Thursday, December 08, 2011

This and That

Here’s an article on music. He probably says more than he intends to. But it is interesting. And while I am on this topic, I recently  watched a bit of a teaching session Bob Kauflin did on music. During this session Kauflin plays a number of samples to illustrate his teaching. At one point, he plays a song in a particular style to make a point. His point? That the style he was playing at that moment didn’t match the words or message of the song at that point, and it should be played a different way. And I thought to myself, that’s what the “conservatives” say … that certain styles of music or presentation do not match certain messages in the lyrics and are therefore inappropriate vehicles for the song. It seems to cede the point that music is not neutral.

Challies writes on book reviews. The whole article isn’t that interesting (unless you were wondering why he doesn’t do as many books reviews anymore). What is interesting are his comments about “sheer repetition.” I tend to agree. Christian publishing seems like a huge market.

Last week, for the first time in who knows how long, I wrote out a sermon outline by hand. What a joke that was. It was very hard since I couldn’t go back and add something in, and I am not sure I can actually read it because the lack of handwriting means I can’t write legibly. 

And it leads me to this question: Would we have nearly the number of books if we didn’t have computers? If people still had to write out manuscripts by hand, would the Christian publishing industry be where it is today?

I don’t know. But I do know that a lot of book titles I see seem to be very similar. They seem almost too easy to produce.

Here’s an offering from megachurch pastor Steven Furtick. It reminds me of a couple of things, one of which is that not everyone is gifted to rap, and if you don’t have it, you should get someone in your church to frequently remind you that you don’t have it so you don’t do stuff like this. It also reminds me that those who criticize haters are doing the very thing they don’t like. For people like Furtick here (and elsewhere), they don’t want to be criticized, but they don’t mind criticizing others. The good news is that Furtick says, “I feel completely confident as I move forward. And you should too.” Well, that’s good. So if I feel completely confident in criticizing Furtick, is that okay?

Furtick is evidence that we live in an age of narcissism and boundarylessness, and the only sin is actually employing your mind to think about issues of the day, and perhaps even to disagree with someone who is “successful.”

And speaking of criticism, here’s an article criticizing criticizers. Again, it’s ironic to be sure. Apparently criticizing someone who denies inerrancy in some way is a bigger sin than actually denying inerrancy in some way. The fellow in question I don’t know and have never heard of. But it appears the main argument is that this guy wrote a good book and tells people about Jesus so we can’t say anything about his views on inerrancy. I think that’s a dangerous position to take. So I am criticizing the criticizer who criticizes criticizers.

In general, I think we need to be very cautious with criticism. Just this week, I have read some almost absurd criticism, the type that makes you think someone is playing a joke on you. But I doubt it.

We need to remember that each of us stand and fall before the Lord. But we also need to remember that one of the gifts of the body of Christ is the kind of fellowship that should step in with confrontation and correction when we go off the rails. 

I think inerrancy is pretty big. In fact, even ETS who doesn’t even require you to be an evangelical (strangely enough) requires you to believe in inerrancy.


PLJ said...

Hey Larry-- forgot to bring a printed sermon with me here too-- started to write my outline out, then realized I wouldn't be able to read it. Glad the laptop fit in the pulpit!

Jon Gleason said...

Wow, Larry, that music article was amazing.

Patton has a point on Geisler's inconsistency on creation, of course. But since I don't think you were criticizing him for making that point, I guess I'm not criticizing you by pointing it out. :) Licona deserves criticism from what I've read.

Thanks for the links.