One Sonic Society - One EP

Just downloaded this album tonight. What a surprising offering. One Sonic Society is the new project of Stu G and John Thatcher, formerly of Delirious? The EP contains five tracks, as listed below:

1. Our God Will Come
2. Forever Reign
3. The Greatness of Our God
4. Burn
5. Meet With Me

I highly recommend this EP. This is the kind of stuff that translates SO well into a community environment. This is not an album of three minute pop songs. These are clearly and unapologetically worship songs. The production is a little safe, the songwriting perhaps a bit formulaic. But just a little; just a bit. In fact, this balance might be what makes the EP so great.

Let me say this: I spend hours listening through album after album of "christian music" and "live worship" looking for good songs, and I'm lucky to find one or two per album (if ANY!) that work for me. Call me picky, but lyrics and melody are important.

On this EP, I immediately hear four of the five songs working in public worship. Maybe even five out of five. Thematically, the lyrics are all the way there for me. Easy to sing, as if they were my own words. And from there, I can hear what I would do to make the music heavier and more powerful, what I would do to stretch the songs out and fill them in. There is a framework here that I can jump off from. Add a little here; take away a little there. This is what I do as a worshiper, and as a facilitator. Start with a foundation, seek my own voice of worship through it, and help others to find theirs.

One Sonic Society has succeeded in creating a collection of songs that are unobtrusive and unassuming. The songs are not overly written. The songs are not focused on themselves. They are purely worship focused, and are thereby a platform for worshipers. I found this refreshing and unexpected. Here are some lyrics from "Meet With Me" that bear this sentiment:


I'm not here to pretend, I'm not here just to sing
But I'm asking You please, meet with me.
I have felt You before, and I'm certain there's more
So I'm asking You please, meet with me...

Strip it away, strip it all away, 'til I am left with You
Break it away, break it all away, all I want is You


Here's a video from the band, about the band:

1962 Blonde Fender Bassman

OK, here's a few pics for those of you who are interested. Again, cosmetically she's not the prettiest, but the tone is all I could ask for.

Here's a close up of the head. Obviously a "brownface". Notice the Presence knob to the far right and the Pre-CBS company name "Fender Elect. Inst. Co."


And here's the tube chart. The "LA" stamp in the upper right corner means the amp was manufactured in January of 1962.

Jesus Manifesto

Just came in the mail this week. Finished two chapters so far...

If you are not already familiar with the book, it is by Len Sweet and Frank Viola. It just came out this month, but was actually preceded by a wordpress blog post entitled "A Jesus Manifesto." In its original form it was much shorter, and the old post has now been replaced by a short page of information about the new and now larger "Jesus Manifesto" book.

I wrote a response to the original manifesto almost a year ago, which you can read "here." In it, I criticized the authors for failing to give practical examples of how we as Christians are to give Christ the ultimate supremacy in our lives (although I very much appreciate them both and their work on a variety of topics). I am looking forward to finishing the new book and seeing if it improves on the original version.

And again, I am very much on board with the idea here. In my opinion, Len and Frank are absolutely right about our need to bring Jesus back to the forefront of our faith. I just hope that this time they will not shy away from telling us how we can do it.

Singability and Guitar Solos

What is this idea of "singability" in worship music? I've heard so many different points of view on this that I thought I would share my thoughts on the issue.

As far as music style, it is marginally true that some songs are easier to sing than others. The most significant variable that affects singability is familiarity. Hymns are some of the most difficult songs to sing when one is unfamiliar with them, due to the lyrical syncopation and accents that often run counter to normative diction (for example, the word "fortress" in "A Mighty Fortress is Our God" is sung in three syllables, requiring a sort of double tonguing of the first "r", not easily done unless you are familiar with the song, and one of hundreds of like examples).

And the debate on singability runs to and fro. Many who prefer hymns argue that choruses are "too simple and repetitive". And while modern/postmodern worship music is increasingly embracing hymnody and returning to values of complexity, intricacy, and depth in worship music, those who prefer simpler choruses argue for singability. And while there are good points to be made on all sides, in the end it truly boils down to taste and familiarity and circular logic. "I like what I know and can sing and worship to easily", "I can sing and worship easily to what I like and know", etc.

The idea that some songs are more worshipful or more conducive to worship than others is a truly flawed proposition. Worshipfulness is in the heart of the worshiper. Everything on the exterior is taste and familiarity. Hymns are not better or worse than Hillsongs in any spiritual way, nor are Hillsongs better or worse than Vineyard or SixSteps in any spiritual way. The only way they are better or worse than each other is in the way that they meet people's expectations and tastes, or put another way, in the particular language that they speak to particular people. You can read my post called "Music as Language" to learn more of my opinions on this idea.

