My New EP -- The Great Exchange -- FREE

Hey All,

This is a heads up, a buddy and I have just released an EP. Here is the good news, it is FREE to download! Below is how I describe the album on our website.

This EP is a project that we did for two reasons: First, because we believe that worship should be rooted in the truth of scripture and the history of the Church, and second because we believe worship is a-stylistic. We hope to represent a wide variety of styles as we do music that is both new and ancient. For this EP, the electronic style is like the glue that holds it all together. We have done these songs in a way that is nearly impossible to reproduce but we encourage you to take what we have done and make your own arrangements that will fit your own worshiping context. Feel free to email us with questions or to request charts.

Download and/or listen to the EP at thegreatexchange.bandcamp.com.

Formation: Liturgy or Worldview? A case study of hipsterism and the Church

As the capstone to my class with Dr. Jamie K.A. Smith, I wrote a paper that invites the Church to consider if we are formed more by what we do or what we think; I do this through a case study of the hipster culture. I welcome you to read my article and, if you would like, to discuss.

I would also recommend Jamie's book, Desiring the Kingdom if this discussion interests you.

Click here to download my paper.

Christian Obedience: Beginning the Discussion

Obedience, freedom, and freewill are topics I believe Christians must begin to dialog about more. What does a Christ-centered worldview teach us about these difficult topics? I have written some opening comments as to how I see the topic in hopes that we might discuss these things further.

Obedience is compliance to someone else’s will even though it may not align with one’s own. Whatever the nature of Christ’s power as God was while he was on earth, one thing we can say is that his freedom was limited, at the very least, to temporal and spatial realities of the world. The Gospels show us that he limited his freedom in another way, to the will of his Father. In the garden of Gethsemane, the night before he was to die, Jesus, God incarnate, prayed this prayer, "Abba, Father," he said, "everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will." (Mark 14:36) The Gospel of Mark tells us that Jesus, in order to follow through with the events that were to follow, had to surrender his own will to the will of his Father.

In our American culture, freedom has become our god. We want to be free to do what we want, when we want, how we want, and no one should be able to tell us differently. If the ideology of freedom is pushed a bit further, one will see that, at the core is idolatry. We have all become little gods doing as we wish. Christianity suffers from the same idolatry and has even applied it to our theology of freewill. My question is simply this, If Jesus Christ, God incarnate, limited his freedom to the will of his father, should we, his followers, not do the same by limiting our own freedom, in obedience to Christ? The author of 1 Peter puts it brilliantly, “live as free persons, yet not using your freedom as a cover up for wrongdoing, live as slaves to God.” (1 Peter 2:16) Christians are called to used their freewill to live as slaves to the will of God. This is the message of the Gospel, when we become slaves to God’s will, then and only then is true freedom found.

Your thoughts ? ? ?

Worship in Service: The Way of Christ, the Suffering Servant.

For a full PDF version of this essay including footnotes and citations click here.

Comments and discussion welcome!

Worship God’s Way or Man’s Way?
Human worship of God is an innovation of God’s own will. The Westminster Confession puts it this way, “The acceptable way of worshiping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited to his own revealed will . . .” Today, the term worship has become a cliché term, which Christ followers flippantly throw around to describe their own subjective preference. It is not uncommon for a Christian to speak of worship as an event, such as, worship services, worship concerts, worship meetings, or worship festivals. The word is also used to speak of the style with which the Christian chooses to worship. There is rock and roll worship or acoustic worship, traditional worship or contemporary worship, liturgical worship or free worship. In another way, worship has also come to be expressed as the feeling one receives after attending one of these worships events. It would not be uncommon to hear a conversation that might go something like this: “Man, worship was good today!” “Sure was, Mike! I could really feel the presence of God.” “I totally know what you mean; it was just what I needed to get me through this tough week.” In summary, worship has become focused on the worshiper rather than on that which the worshiper should be worshiping. Christians’ understanding of what worship is and what it means to enter into worship is ever increasingly diluted, both in terms of the weakening of its content, as well as the mistaken belief of its function. The individual Christian’s worship has suffered from the American cultural milieu that promotes the individual as most important and unwavering service to God as closed-mindedness. Therefore, the term worship, which holds a great weight for human relationship to God, has become anemic and cliché.

The issues Christ followers find themselves dealing with today are not new. Only a brief look at scripture is needed to see that God’s people have been struggling to give their worship to him alone since the fall in Genesis 2. Thankfully, Christians are not left to their own devices to understand how God desires to be worshiped; he gives his Word. There are two terms in scripture that are translated as worship; they are the Hebrew word histahwa usually translated by proskynein in the Greek Bible and ‘abad translated in the LXX as latreuein. The first term literally means “to bend one’s self over at the waist” and the second word means “to serve.” Both are needed for a holistic understanding of how the Christian is to enter into worship. Specifically, the latter term holds a strong theme throughout scripture that can help the Christian and the Church rediscover that worship is much more than songs, styles, and events that are subject to individual tastes; instead, it is the divine call to live a faithful life of service to the Lord, which Scripture shows, is objectively unified to God’s will. In order to address the problem of true worship, we will enter into discussion on three points: First, we will survey and trace the theme of worship as service throughout scripture; second, we will compare our findings to the worldview which we hold today; and thirdly we will discuss a way forward into a more faithful, Christ-centered expression of worship.

