Also Clint Wells is from Red Mountain Music (thought that is similar in many ways to Indelible Grace). I tried looking it up but couldn’t find anywhere that he announced his atheism. Where did you hear about that at? I do hope it is untrue.

For one thing, you will have an extremely hard time finding a scriptural precedent for this types of endeavors (read: exegeses of popular/cultural ideas from a Biblical perspective) [...] But I don’t think you will be able to find an example of anyone in the NT engaging in a debate or analysis as to the scriptural validity of – or as to the degree of truthfulness in – the ideas or songs of contemporary philosophers and poets. In the well known Acts 17 encounter with the Athenian philosophers Paul is not reviewing the validity of their position(s) but rather, utilizing their preoccupations, “preached to them Jesus and the resurrection” (Acts 17:18).

In our episode we rejected the inconsistencies and the rejection of Christian truth that David Bazan is presenting. I find our approach to be very much in line with what Paul is doing in Acts 17. The times of ignorance are now past and God calls all men to repent in Christ Jesus. David Bazan must repent of his rejection of the risen Christ. Is this an endeavor the church should not be involved in? Do we not confront false gospels with the truth of the cross? I believe 2 Corinthians 10:5 is very clear. We take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ – not only our own, but those proffered by our enemies.

I would be most glad to have you point out the weaknesses in my exegesis. I mean that.

It’s just that the “history” you mention, sadly, does boil down to the panel’s fascination with the name I have chosen to post under. Content has generally not been touched, as I think you would agree. So Scott is correct on this. And I am tempted to think at this point that the panel is not particularly welcoming to challenging views coming from the reformed section of the bleachers… I would be delighted if you proved these thoughts wrong.

Now, please let me make one thing very clear as I sense some added tension in you post… Please do not appropriate my comments on another thread (Counterfeit Gods) to this discussion. Reformed forum is not the church of the Living God and, therefore, I have no right and neither do I wish in the slightest to hold you to the same standards which you heard me express there. I also do not think that this part of your program (media review) unduly skews the focus of your general ‘enterprise’. It clearly does not. In fact, I am thankful for the resources and the service you provide. Sure, I have a few thoughts on how to sharpen the focus (not related to cultural matters, btw), but these by no means detract from my general appreciation of your efforts.

The point in my previous post on this thread was to have us, as disciples, consider the overall value of these types of engagements (exegeses of contemporary ideas). Not the least because they seem to always come with a bit more than just a slight sense of “desiring to be (culturally) relevant”, and in light of Scripture’s silence on this I remain skeptical of their ultimate value to the church. I think that my comments were striving to back this point up biblically. Again, I am more than willing to have this view challenged.

I thought that making some of this clear would be helpful. Now… Let’s get over the name business and talk theology… What say you?

Blessings.

Attack? For the record we have a history with Mr. “Rubio” and we don’t see eye-to-eye on cultural matters. Nor do we agree that “Rick’s” content is correct. His exegesis isn’t as solid as you think either. We were confronting the message portrayed in Curse Your Branches. Would you say there is no Scriptural warrant for addressing messages contra Scripture? I find that incredible.

As I mentioned, however, the alias was meant to be an obvious one. Granting this, combined with my open (and open-ended) invitation to discuss some things privately elsewhere, I think I should be able to be at ease as to whether or not my words will be taken seriously.

All the best.

Peace
Steve in Toronto

For one thing, you will have an extremely hard time finding a scriptural precedent for this types of endeavors (read: exegeses of popular/cultural ideas from a Biblical perspective). So to ‘look’ to an apostolic pattern on this is a bit of a stretch to say the least. You should also note that the reference you give is the Lord’s response to the pharisees (rightful teachers of divine law/word at the time), not to contemporary poets.

When Paul employs half a verse of a pagan poet (Acts 17:28) he does so ‘utilitarily’, if you will, much like another uses a prophecy from an extra-biblical source (apocryphal perhaps) to make a different point (Jude 1:14ff). But i don’t think you will be able to find an example of anyone in the NT engaging in a debate or analysis as to the scriptural validity of – or as to the degree of truthfulness in – the ideas or songs of contemporary philosophers and poets. In the well known Acts 17 encounter with the Athenian philosophers Paul is not reviewing the validity of their position(s) but rather, utilizing their preoccupations, “preached to them Jesus and the resurrection” (Acts 17:18).

I think you might agree that the line of comments/exchanges on this post points to the wisdom of this approach.

Though I have heard of Clint Wells of Indelible Grace who recently (I guess) announced his atheism.

“And I will say one thing more in my free and bold way. There are none nearer to God in this life than these haters and blasphemers of him, nor any sons more pleasing to him and beloved by him! And you can in this state make more satisfaction for sin in one moment than ever you could by repenting for many years together under a diet of bread and water. Hence it is true that in death (where this temptation prevails most), a Christian may in one moment get rid of all his sins, if he but act wisely under temptation. Here it is that those ‘groanings that cannot be uttered’ are at work and prevail.”

