Mad Religion
"Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment" (John 7:24).
Mad Men is now in its fifth season; it has won critical acclaim for its portrayal of Madison Avenue advertising in the 1960s. This writer has never seen the series and therefore has no comments to make concerning it, but the concept in the title is being borrowed to describe what has become religion's approach to the public. Apparently, honoring God and presenting the Truth are no longer fashionable; so Madison Avenue techniques are being used to draw people in. Last summer a church in Ocoee was advertising that all visitors would be able to share in the pina coladas and the kabobs. The Orlando Sentinel thought it was such a great idea that they ran two or three stories on the group, one of which explained that the pina coladas were non-alcoholic.
On November 11th of 2011, USA Today published an article with the title "Church Music Wars: Some Hear Satan's Beat" (A6). Cathy Lynn Grossman wrote: "Nearly 50% of Protestant churches now say they use electric guitars or drums in worship, up from nearly 35% in 2000…." The music minister from Rick Warren's Saddleback Church said: "The Bible does not have an official soundtrack." What a great insight! But if the Bible did have a soundtrack, it would not include drums or the electric guitar.
Of course, the Bible does not come with a CD—yet. The ways things are going, it would not be hard to imagine that some enterprising soul will record music, attach it to the jacket, and act as if these songs were recorded by Paul and the band of musicians that accompanied him on his missionary journeys. The reason for no soundtracks is that in the New Testament there is not one mention of using musical instruments of any kind. Neither Jesus nor His apostles ever sang with musical accompaniment of any type on any of the pages of the New Testament. No letter to any of the churches mentions a band or musical accompaniment. The purposes of singing are to offer praises to God and to edify one another (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16).
According to the article, no one is too much concerned about what the Scriptures teach; the key thrust is what appeals to people. Groups like Saddleback have different services with different types of music. One of them is "straight-ahead rock"; another highlights alternative music, and they still have a traditional service with a piano and a singer. What "tradition" would that be? It certainly was not any tradition begun by the apostles.
Underneath a picture accompanying this article appears these words: "Worship by the book: Good News Baptist Church in Chesapeake, Va., sticks to a traditionalist menu of choir, orchestra, sacred music and hymnals." Did many who read this article think about these words? Does it not occur to anyone that neither the word choir nor its concept occurs anywhere in the New Testament? Churches never had choirs because all members were expected to sing. The purpose of singing was not to attract visitors. Likewise, where is the term orchestra found in the New Testament as part of worship in either terminology or in concept? These may be traditional in certain religious denominations, but they cannot be found in the Scriptures. For that matter, neither can denominations.
The music "pastor" for Saddleback also makes another blunder: "There are all kinds of different churches for different kinds of people." Really? If that is the case, then in the first century, when racial hatred existed between Jews and Gentiles, why were there not Jewish churches for the Jews and Gentile churches for the Gentiles? What greater opportunity ever existed for "different churches for different kinds of people"? So, today, we probably need black churches, white churches, Hispanic churches, and Asian churches. We may as well have one for every language on earth, also. While we are in such a generous mood, we ought to have male and female churches in order to give the ladies an opportunity to use their gifts.
It may have escaped the music "pastor" at Saddleback, but the church was designed to bring people together. Referring to Jesus, Paul wrote:
For He Himself is our peace, who has made both [Jew and Gentile, gws] and has broken down the middle wall of division between us, having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace (Eph. 2:14-15).
Did Jesus make the greatest sacrifice of all time to unite both Jew and Gentile only to have music divide everyone centuries later?
Some religious groups have opposed these musical innovations, but the objections are based more on their traditions than the Scriptures. In fact, there is a list of Independent Baptist Churches in which each has pledged to use "only the 400-year-old King James Version of the Bible, and ban contemporary music." This desire seems to be a longing for the past, the way things used to be, rather than a desire to be Scriptural. Must all the songs they use need to be 400 years old, also? That would eliminate "Amazing Grace." It does not matter when a song was written. The question is: "Does it glorify and honor God, and are the words Scriptural?"