Service & Worship in Scripture
The concept of service is first established in Genesis 2:5 when it is noted that there is, “ . . . no man to work the ground.” Eugene Carpenter, in his article on the Greek word abad, notices the term for work used here is the root of what later becomes the Hebrew term for service. To this end, he notices that when man serves Yahweh, his purpose of working the ground is an inherently worshipful act. This act of work is corrupted at the point of the fall. Gen 3:5 describes the disintegration of the terms “work” and “ground,” and describes man’s relation to them as being toilsome. Therefore, God’s people struggle to fulfill their intended purpose, to serve the Lord. Eugene Carpenter also notices this point by describing that after the fall the term work is used in a profane sense, which has profound theological significance within the broader scope of the whole canonical context. He says specifically that, “The response of the ground itself is ultimately dependent on humankind’s spiritual relation to God and, hence, to the ground.” Human’s relationship to God was broken at the point of the fall, and consequently, their relationship to the ground was as well. Thus, man fails to correctly worship by serving themselves rather than Yahweh. When self-service is introduced, work becomes exploited for personal gain. In Exodus, we find God’s people being victimized and exploited, forced to serve and work for Pharaoh rather than God.

At the end of Genesis, there is a famine in the land and Joseph takes refuge in Egypt (Gen 47:13-31). His descendents become slaves, forced to labor in unjust and inhuman ways. The profane use of the term “service” becomes the normality for the Israelite people. They are lorded over and forced to labor in order to build monuments for the gods of Egypt (Exod 1:11-14). The Israelites cry out to Yahweh because of the inhuman situation they have found themselves in, and Yahweh is moved in Exodus 2:25, which says, “God heard their groaning, and he remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob.” Throughout the narrative God liberates his people from the Egyptian oppression and states the reason for his intervention: so that Israel may worship Yahweh (Exod 3:12, 4:23, 8:1, 9:1). Here again we find the use of the Hebrew term ‘abad, this time translated as worship. It becomes clear that Yahweh frees Israel from the profane sense of the term to restore to them the proper sense of the term, namely, worshipful service to Yahweh.

Israel’s purpose of service to Yahweh is fully realized when God gives them his law at Sinai in order that they may serve him truly; thus, Israel’s cultic worship is established. The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery describes Israel’s cultic worship in terms of “actions of worship” denoting that everything from festivals, dancing and singing, to sacrifices were done in order to show unwavering obedience and commitment to the Lord. Therefore, the law is the means by which Israel enters into service of Yahweh. God gives Israel three tangible devices to aid them in keeping the law and consequently, serving him alone. These are the Priests and Levites, the temple, and sacrifices.

The Priests and Levites were a specific form of servanthood, which had two general tasks to fulfill: teaching the law of Yahweh to his people and providing them with a means of atonement for their sins. In short, they were to oversee the correct worship of Yahweh. The nation of Israel is also called a priesthood; Christopher Wright points out that in the same way the Priests are to teach and atone, the nation of Israel is responsible to teach the nations how to rightly serve Yahweh and offer a way to atone for their sins. In this way, the priestly service is both a means and an end; it is a means by which Israel rightly serves Yahweh and an end because it is in itself a worshipful service to Yahweh.

The Temple was the place where the presence of Yahweh dwelt in Israel. The term used for the work done in regards to the temple is bodah and refers to the care and construction (Num. 4:47), as well as the religious services performed inside the temple (Ex. 30:16). Here we can see that it was not just the religious services that were worshipful acts but also the physical tasks of caring for the temple itself. The physical construction and maintenance of the temple echoes Israel’s work building in Egypt, but here it is done without oppression and in service and worship to the one true God rather than the false gods of Egypt.

The sacrificial system was set in place in order to provide substitution for the penalty of unfaithful service to Yahweh. Unfaithful service to Yahweh is a breach of the Sinai covenant with Yahweh and punishable by death. Therefore, sacrifices are a means of God’s mercy though the substitution of an animal to take one’s place. Alec Motyer notices what he calls the “cumulative principle” at work in the sacrificial system. The cumulative principle explains that some Old Testament (abbreviated as OT hereafter) statements require later amplification where the cumulative of the two equals the fulfillment. In this way, the OT sacrificial system, unlike the priestly system, is only a means. It is a means to mend the broken relationship caused by rebellion but without the cumulative principle can only be a means.