However, I do feel that some songs, and especially certain lyrical styles, are better suited for leading worship. I believe that ALL music is worship. But not all music is best suited to lead others in worship. For example, I could write a song with lyrics about being addicted to drugs, and how I trust in God for deliverance... and when I sing that song, I would definitely be worshiping God with it. But it might not be the best song for me to use to lead others in worship. Certainly it could lead others to worship, and it would perhaps be awesome and powerful for those who could connect with it somehow and worship through it. But it would take a special connection that not everyone would have. So I see a slight difference between music that is designed and written for personal worship versus music that is designed and written to lead others in worship.

At the same time, during a church gathering there is definitely room for all kinds of music and worship styles. I have experienced great connections with God in personal worship through experiencing the talents and personal worship of others, even if I am not participating in it, but only watching it. When I hear an awesome guitar solo in church, it moves me to worship God all the more because of the amazing talents and gifts of creativity that He gives to us, and for the way that others use those gifts to worship Him. I don't have to participate in a guitar solo to be led in worship by one! But it is my personal choice to worship God for what He does. Some people might get distracted by a guitar solo, or be tempted to give praise to the soloist instead of the Creator who gave the soloist the talent. Some might make judgments about the soloist, assuming that he or she is looking for praise. Instead, I worship God for the talent He has given the soloist, and in my own way I join with the soloist in worshiping God. My assumption is that he or she wants to give God glory by soloing. That is AWESOME to me.

(Originally posted in 2005)

1962 Blonde Fender Bassman

OK, time for some more guitar gear stuff.

I just picked up an old Fender piggyback Bassman for $200. It was broken when I bought it, so I had it looked at by Bryan Sours at Soursound here in Portland. It ended up needing to be recapped and the speakers replaced, which weren't original anyway. Funny thing about it... someone had spray painted the head and cabinet black, which it turns out was not an uncommon practice after Fender changed their amps to black in 1964. People wanted newer looking amps! But the original blonde tolex was there underneath the paint and came out fairly clean after using hefty amounts of graffiti remover. It still looks old, but the discoloration and cigarette burns give it a distressed vintage vibe that you usually have to pay extra for. I'll post some pics when I get around to taking some.

I had Bryan order a pair of Weber Vintage Series Ceramics (12F150-A) to install in the 2x12 cabinet, and they sound perfect. The great thing about the amp is that other than the caps, power tubes, bias adjustment, grounded AC, and speakers, the head and cabinet are 100% original from 1962, choke, transformers, everything. It's a 1962 Blonde Fender Bassman, brownface (pre-blackface), with the original 6G6-A circuit. And boy does it sound good. All told I am in to the amp for less than $700, which is what the heads alone can sell for on eBay. Mine's not in the greatest cosmetic shape. But the tone is there!

This is my first true Fender tube amp. I got my first tube amp back in 1998, a used Laney 50w 1x12 combo. Since then I have owned a Marshall JTM310, Marshall TSL602, Mesa/Boogie Road King, Budda Superdrive 18, and a TopHat King Royale. I have been playing through the TopHat for a few years now, which is basically a Vox AC30 circuit in channel one and AC30TB circuit in channel two, modified but very similar. And I have really liked it. It cleans up pretty well when I roll back my guitars volume, but gets nice and crunchy when I open it up. And it definitely has a Vox vibe that is different from Marshall and Mesa. People like to call it "chimey", which isn't exactly how I would describe it, but it's close. It's hand built, point to point wired, and the craftsmanship is off the scale. It's a great amp. But perhaps my ears are tiring of the Vox thing, because this Bassman is really a much better sounding amp to me.

Until now I never really liked the sound I heard from Fender amps. I had a band mate once who played a HotRod Deluxe. I didn't care much for it, but it was a nice contrast to my Marshall tone at the time. And I've heard plenty of Twins and always thought they were shrill. But this Bassman is something different. It's warm, rich, and full. Yes, the clean top end can saw your head off if you're not careful. That's what Fender's do. But the 2x12 closed back cab has plenty of bass response. And I keep the treble knob right at about 12 o'clock, which is just right. Plus the old Bassman's have a presence knob, not a bright switch like later Fender circuits. So it's not an on/off thing, too bright versus not bright enough... I can dial in just the right amount of shimmer without getting too harsh.

