their American Idol contest. Here are some of the lyrical highlights of 'Brick House':
Verse 1: She knows she got everythinga woman needs to get a man, yeah.How can she use, the things she use 36-24-36 [her measurements], what a winning hand!
Verse 2: The clothes she wears, the sexy ways, make an old man wish for younger daysShe knows she's built and knows how to pleaseSure enough to knock a man to his knees
We're sure these lyrics fit perfectly with the other sermon series they did called "Girls Gone Wild". How kewl is it that they named an entire sermon series after a series of porn videos. [sarcasm intended]
Performing popular secular music with disturbing lyrics is a growing trend in the newest generation of Seeker Sensitive churches. A couple more examples include Granger's promoting of 'Nickleback' and pastor Gary Lamb (who seems to never miss a rock concert that comes to town) launching his sermon with the AC/DC song Highway to Hell.
But what I find just as troubling is how vigorously the fans of these churches will argue in favor of these things. Take for example the discussion thread from the Brick House post, which (as of the time I'm writing this) is still being haggled over by "James and Nathan" who are no strangers to the comment section here on Old Truth. Here's an abbreviated synopsis of the tactics and ridiculous arguments being made by some of those on this latest thread. The one's in red seem to be in favor of this type of music in church, the ones in green are against it.
Nathan Rice: It was not supposed to be a worship song, just a "little fun before the service started".
Val: Who on earth has a "little fun" at church singing songs about drinking booze?!
John: Unfair. You don't know the people there. You don't have the full context. You make mistakes too. Aren't our words to be seasoned with grace?
Val: That isn't church. That's a bunch of boys who never grew up and they are pretending that they have their own TV show. The pastors have so little discernment.
Nathan Rice: Reasserts that the song wasn't technically during worship (though it started mere moments afterwards). Then implies that this criticism is taking advantage of these songs because they are the most convenient thing to pick on - in a church that doesn't fit our personal preferences and style.
Val: "Church is supposed to be the house of the Lord and the gathering of believers but your 'pastors' have turned it into an 'idol' factory. Your pastors have sinned by doing this. It is an offense against the Lord and it is an offense against his people. We have every right to be indignant regarding this travesty."
Nathan Rice: Asserts for the 3rd time that the song was played BEFORE church officially started, then argues with Val by saying: "Actually, 'church' is you. You are the church. I'll assume you're talking about a church gathering. Your statement that its 'supposed to be the house of the Lord' is not supported by the New Testament. And no, they haven't turned 'church' into an 'idol' factory."
Ken: Quotes Perry as saying that the critics can "kiss my rear end".
Jeannette: Remarks that NewSpring's pastor and Nathan Rice have forgotten what reverence is, then asks "Since when did entertainment become necessary to get 'loosened up' for worship?"
James: Favorably suggests thinking of these church services as "a show" rather than a service, and declares that there is no scripture that would be violated by having such "a show".
Nathan Rice: Asserts for the fourth time that this music was before church, and should be thought of in terms of the church announcement time or the time in which you talk with friends before church. He denies that there is any sin, and calls for anyone who thinks there is to prove it. Then whips out a Pharisee scripture and aims it at Jeannette.
Jim B.: I quote 1 John 2:15 on worldliness and cite Perry's past accolades for a drug pusher song.
Arthur: Mentions how the medium becomes the message in these churches, and tries to draw everyone back to whether it's biblical, citing: "Whatever is lovely, noble, pure etc. think on these things." Arthur goes on to quote Tony Morgan saying that "the church is impotent without technology".
James: Asks to have it pointed-out where this church is doing anything against scripture (he doesn't think they are).
Jessica: Thinks this entire conversation is sad, and that Christians shouldn't fight.
Nathan Rice: Cites the parable of the talents in support of his claim that it would be a mistake and perhaps even a sin to not use technology to evangelize (presumably the way NewSpring uses technology such as jumbotrons and massive sound systems). Earlier James reminded everyone of how air conditioning and microphones are "technology" too, therefore - we too embrace technology.
Nathan Rice: Thanks the website owner for not censoring or banning him like some "other" isolationist blogs. Is that a shot at me? Note that I've banned ~5 parties from Old Truth in the ~2 years I've been online, and Nathan happens to be one of them.
Sam and Jim B: Post almost simultaneous comments citing the many seeker blogs out there that likewise "ban and censor" comments that express our point of view, including Tony Morgan's blog.
James: Equates all of the church technology that he likes - with the invention of the printing press. He once again calls for evidence that any scripture was violated, and then for the 5th time, the "it was during announcements / not worship" defense is asserted. Then addresses me: "Jim, here is some 'old truth', early Christians would probably be more horrified by using the church bathroom than singing a silly song. Again, you can't say that singing this song is disrespectful but using the church bathroom is not. Let's be consistent." Sorry . . . he lost me on that line of reasoning; I don't get it.
Nathan Rice: Calls upon Sam to mix his criticisms with some positive exhortations for Perry Noble, just to be fair. Mentions me, and apparently takes another shot at me about Calvinism and evangelism (in one of his earlier times here on Old Truth Nathan claimed that those two things were incompatible). Next he outlines what seems right to him for "banning and censoring" practices.
Jim B: I point out to Nathan and James that they are not dealing with scripture, and are simply reasserting the same humanistic points over and over again in an attempt to exhaust everyone. I try once again to bring it back to scripture, specifically Titus 2 this time. They however make no attempt at interacting with this scripture at any point.
Ken: That whole "bathroom" thing of James' is just foolish.
Nathan Rice: Calls upon me to define "sinful worldliness" for him. If I hadn't grown weary of this whole discussion by this point, I would have given him Iain Murray's excellent definition of worldliness on this page.
James: Comments to me that he's still waiting for me to point out where NewSpring has done something unscriptural. He claims that I'm being subjective.
Jim W: The burden of proof is on you. The frustration is beginning to show at this point.
James: Claims that Perry is biblical because he holds to basic creedal type beliefs. James promises to keep defending NewSpring until someone gives him objective evidence of sin or heresy.
That's where the discussion ends, at the time I'm writing this. Though I'm guessing that our Athenian Spirit Award winners have much much more gas in their tank, to keep going with their "endless repeating loop" tactics, used for defending that which is new and pragmatically cool.
The full comments relating to that entire discussion can be found on this page. If anyone thinks that this is an example of good Christian debate (yes, there is such a thing), they are sadly mistaken. One side is making arguments that have a basis in scripture, the other side is simply stating their own human viewpoint over and over again. I'm afraid that nothing short of documented proof of genocide (or something comparable) will ever convince some folks that these types of churches are doing something offensive to God, and contrary to scripture. And what is most tragic, is that this particular church trains other churches how to do what they do, through their regular innovative church pastors conferences.
As they have done on Old Truth in the past, James and Nathan will likely continue to fight this out until they perceive that they are the last man standing, at which point - victory will be declared. In reality, they have simply worn everyone out by not listening and by not making scripture the primary basis for their opinions. That's not debate, and it's not even a biblical discussion for that matter, but their priorities are consistent with that Athenian spirit of "spending their time in nothing except telling or hearing something new" Acts 17:21.