What, then, is required to bring about the end and restore right worshipful service to Yahweh? The answer can be found in the Hebrew term ebed, which is translated as “servant.” In its most significant usage, the term, coined by the phrase “servant of Yahweh” describes specific people such as Moses (Deut 34:5), Joshua (24:29), and David (Ps 18). Carpenter points out that this usage is especially significant in Isaiah 40-55 where it describes the servant whose identity is somewhat mysterious. Isaiah tells of a servant who is wholly obedient, submits to God’s will, is free of sin, and yet willing to substitute himself for those onlookers who have sinned; not just Israel, but now for all nations. Motyer explains this point, making the distinction that the heart of sinfulness lies in the will, which makes sin its master rather than God. Until the will says, “Yes”, no sin is committed; therefore, it cannot find it’s true substitute in an animal because the beast is an unknowing victim not consenting to the transaction. However, this is the point of Isaiah 53:1-7, and only here does substitution reach its completeness. The New Testament (abbreviated NT hereafter) clearly recognizes that the suffering servant is none other than Jesus Christ. Although Moses, Joshua, David, and others were called God’s servants, none of them were able to fulfill what God requires of his servants. Christ is the only truly obedient, sinless servant who could provide true substitution. In this way, Christ is the only true worshiper, because he is the only true servant. At this point, Motyer’s cumulative principle has reached its completion; Christ is the end and the means, the servant and the sacrifice, and thus true servanthood is only found through his sacrifice, once for all.

In the same way that Isaiah looks forward to the servant Jesus Christ, Hebrews looks back to him establishing his centrality. Hebrews uses the Greek term latreuein to describe worship as service. By using the terminology of the OT, the writer of Hebrews shows how Christ is the fulfillment of the priesthood, the temple, and sacrifices. Hebrews 9:11-12 says, “When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made . . . He did not enter by the means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood.” Again, we see Motyer’s “cumulative principle” at work here; Christ is the culmination of the OT religious service establishing him as the central character of redemption.

The early Christians were called to be Christ’s disciples and, therefore, are servants though the mediator Christ. Specifically, as they serve Christ, they serve Yahweh. Paul communicated this to his churches many times in his epistles. The two most significant letters for understanding how the early Church was mobilized to worship through service to Christ is Romans and 2 Corinthians. Paul calls to his followers in Romans 12:1 to offer their bodies as living sacrifices and then states that this is their spiritual act of worship. Yet again, the Greek term translated worship here is literally translated, “service”. R.P. Martin, in his book on the early church’s worship, explains that, “at this point duty and privilege meet and collide.” Because they had known the mercies of God, it was their duty to offer their lives in service to God. But, this was no bothersome task; rather, it was a delight to offer themselves in response to Christ’s sacrifice. This life of worshipful service to Christ took shape in many tangible forms, one of which was though serving one another in community. The Church of Corinth is admonished to serve Christ serving the needs of others (2 Cor 9:12-13). Paul calls this act of obedience an expression of thanksgiving to God. The same principle that was applied to the temple is applied here; both the religious service of offering one’s life and the physical service of taking care of the Church, namely the people of God, are both expressions of worshiping God though service. As a result, the Church worships as Jesus commanded, in spirit and in truth (John 4:23).

The motif of worship as service reaches its completion in Rev. 7:15 & 22:3 when though the blood of the Lamb God’s servants live in his unceasing presence and, like Christ, serve God unceasingly. Upon the fulfillment of this motif, it is appropriate to say that God’s servants will worship him unceasingly!

The Present Context of Servanthood
The present world we live in is much different from that of the people of Scripture. Therefore, we must briefly look at our own cultural context to relate how we can learn what scripture teaches us about worshiping as God’s servants. To do this, we will look at the four worldview questions: where are we, who are we, what is wrong, and what is the remedy? Finally, I will offer a way forward to help our present church worship in service to Christ.

As we reside in our postmodern context, the word servant has taken on less than positive connotations. It draws up images of African American’s slavery in early America or the current day epidemic of sex slaves that are being bought and sold around the world. In our context, the word represents evil rather than the goodness of worshiping God through serving him alone. Our society tells us that we are our own masters and need no others outside our autonomous selves.

As followers of Christ, Paul tells us that we are to offer our bodies as living sacrifices, classifying the sacrifice as our spiritual act of worship to God (Rom 12:1). As seen above, the term Paul uses literally means, “to serve.” This is counter-cultural to what the world teaches. As we serve the Lord we are called into the world to serve as citizens, family members, churchmen, and friends. We are also called out of the world to protest its ungodliness, all the while pointing to Christ for our successes and strengths. Dietrich Bonhoeffer called this, “the obligation of discipleship.”

