The Line Between Reverence and Irreverence is Often Determined by the Form

Bible verses, in and of themselves, are a good thing.  What about printing them on t-shirts, bumper stickers, fast drink cups, socks, underwear, or baby diapers?

“Now,” you say, “not all of those are the same!”

I agree with you, but can you articulate why?

Practices that seem like a good idea up close can look very different when you step back and look at them in the sunlight.  That which is intended to be cool Christianity (or maybe popular) can look irreverent or even blasphemous very quickly.

This has been the core issue with the music debate over the last 60 years. A music genre that was born of irreverence, sexual innuendo, and rebellion hardly seems like an appropriate form to communicate the deep and glorious messages of the great transactions of the faith. But it was reasoned that the new medium was cool, and maybe the kids would stay in the faith because they liked it. All we have done with that is to promote a consumer attitude toward worship, and many of them left the faith anyway. However, these questions apply equally to the arts and all forms of culture.

This from Kenneth Myers addresses the issue.

Selling Soap and Jesus

Overstated?  I don’t think so.  But is it really wrong?  After all, there is nothing new about stealing useful cultural forms and artifacts to serve the interests of the gospel .  .  .   .

But the key word in this business is useful.  How useful is it to borrow a cultural form if that form effectively cancels the content you’re using it to communicate?  There are many instances of some very dubious borrowings in the history of the Church. As missionaries have taken the gospel to new cultures, it has always been tempting to recast the message of redemption in familiar forms.  But some of those forms have been inappropriate as vehicles of holy truth, either because they introduced fatal distortion or misunderstanding, or because they were so intertwined with ungodly practices that their affiliation with the gospel seemed to sanction the very behavior the gospel should have challenged.

Such a strategy is a sad reminder that most of the Christian criticism of popular culture has focused on the content while ignoring the form.

. . . the church still behaves as if to forms of culture, especially the forms of mass media and the role they play in our lives are value-neutral.[i]

You cannot promote Jesus or the gospel in any ol’ way you want without the danger of damaging the message itself.

This applies not only to music but all of the arts and to every way in which we seek to co-opt popular culture to accomplish some spiritual purpose. If your approach to culture or fine arts starts with the assumption that the forms are value-neutral (or amoral) you are headed for trouble.

We even have to think through how we use Christian symbols.  The cross is a symbol of death, sacrifice, and victory. It has also been an identifying mark of Christianity.  However, it must not ever be considered cool or a matter of style.

The intersection of Christianity, art, and pop culture has profound challenges associated with it. The primary identity and worldview of every believer must flow from the word of God first. Artist expression must not rule, but be subject to it.

Christians must think clearly.  Rules won’t fix this problem.  Dumping the rules won’t fix it either. This requires wisdom, discernment, a willingness to learn, a willingness to disciple, and above all, Spirit-filled sensibilities.

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom (Proverbs 9:10).

____________________________________________________

[i] All God’s Children and Blue Suede Shoes (Crossway, 1989), pp 20-22.