I have been listening to Dave’s music and been a fan for about 8 years. I have interacted a little with him on his messageboard which has been neat. It is sad the road he has gone down lately, but I am not totally surprised the direction his music has taken. I am not so much concerned that he has attacked evangelicalism beacuse it seems that he has attacked the foundations of the gospel. As far as I can remember, he has always been somewhat of a doubter or at least had questioned many aspects of Christianity. But I am still hopeful. I really think that if Dave sat down and read N.T. Wright’s “Christian Origins” he would get a more balanced interpretation of orthodox Christian scholarship.

My favorite class in seminary (Trinity Evangelical divinity School) was Cultural Hermeneutics. Kevin Vanhoozer taught it. I wrote a cultural analysis of Dave’s music for our term paper. Another student did too. Dave really has a following among believers and non-believers alike because he is intelligent, honest, and thought-provoking. The music industry is a tough business, and many Christians could learn from Dave. He never sold out to the corporate music industry or went after a higher income when I am pretty sure he could have. Speaking of the class, the best papers from students turned in were made into a book. Included is a great opening chapter from Dr. Vanhoozer on how to interpret culture which may prove helpful since you are doing a podcast on the topic of interpretation of culture. The book is called “Everyday Theology: How To Read Cultural Texts and and Interpret Trends.”

A few points about your discussion.

1. Dave is a fan of many aspects of Noam Chomsky’s political theology (anarchism). He also has been reading Bart Ehrman and has been strongly influenced by his writings (that is most likely where his “ancient autographs that I cannot see” line came from). He has also said that he has been reading some of the most leftist leaning material around. Dave is not about to be influenced by popular-level leftist publications. He interacts with the cream of the crop.

2. If you want to read Dave’s theology before he became a sceptic, take a look at Dave’s speech at Calvin’s Festival of Faith and Music. He states his theology better than the majority of Christian musicians can. I doubt he really believes much of it anymore. I have read recent interviews where he is open to the idea of an open theist type of God though. But Dave doesn’t have all his ducks in a row when in comes to understanding evangelicalism, the movement he is critiquing in “Curse Your Branches.” He thinks the difference between Assemblies of God and evangelicalism revolves around premillennialism. http://vinmark04.blogspot.com/2005/11/what-ive-been-listening-to-lately.html

3. An interesting read is a book called “How Body Piercing Saved My Life.” It chronicles the rise of the Christian music industry and Dave Bazan has a prominent place in it. I really learned a lot about his life in it. The Christain music industry is a pretty ugly phenomenon.

4. I am pretty sure that Dave knows that there was nothing magical about the tree in the garden of Eden and that the author of Genesis believed that sin came about through willful action according to a fair reading of the book. He only puts in that way in the opening track to knock Christianity. Since he believes that Genesis 1 is only mythical, he is using that line or lines to attack evangelicalism.

That said, I think that setting up an interview with Mr. Bazan would be wonderful. And I trust you will find a different tone in that context.

But lets not fool ourselves. Bazan is not just struggling with some stuff. He is self consciously attacking the Gospel of the living Christ.

That being said, a full-orbed apologetic will also focus on defending Christianity against the claims of the opposing worldview in addition to offering criticisms of the opponent’s own position. This aspect should include persuasion and a winsome tone – two things which this episode did not include. Like I’ve said, I would like to do this in the future.

I think your points are valid, but it is your tone that disagree with.

I think we can agree on the fact that the Bible is the Bible, and I uphold every part of it. But all I am saying is is that instead of throwing scriptures like Romans 1:20 at them (which I don’t even think is accurate, because no one is saying that they completing rejecting God here… can there be a difference between struggling and completing rejecting?), why wouldn’t you say things like Matthew 7:7-8, or Psalm 145:18.

I know you guys are working to present a show to a reformed audience, but when you post on your website a critique on David Bazan, anyone who searches in google, “David Bazan”, could easily show up at this page and listen to you broadcast. And unfortunately, there are a lot of Christians in the world who ARE struggling with questions like Bazan is struggling with. The difference between the “camps” though, is that Bazan goes around the world playing house shows, where he can personally meet up with his fans, answer questions, and be closely connected with those who are hearing what he has to say. I agree, this can be dangerous, because of what he is stating in his album. So instead of really awkward, and sort of with a condescending laughter at questions that seem obvious to people like you guys (who have been blessed enough to study a seminary, and have answers to these questions), shouldn’t you recognize that your audience COULD be made up of people who are struggling with what Bazan has to say, and therefore make the choice to try to hear out the other side?

“Oh, hahaha, how silly of Bazan not to know what Romans says about that?” …

You guys are the silly ones.