We are unable to be autonomous people who can live by our own rule. We must worship something, and that takes the form of either God or ourselves. Bono, the lead singer of U2, illustrates this saying, “Showbiz is shamanism, music is worship. Whether it's worship of women or their designer, the world or its destroyer, whether it comes from that ancient place we call soul or simply the spinal cortex, whether the prayers are on fire with a dumb rage or dove-like desire, the smoke goes upwards, to God or something you replace God with--usually yourself.” We are servants whether we like it or not; the only question is, whom will we serve?

Therefore, the remedy for our problem of self-seeking worship can only come through the way of Christ, the Suffering Servant. In the way of Christ, the Suffering Servant, we are freed from our bondage to sin like the Israelites were freed from the grip of Pharaoh. In the way of Christ, the Suffering Servant, we become co-operators with God’s will in the same way Israel was invited to when they received the Sinai Covenant. In the way of Christ, the Suffering Servant, we enter into the New Covenant by which all people are invited to die to the service of themselves and be raised with Christ becoming his suffering servants though the means of his death and resurrection.

Worship in the way of Christ is not cheap; rather, it is quite costly because it cost Christ his life and will cost his worshipers theirs. Bonhoeffer used the terms “cheap grace” and “costly grace” when calling out to the German church to avoid becoming acquiescent to the Nazi government. Bonhoeffer distinguished that, “Cheap grace is the deadly enemy of our church . . . grace as a doctrine or system without a cost or a price . . . Costly grace is the doctrine that must be sought again and again, the gift which must be asked for, the door at which a man must knock.” Bonhoeffer’s reminder is one that our current Church must hear and respond to when seeking to worship in the way of Christ. We could say it this way, cheap worship is merely empty words and songs, and costly worship is the worship which acts upon words by daily offerings of one’s life in service to the living God.

The only way forward then must be a reform in the Church’s understanding of worship. Namely, worship must be freed from the church building, which is marked by institution, individuals, and entertainment, and given back to the body of Christ which is marked by community, relationships, and service. The wrong way to go about this is through promoting the abolition of the church building. Rather, the correct way is through discipleship, teaching, and demonstrating. Therefore, I see three active reforms to our worship that will help the Church worship as Christ’s community of servants rather than an institution of individuals.

First, Christ’s sacrifice must be central to worship. The Catholic Church gets this correct by structuring their worship services in such a way that the purpose is literally the service of the Eucharist. When the Church loses sight of Christ’s sacrifice, then the gospel is no longer costly; and therefore, worship becomes diluted. The remembrance of Christ’s death and resurrection should be a weekly occurrence, calling the Church back to costly worship of death to one’s self and rebirth in Christ. Second, scripture must be our guide. The entirety of scripture bears witness to God’s redemptive plan made complete only in Christ Jesus. Therefore, we as descendants of that redemptive linage must look to scripture to learn how to structure our worship in service to God. Christ founded everything he did in the OT, not as an abolishment of it, but as a fulfillment. He worshiped with the psalms, remembered the servants that came before him, and recalled the teachings of the prophets. We too must look to this redemptive narrative in order to worship in the way of Christ. Third, community must be our context. When Christians are raised again with Christ, we become a part of his body comprised of others who have died to themselves and have been raised again with Christ. This community is our context and spurs us on to service; service in caring for each other, service in caring for all of God’s creation, and service in preaching the Gospel of Christ which calls others to die to themselves and ascribe Christ’s worth-ship by serving him alone. These three things are the worship that Paul preaches in Philippians 2, calling his people to have the same attitude as that of Christ Jesus (5). We too must imitate the humility of Christ as we worship in his way, obedient service, even to death on a cross.

Vocation : The Way I See It

The two book that I refer to in this post are:
Vocation -- Discerning our Callings in Life by Douglas J. Schuurman
The Way of Life by Gary D Badcock

This is an introductory personal essay a wrote for my class on Theology of Vocation. I would love to hear your thoughts!!!

Thinking about vocation is, for me, a new topic. I had always considered it one of those topics which were not in need of discussion. I believed vocation was what one chose to do to provide for their family. My dad, an engineer for Boeing and my mom, a nurse at our local hospital, taught me about vocation; not through words but thought their actions. They were extraordinary providers. I always had food on the table, a roof over my head, as well as, most the amenities a boy could want. This was, for my parents, vocation – A way to do something you enjoy and turn it into financial support for your family.

My understanding of vocation has changed since I was a boy. Up to reading Badcock and Schuurman I had never thought about vocation and calling as being the same thing. To me they were related concepts from different fields, secular and religious. When I was in high school I led a worship team at church. Though this experience I began to sense God’s calling to study music and seek a career as a worship pastor. Previously, I had believed I would be a firefighter and provide for my family that way. In my understanding, the former choice was calling and the latter was vocation. My call was not an over spiritualized experience. It came mostly in the form of a thought that went, “I could do this for the rest of my life.”