The King James remains a good translation, but the New King James retains the same accuracy with fewer obsolete words. Many of the newer versions, such as the New International Version, are easier to read, but faithfulness to the text has been sacrificed in favor of the opinions of the translators (see the article concerning that version on our website).
Some in the article do talk about the proper purposes for worship. The final quote was from a recording artist named Urban D, who is a hip-hop pastor from Tampa:
"We have a big world and a big God. As long as people are worshiping in spirit and in truth, we can worship in any way that reaches our hearts. After all, the Bible calls for believers to 'sing a new song to the Lord.'"
Pardon the cynicism, but that new song is probably not going to be of the hip-hop variety. God has given His followers a great deal of flexibility in the kind and style of songs that we sing, but He was never so "big" as to include instruments of music as part of the arrangement. It is obvious that many are worshiping in spirit (although what kind of spirit may be debatable), but when we talk about worshiping in truth, the words of the song must be in harmony with what the Scriptures teach, and we must make melody in our hearts—not on mechanical instruments. When will the article be written that shows that worshipers can be both enthusiastic and sound at the same time, yet still being more concerned about what God thinks than men?
Winterfest
However, lest someone think that only denominations are using Madison Avenue techniques, Winterfest is another example of Mad Religion, and this event is sponsored by "brethren." In fact, it is reported in The Christian Chronicle of April, 2012, which is ostensibly a publication for the churches of Christ—but not like the ones described in the New Testament. Does this event qualify as Mad Religion? Consider their opening comments.
Envision a crowd at a rock concert—a mob of frenzied fans lined up hours early waiting for the doors to open.
Picture the scene at a national political convention—a throng of party faithful with crazy hats and colorful signs.
Imagine the audience at a "Let's Make a Deal" game show taping—a sea of zany outfits and costumes.
Mix all that together. Throw in a huge dose of agape love. And you begin—begin—to comprehend the scene as 12,147 teens and sponsors from Churches of Christ in 27 states converge…. (17).
With this description alone (and the writer seems to be showing approval), which would it be more appropriate to conclude—that this is a gathering somewhat like those described in the New Testament or that it is an example of Mad Religion? The headline across the two pages that follow say: "'One Big Jesus Party' Brings Together Christian Teens" (18-19). Does that sound remotely Biblical? How many of the churches in the New Testament had big "Jesus" parties?
Some teens described the event as "a holy high." Of course, if anyone is looking to find the kind of emotion advocated by Jesus or any of the apostles in the New Testament, he will be disappointed. People came together to remember the Lord's death, but having "a holy high" was not one of the descriptions of what brethren in the first century were doing.
Among the speakers was Jeff Walling of the Providence Road Church of Christ in Charlotte, North Carolina. This article was kind enough to print a picture of him. He is sitting on a stool and wearing a jacket and pants that match (unfortunately). The outfit consists of wavy stripes throughout of yellow, blue, red, orange, and green. He looks like a zebra in Technicolor—only the stripes are totally undisciplined. Underneath the picture, the attire is referred to as "a multi-colored Loudmouth Golf suit" (19). Where the writer of that description plays golf is a mystery, but this writer has never seen anything like it on any golf course in any state. It is so loud that it would interfere with anyone's ability to putt. But there was a purpose for him wearing what would hurt normal eyes to look upon.
The suit was an illustration "of the cluttered lives that Christians often lead" (19). Whatever that connection might be is not easily apparent; the first thing that comes to mind, when viewing it for the first time, is that he was illustrating Joseph's coat of many colors but somehow got carried away. But, no, if Joseph had been decked out in these duds, his brothers would have been laughing too hard to become envious.
Another speaker, Rich Little (not the comedian of the same name) of Malibu, California, invited the teens to text one-line prayers to God. Since He knows even our thoughts and hears our words, one wonders why He needs electronics for communication purposes. But the reason is that teens want to engage. Their prayers are put on screen, and (theoretically) this makes them feel like they have ownership of what they are hearing, "as opposed to being preached to and not having any ownership or participation" (19). How long would it take to get several thousand one-line messages up on the screen?