Maybe you could take a lesson from Bazan, and start thinking about meeting the people where they are at? Just a suggestion.

PS. I know it’s hard to relate to people when they have questions such as these (I am blessed enough to be able to study at seminary as well), but we must try really hard to explain things in a way that is gentle and loving.

I was simply defending scripture with scripture because I don’t think there is a higher or more foundational authority. What I meant by being incoherent is your admission that you do not a have a “grid.” If that is true, then why would anything we say make you upset. If you have any reaction at all to what we say that means you do have a grid or paradigm that you shift these comment through.

Are you upset with the arguments I made or the tone in which they were given? If it is the tone, I apologize for coming off as rude or condescending, I am not trying to come off as condescending, but rather direct. If it is the rebuttals themselves, please tell me which one you disagree with. “It is obvious that these people are reaching out”, I agree that they are reaching out with statements like… “you are cherry-picking” and “it’s hard to hear music, a typically subjective platform, be so objectively dissected inaccurately.” I think those statements are inaccurate so I am responding to them. I second Jared’s comment above.

Actually on the program you referred to Mr. Bazan as being self referentially incoherent because somewhere in some interview he denied modernism and then somewhere else he supposedly invoked a modernist mindset in some lyric. It is clear Bazan believes in some God and therefore not incoherent to reject that God responding to deep questions with a cosmic “Because I said so”.

I recognize cherry-picking is a loaded term and regret using it, but to literal interpret “magical explanation” and then tear it down is absurd. It’s a song lyric. Its a literary device. Surely if you ascribe to an inerrant bible you must know what these are. Ex. The sun revolving around the earth. magical explanation simply and beautifully brings across the mood that this explanation of 2 people immediately and instantly bringing in sin to the world strikes some as fanciful.

To respond to your third point a) i’m not here to get into a theological debate; I gave that up a long time ago and b) you offered no critiques of the actual questions being raised. To answer a genuine question of the content of scripture by throwing more scripture at is, shall we say, self referentially incoherent. You are correct though that I don’t have a response as to a nice cleanly cut “grid” that I view my world through. I used to have a very nice comfortable binary world view for years, until I nearly died from suffocation. This is not to suggest that someone cannot arrive at a useful grid; quite frankly I hope to arrive there someday.

Finally, I really don’t appreciate the sunday school lesson. I know it’s probably an instinctual response but you sound absurd. Honestly your program sounded like it had a issue with fear of man, or at least his questions, with assertions of how “dangerous” this music can be. If Christ is truth, then how can questions be so dangerous? If you really wish to at least train others to be apologists please stop hiding behind bible verses.

Anyways this is great topic that I would love to continue after finishing the monster paper looming over my head.

Take care,

Chris

Thanks for clarifying who the main audience of the program is. That was my fault for not really looking into it. I thought I heard “apologia” somewhere and from my background that usually connotes convincing someone outside of Christianity. But understanding a little more where you guys are coming from helps explain the tone, although i’m not sure excuses it. I recognize how unique Mr. Bazan’s perspective must sound but I feel it’s important for anyone genuinely interested in the future of the church to recognize how common some of his views really are.

There is a whole generation of “post-christians” out here that are (relatively) well versed in theology, church customs and vocabulary but are disgusted by what we see. Camden I appreciate the genuine response and sense that you probably do have a real concern for people and the church. Keep it up, but please realize that there to many out here who are looking for a real engagement of the issues that we have with what the bible says. So to try and dismiss the problem by quoting Romans 9 will turn many people off. I personally know what Romans 9 says and it bothers me. That’s the point. It’s not necessarily an incorrect view of scripture but rather a correct view that we simply cannot swallow anymore. Perhaps this is Theistic Satanism, or perhaps it is a genuine pursuit of God to engage in questions with God as they arise rather than bury them out of fear of unorthodoxy. I Look forward to further discussion, perhaps via email. May God bless you and your ministry.

Chris

Reformed Forum, as Camden has said, has an audience primarily of believing Christians who discuss Reformed theology. What the media reviews are designed to do are to analyze pieces of culture while assuming the Reformed faith is true and reflects reality, not assuming it is merely one possibility among other worldviews. Your feedback is helpful; we may need to redirect other critiques of secular media to take into account those who may not share a lot of our beliefs.

I would have been perfectly happy to do a show that engages those who sympathize with Bazan. We welcome that interaction. I would point out that to see Bazan as a starry-eyed wonderer who is merely asking questions is naive and inaccurate. He explicitly rejects core beliefs of the Christian faith through much of his lyrics; whether those lyrics sum up his entire belief system is another question. They at least indicate part of his belief.

I apologize if the tone came across as condescending and dismissive. Having said that, I would welcome feedback on the content and arguments themselves, regardless of the way in which they may have been presented. Either way, I genuinely appreciate that you let us know your thoughts.