Since I began to pursue what I believed to be my calling I have changed my understanding again this time though experience and knowledge. My present understanding of calling is pulled somewhere between the middle of Schuurman and Badcock. On the side of Schuurman, I see my decisions to follow my “calling” to be a product of need, gifting, opportunity, and community discernment. I saw a need for better forms of worship the church; I was a gifted vocalist, guitar player, and leader; I had opportunities to travel with a worship band and attend a Christian music school; and my family and friends affirmed that to be my calling and direction in life. On the other hand, as I have read and interpreted the bible more diligently, I have found scriptures use of the terms calling and vocation more along the lines in which Badcock describes, to love. Christ’s command to, “Love as I have loved you” seems to be the context for most uses of calling in the New Testament. In the New Testament Christ called people to have faith in him and to love as he did. Therefore, my present understanding of vocation is a free choice founded on God’s call to faith and love. In this way, one uses his own perceptions of need, personal gifting, opportunities, and community to show the Love of Christ to all people and have faith in his transforming power.

My faith in God has been the most important factor in bringing me to this point of my life. When I say “faith” I do not mean having faith that God will bring the one and only girl for me or that he will make life smooth and easy. Instead, my faith in God is that He is good. This means He is who he says he is and he will do what he said he would do. This faith has given me the ability to understand my shortcomings as I seek to follow my calling. There have been times in life where I wondered; if I make a wrong choice will I miss my calling? My faith brings me back to the same answer. No, because God is good and this good God’s plan is above my ability to screw it up. That plan seems to me, to be closer aligned with Badcock’s description of “call” as less of a life blueprint and more of a leading to a “reorientation though repentance, faith, and obedience.” (9) I have found that when I truly put this kind of faith in God I no longer have to worry about petty issues of right or wrong decisions but instead I am free to love God and people in all sectors of my life and walk though the doors that are open for me in my career.

Social location, family, and friends have been the largest influences in my vocational decisions. My dad told me from an early age, “No amount of pay is worth doing a job you hate so find something you love to do.” This was a huge factor in my own sense of calling to music. I had been called to be a follower of Christ since the earliest I can remember and had always wanted to serve him in any capacity I could. Those factors combined with my gifting and love for music helped me realize there is nothing else I would rather do than play music for the Glory of God.

Growing up in the Lutheran church my understanding of “call” took a very Lutheran tone of life station as describe by both Badcock and Schuurman. Looking back, my own decisions toward music were out of understanding it as my life station though the gifts and opportunities I had.

After graduating from college with a music degree, I ended up making a lot of decisions to turn down high paying worship ministry jobs due to a change in my understand of God’s call for my life. Through influences within my community of friends I understood God’s calling to be more toward love and less toward music or even a specific ministry. Instead, I desired to use my passion to love God and love God’s people. Because of this I am working as an assistant coordinator at a coffee shop and joining a church plant that is beginning in Ballard, Washington that will find ways to love and care for the people of Seattle though the arts. In this way, I am able to fulfill my calling to love within our community and in the city of Seattle, as well as, use my gifts to play music and lead people to worship God in all spheres of life.
In using the arts to enter a conversation with the city of Seattle we begin to speak their language. When we speak the cultures language we are able to build relationship and love them in real tangible ways. By entering this vocation I believe that I will have more opportunities to love and care for those who believe God’s only aim is to tell them what they cannot do. This advances God’s purpose, to bring all people to himself. By putting faith in him to be the judge and transformer we then are free to be ambassadors for his purpose: calling people to a reorientation of life though faith in him.

Choosing this career path has been a difficult choice because as Badcock describes it is a risky venture. It does not pay and it does not bring with it any prestige. What it does do is afford me the opportunity to use my gifting of music, my vocation of living for God’s glory, and my call to Love, in service to God and his world. This is an understanding of vocation that I believe both Schuurman and Badcock could agree on.

Culture Wars: Evangelicals Find Fresh Battleground in The Passion of the Christ.

The 2004 release of Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ was an instant hot button for American culture. Its release was marked by strong opinions, controversy, and extended discussion as a significance sign of the times. For Evangelicals and Secularists these were times of war. Not a war of flesh and blood, but an opportunity to advance their own values and diminish their opponents’. These culture wars were the canvas upon which the success of The Passion was painted and Gibson, like a master painter, knew just which brushes to use in order to make a masterpiece. The Passion became fresh ground for a brand new battle in this war. Gibson gave Evangelicals a long-awaited opportunity to tell their story to a society dominated by secular films that is used to telling only its own stories. Evangelicals rose to champion Gibson’s film despite their own value differences with the film.