Does anyone recall Paul writing: "For I have not shunned to declare to you the whole counsel of God" (Acts 20:27)? Somehow he failed to add, "And don't forget that I gave all of you a chance to express yourselves while I was preaching that whole counsel." He must have forgotten to tell Timothy, when he told him to take heed to himself and to his doctrine (1 Tim. 4:16) to be sure and let his hearers participate so they could feel ownership. What kind of gobbledegook is this?
Another speaker was Patrick Mead; none of his words were recorded in this article, but if he is the same Patrick R. Mead that wrote Freedom & Unity in 1990, he spoke in Fort Wayne, Indiana, shortly thereafter, advising brethren to address God in prayer as "daddy." In his book, he argues that "unity in diversity"…"is the only kind of unity that exists" (120). Then there is this question and answer: "Is there ever a case when Christians should divide from each other? No" (124). He also argued that 2 John 9-11 cannot mean "all aspects of faith, doctrine, theology, and practice" (136). He also wrote: "Many who were baptized in times past learn so much more about the will of God that they want to be baptized later. This is almost never necessary" (112). Really? And he knows that, how? Many are baptized again because they cannot convince themselves they knew enough the first time.
A separate but related article tells how during Sunday morning worship at the conclusion of Winterfest, a man created a spiritual-themed painting. He has been doing "paint talks" for about ten years (therefore, he is not the same as "the Jesus painter" who was popular a decade or so before that). This one painted a baby's face to represent "simplicity," an empty plate to represent fasting, and so on (20). He did the painting while Patrick Mead made the presentation. Brethren have often used visual aids, and there is really no objection to them; they are just not generally created live while the message is being delivered. Should the visual aid call more attention to itself than the message?
Several times during the four pages of this promotion of Mad Religion it was mentioned that the key book, which the material centered on, was written by Richard J. Foster and that its title was "Celebrations of Discipline: The Path to Spiritual Growth." One might just assume that this was written by a brother in Christ and that the 12,000 teens would be learning the truth regarding some important topics. The article does not mention anything about this author, but a search on-line yielded the following information. According to Wikipedia:
Richard J. Foster is a Christian theologian and author in the Quaker tradition. His writings speak to a broad Christian audience. He has been a professor at Friends University and pastor of Evangelical Friends churches. Foster resides in Denver, Colorado. He earned his undergraduate degree at George Fox University in Oregon and his Doctor of Pastoral Theology at Fuller Theological Seminary.
What? Yes, this man is the author of the 12 spiritual disciplines that were highlighted during the entire rally. Is there not a Christian who has written something significant that young people could study? Since Quakers do not baptize, they would not have learned about baptism from Mr. Foster.
Mad and Sad
This event had more than 12,000 teens and sponsors from churches over 27 states. How sad it is to see such an interest in Mad Religion. How is it that brethren do not recognize departures from the New Testament when they are right in front of their faces? How many of these same people would come to such a gathering if Peter and Paul were the featured speakers? And if they came, how many would stay after a recitation of the book of Ephesians or 1 Peter by the authors? Would it be too boring? Would teens not feel engaged? Would they miss the painter illustrating the main points? Would they be disappointed with colorless apparel? What if there were no excitement, and nobody was carrying signs and waving "light swords" around? Are people confusing new technology (CDs instead of albums) with a different emphasis altogether?
Many of the teens took home fond memories, but in their home congregations none of these things is going on. What do they do? Grin and bear it? Remember during the usually boring worship hour what happened in a city far away? Do they dream of the next rally? What lasting effect does all the glitz have on the teens who attend? It is sad that this kind of hype is thought of as a good thing. Do these things make good converts and build brethren up in the faith?
Paul said that he was not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God to salvation (Rom. 1:16). He commended brethren to the Word which is able to build us all up and give us an inheritance (Acts 20:32). It is Jesus on the cross, dying for our sins, that God designed as drawing power (John 12:32-33). Is that not enough?