Evangelicals Find an Unlikely Ally in Catholicism

The sort of value differences that Evangelicals might normally have with a Catholic telling of the crucifixion would usually be considered foundational differences between the ideological commitments of Evangelical Protestants and Catholics. Leslie E. Smith explains that, “Because Evangelicals adhere strictly to the biblical text and believe that Christians are saved exclusively through an individual’s personal faith in Jesus, they do not adhere to ‘tradition’ in the Roman Catholic understanding of the term…” The Passion portrays a very Catholic worldview as it relates to tradition, redemption, and theology. Christianity Today writes that, “Evangelicals have not found that [Catholic theology in The Passion] a problem because, overall, the theology of the film articulates very powerful themes that have been important to all classical Christians.” The film focuses on the Gospel, which is the foundation for all classical Christian’s faith, taking artistic license only when scripture is unclear and leaving traditional Catholic theology ambiguous.
Catholics and Evangelicals worship the same God but approach their worship from different angles. For example, consider the way in which each group customarily portrays Jesus. Catholics have traditionally focused on the realism of his death, with grotesque images of him still hanging on the cross and pictures of his bloody sacrifice. Evangelicals traditionally focus on the meeker side of Jesus, displaying crosses with Christ removed and pictures of a clean, Caucasian Jesus tending his flock or having children sit upon his lap. Gibson, who in many ways is a pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic, uses strong graphic images to tell of Jesus’ death in The Passion. Traditionally such violent images in cinema made Evangelicals wary of showing support. Romanowski observes in Eyes Wide Open: “The Passion has shown that Christian audiences may not mind sitting though a violent, bloody movie if there is a spiritual message of inspiration.” The violent spiritual message that The Passion told resonated with Evangelicals as a message that needed to be heard and believed by all and to Gibson, Hollywood film seemed just the way to give validity to the message that Christians have struggled to promote for the last 1500 years.

A Never-Ending War

It is important to understand the long, tumultuous historical struggle between the church culture and secular culture. For the sake of space, a brief survey will suffice. In the pre-modern period, the church was both popular culture and religious culture. This means that all art, music, literature, science, education, and religious truth proceeded from the church. There was no dichotomy of secular culture vs. religious culture; they were one and the same. Reformers such as Martin Luther and John Calvin were the first to break away from the universal church of Catholicism and begin their own individual Churches, placing the bible in the hands of the individual and preaching a pious, personal faith in God. This laid the groundwork for the Modern period, which was distinctly individualistic and rationalistic. Popular culture was severed from Church culture, and the two have been vying for the eyes and ears of popular culture ever since. Although this shift took place in all types of popular art, Terry Lindvall argues that none were as controversial as theater (for the modern period) and it’s post-modern successor, film.
Terry Lindvall, in his book Sanctuary Cinema, explains the roots of the troubled relations between Christian faith and theater, describing them as having foundations all the way back in the first century with Greek and Roman forms of drama. Theater was seen as a house of idolatry and immorality. Its actors were believed to be creatures of the Devil who led viewers to partake in needless immorality. In this way, the early Church secluded itself from the theater and its actors, sending them to the fringes of the religious community. In so doing, they relinquished the eyes and ears of popular culture to the secular. Their rejection led them to a critical discourse that functioned on a moral level, but which never engaged the art outside of a moral critique. A reformation of the theater did not occur until around the twelfth century led by Benedictine abbess Hildegaard von Bingen. Her convent of nuns began to use dramas as liturgical plays. These plays sought to teach theology and morality to illiterate people. Bingen’s use of drama began an ensuing Church drama era (1350 to 1575) where the church took control of both religious and vernacular plays that taught biblical themes and stories. The Protestant Reformation in the 1600’s led to a Puritan parliament, which made the decision to prohibit all stage plays. In a way similar to the one thousand years previous, the Church forfeited the eyes and ears of popular culture back to the secular once again.

Post-Modern America: Same Battle Different Media

The culture wars of past generations were founded on different media, but the same battles rage on in our post-modern, American context. It has been said that film is the new religion. In 2003, $9.3 billion was spent in the United States in box-office sales. The movie theater, in many ways, functions much like the cathedral of the Middle Ages. Johnston points out that the cinema and the church both offer life-orienting images, answering questions like, “who are you, where do you come from, and what should you do.” Both the Church and film seek to communicate their values to the culture at large. The ancient pubic speaker Cicero defined three categories that are vital for all communication: instructing, delighting, and persuading. We will use these three categories to compare how Hollywood film has traditionally communicated their values while ignoring the values of Evangelical Christians.
Hollywood is characterized by a melodramatic style of storytelling. Melodrama could be defined as an exploitation of extremes. It features extreme emotionalism, expression, situations, and actions. Melodrama then takes these extremes and plots them against each other, pleasing audiences by catering to their desires. We see this dynamic in common themes like good winning over evil, the hero getting the girl (usually in the sack), the individual saving the world, or possibly all three at once! Hollywood’s use of the melodrama instructs, delights, and persuades its audience toward its values. Hollywood instructs its audiences in immorality, delights its audiences by affirming culture, and persuades its audiences to a relativistic worldview. Romanowski examines Hollywood’s use of both sex and violence and the ways in which it instructs them in an unrealistic way of thinking. For example, real sex is never the same as Hollywood sex. Similarly, violence never solves the problem as it does in Hollywood films. So why then does Hollywood instruct towards immorality? I believe it does so to delight the audience in confirming what popular culture says feels good. Multi-orgasmic sex and revengeful violence at first glance promises to feel good, but what Hollywood melodrama does not often consider are the consequences of these hedonistic actions. Finally, because the Hollywood melodrama instructs and delights in a way that confirms culture it must persuade toward a relativistic worldview in which the individual is most important. Hollywood films preach that, “The individual is the final authority for right living and appropriate worship.” Evangelical Christians today, like their historical predecessors, feared that if their members saw and heard this worldview communicated well they might be persuaded to a life of immorality. Consequently, they were told to abstain from such films for the sake of their souls.
The Hollywood melodrama communicates the antithesis of Evangelical Christian values, which is essentially this: instructing in morality, delighting in redemptive narrative, and persuading individuals to personal relationship with Jesus Christ (salvation). Out of fear for their souls and their values, Evangelicals adopt a discourse of criticizing, blaming, and rejecting films that do not share their own values. A Christianity Today author said it this way, “Christians are called to be countercultural, a force for moral change in a sinful world. But if we surrender that role, we should be forewarned: If we stop attempting to change culture, the culture will already have changed us.” This quote is helpful in explaining the discontentment that Evangelicals feel about what they believe to be the disintegration of morality and biblical values. It also indicates that they see their role as cultural crusaders who are called to overtake popular culture with their message of salvation, morality, and piousness.
It was into these popular, secular, and evangelical cultural contexts that The Passion of the Christ was introduced. Evangelicals saw the film as, “The best evangelism opportunity in 2000 years,” selling out theaters to take full advantage of the opportunity to promote their values to a secularly owned popular culture. The Passion functioned as the battle horn upon which Evangelicals rallied for the eyes and ears of the popular culture while the secular attempted to hold their ground.

Battle Ground Passion

Entertainment weekly named The Passion of the Christ the most controversial film of all time. Steven J. Nicolas observes in his book, Jesus, Made in America, “the ruckus was not being raised by the religious right or the stalwarts of evangelicalism. Instead, the religious conservatives were buying tickets by the gross and renting out whole theaters for evangelistic outreaches.” For Evangelicals, Gibson’s film was a way to communicate and give legitimacy to their values, which had largely been ignored by popular Hollywood culture. Again, these values are to instruct in morality, delight in redemptive narrative, and persuade unto salvation—and that that is precisely what they believed The Passion could do.
Evangelicals seized this opportunity to expose a large secular audience to the story that is foundational to evangelical’s faith and values. Evangelicals rely on an experience with Christ in order to produce life-transformation, and they saw this film as way to introduce their belief in morality to a society that had abandon it. They believe that the emotional experience of the cross demands a changed life that is lived out by a moral dedication to Christ. Even the songs they sing express this moral dedication—one song that describes the death of Christ says, “Love so amazing, so divine, demands my soul, my life, my all.” Relevant magazine, a trendy evangelical periodical, published a story of one person’s reflection on The Passion, telling how Gibson’s film moved him emotionally to brokenness as he fully comprehended what it meant for Christ to die for his sins. Evangelicals jumped on the consumer bandwagon in order to try to bring this experience to as many people as possible. In the spirit of evangelism, followers were encouraged to buy passion T-shirts, coffee mugs, tote bags, and ball caps in order to give them to their non-Christian friends in hopes that they might experience The Passion. Even workbooks and journals were produced to help Evangelical Christians discuss the film’s significance as an evangelistic tool. They believe that once one truly experiences what Christ did on the cross, they will be fully persuaded to pious morality.
Evangelical Christians generally delight in the redemptive narrative told in the Gospels. For them, this story is a reason to celebrate because it highlights their new life—completely different from the old one they used to live. Thus, Evangelicals supported the redemptive narrative retold in The Passion’s story in order to stand up for their belief in Christ as the redeemer of the world. The evangelical viewer delights in the story of Christ, celebrating the fact that he himself has been redeemed by the events in the story being told. One reviewer of the film said, “The rest of us, however, should see The Passion every year for the rest of our lives—lest we take it for granted, lest we forget.” This is the value that Evangelicals place on the redemptive power of the Gospel story. In Gibson’s film Evangelicals saw the Gospel’s redemptive narrative portrayed in a way that they hoped could redeem popular culture itself.
Using the Gospel’s redemptive narrative portrayed though the media of film, Evangelicals sought to persuade popular culture toward salvation. For Evangelicals, salvation consists in being fully convinced that the story portrayed though the Gospels is true and thus accepting Christ as one’s personal savior. The evidence of salvation is portrayed by the above values—a life of morality and delight in the redemption brought by Christ death.
Francis Schaffer, in his essay Art and the Bible, argues that all art forms serve to strengthen the worldview in which they were created, no matter what the worldview is or whether it is true or false. This is the second thing that fueled Evangelicals to promote Gibson’s film as their own. They believed that it could not only promote their values to the popular culture, but it could also give legitimacy to these values that popular culture had largely devalued. Evangelicals, up to this point, had been known for producing shoddy visual art such as The Left Behind series films. Their films were usually low budget biblical stories, which came through in poor acting, cinematography, and style. Overall, they combined to produce pitiful art that reflected poorly on their worldview. In the realm of film, they had provided no aesthetically acceptable alternatives to the works that they had so violently critiqued, and Gibson’s film gave their group a voice to promote and legitimize their values. James Dobson, a leader and voice for the Evangelical movement said it this way, “If ‘Hollywood’ producers want to make movies about Jesus, even if they stay true (as Gibson has) to the biblical ‘script,’ we should do everything we can to encourage them. What difference does it make if their past lives are morally imperfect or their doctrinal perspectives don’t completely match our own? The Word of God retains its power in spite of human motives and agendas.” Evangelicals showed that they agreed with Dobson as they stormed the theaters sending a loud message to Hollywood that said, “We will not leave popular culture to pagan values. Here are our values; we’re willing to fight for them.”
Hollywood was not without a response. They spoke up with hopes of censoring Gibson’s film by claiming the film portrayed an anti-Semitic tone. The Anti-Defamation League—the world’s most famous anti-Semitic watchdog—procured an early draft of the script and complained that The Passion would, “portray Jews as bloodthirsty, sadistic, and money-hungry enemies of Jesus.” The controversy only heated the already strained ties between the Jewish and Evangelical communities. The return-fire served to further impassion Evangelicals to push Gibson’s film toward epic status. Relevant Magazine published an article which argued that the film comes from the Gospels and its writers were originally Jewish. Gibson responded personally by explaining that the he did not intend to portray the Jewish people as those responsible for Christ’s death, but that it was all of our sins that demanded Christ’s sacrifice. Both of these responses appealed to Evangelicals’ understanding of personal responsibility for Christ’s death, and as such, they saw these claims as purely false, continuing to support Gibson as controversies arose.

Turn the Other Cheek

As we have seen the battle for popular culture has raged for nearly two thousand years as Christ followers have attempted to interact with both Christ and Culture. This struggle is embodied in the question of how to promote Christianity, and yet still live in and amongst an evil culture? The natural reaction, as we have seen above, has been to fight against culture in order to promote better values as Evangelicals did with Gibson’s film. Their mentality has traditionally been ‘give them what they deserve’. But, the Christ figure that Evangelicals so passionately fight for offers a different alternative, he says, "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth. But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.” This is a wildly different paradigm than the one that Evangelicals have employed in their interactions with seculars. In this paradigm Christ essentially says to his followers, don’t play their game but show a better way.
What then is a better way for Evangelicals to interact with popular culture? Christ explains it by saying, “They are not of the world, even as I am not of it. Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth. As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world” This commission to be in but not of the world is not unfamiliar to Evangelicals, but when their response to secular culture is reevaluated, it shows them to be more ‘of the world’ than they would like to believe. For example, Evangelicals have adopted—almost explicitly—a mentality of consumerism. Evangelicals are broadly known for their personalized worship experiences, book deals, Christian pop icons, and the Contemporary Christian Music industry. These are not necessarily bad things, of course, but they all thrive from the American culture’s ideals of consumerism, which places faith in money rather than Christ. What then does being ‘in the world’ but not ‘of it’ look like?
This delicate balance requires a “both and” mentality in order to survive. By this, I mean that Evangelicals must do two things: they must be ‘in the world’ by being cultural leaders alongside both Christians and non-Christians. And they must refrain from being ‘of the world’ by developing a critical eye which leads to an embattled orientation toward culture. One without the other will always fall short of Christ’s intention for Christian culture. Christians must build houses and families, be doctors and nurses, musicians and filmmakers, artists and sculptors, and do any of the infinite other things that are essential to being ‘in the world’. When this happens, it makes room for multiple voices and perspectives, allowing open lines of communication between differing worldviews rather than enflaming warring discourse against each other. Romanowski asks his readers to try this perspective on for size, “Popular artworks can explore the heights and depths of human experience, illuminate our mundane lives, and get us to transfer artistic interpretations to the real world.” While being engaged in culture-making Evangelicals must also develop a critical eye. This is not for the purpose of judging, but for engaging. Evangelicals must make informed decisions about the art they choose to consume because some art is not beneficial. Developing a critical eye then allows Evangelicals to engage the culture on a deeper level than a melodramatic ‘good or bad’, ‘right or wrong’, ‘support or reject’ level. When Evangelicals stop fighting for control and rather turn the other cheek to show a better way, their values will be displayed for all to see in a greater way than even The Passion of the Christ can portray. For the church, it is this dynamic that allows faith in Christ, rather than the works of humans, to be the transformer of popular culture.