I would say that the Bassman is not quite as dynamic as the King Royale. It doesn't crunch quite as hard, and certainly doesn't come close to the modern high-gain my Marshall's have. But it has a wonderful clean tone that beats them all! With the guitar volume rolled back just a bit it sounds like warm glass. And cranked up it does have a nice gritty bluesy classic rock tone. So there is quite a bit of range. Just not all the way there. It's a unique thing I guess. It does what it's supposed to do. None of my other amps sound as good clean or slightly pushed. Now I know why so many people swear by Fender's for clean and Marshall's for gain. Maybe a dual amp setup is in my future??

I am planning to eventually post some gear review videos, maybe do a shoot-out between a couple of my amps. Play a variety of guitars through them. Listen to the different tones they create. Maybe do a Fender vs. Marshall "clash of the titans" vid? I've been thinking for a long time that it might be fun... and educational at the same time! I figure I'll learn as much about my amps by doing it as anyone will by watching it. Maybe I'll have some time this summer...

Community Missions

Here is my message from last Sunday, about Community Missions. Ministry to the poor is not an option, it is an obligation. It is not a calling, it is a command...

Orthodoxy vs Orthopraxy

Here's a thought. If I were forced to choose between orthodoxy and orthopraxy, I think I might choose on this basis:

I would rather act like Jesus and know nothing of Him, than know of Jesus and act nothing like Him.

I'm not going to delve too deeply into this right now. But I wonder what God would prefer? Is what we know about Jesus more important to God than how we live our lives? There are a milieu of Bible verses going through my head right now. I suppose it sort of comes down to what one believes about the afterlife. If you believe the goal of life is to go to heaven when you die, then maybe knowing Jesus but acting terribly is ok, because you are forgiven and saved and going to heaven and no one is perfect anyway? But if you believe the goal of life is to participate in growing God's kingdom on earth, awaiting Christ's return when we will all be perfected, then maybe how you act today matters a bit more?

I know, I know. "They're BOTH important" you will say. OK. Agreed. But which is MORE important?

Liberation Theology

What do you think? Is there some truth to what he is saying? With whom do you identify? The powerful or the powerless? Through whose eyes do you read scriptures? Through whose eyes do you see the cross?

Maundy Thursday

Here is the message I gave last week on Maundy Thursday.

A New Kind of Christianity, Part 3

I just finished reading the first section of Book 2, The Church Question: What Do We Do About The Church. At this point I am entirely fed up with much of the criticism that Brian has received over this book.

For one, this idea that Brian is trying to minimize the writings of Paul in favor of the Gospels is just ridiculous. Earlier in the book Brian wrote a summary and commentary on the entire book of Romans, and now in the church section he has done a full summary and commentary on 1 Corinthians. It seems thus far like he has written more about Paul than about Jesus. And this is no criticism. He has done so with the highest respect and regard for Paul, strongly and repeatedly championing the causes for which Paul wrote.

Secondly, critics seem to have this idea that Brian is attempting to create a Christianity with no need for a savior. Nothing could be further from the truth. In the Church section, Brian asks:

"What one great danger do people need to be saved from, and more positively, what one great purpose do they need to be saved for? ...the church exists to form Christlike people, people of Christlike love. It exists to save them from the great danger of wasting their lives, becoming something less than and other than they were intended to be, gaining the world but losing their souls."

Taken out of context as I have it here, it might seem to the uninformed that Brian is suggesting some sort of health and wealth "your best life now" kind of church. But the entire Church section revolves around love, the sacrificial suffering kind of love that Jesus demonstrated, that Paul writes about in 1 Corinthians 13. As I already mentioned, Brian goes on to summarize and commentate the entire letter, giving us a vision for the purpose of the church through Paul's eyes, one where we stop bickering over petty things, over who knows what and who doesn't, where we stop acting like infants and put childish things behind us, where we live out lives of mature Christlike love that teach and inspire those around us to live and love the same. THAT is the purpose of the church.

And I could not agree more. In fact, our church adopted a new vision statement about a year or so ago: "Love God, Love People". That's it. It's that simple. And Brian has nailed it.

Next up, the highly anticipated "Sex Question". More of my thought to come.

Southern Baptist Theological Seminary Criticizes Brian McLaren

I just finished watching an hour long panel discussion on Brian McLaren's new book, A New Kind of Christianity. The moderator was R. Albert Mohler, Jr., and the panel was composed of Jim Hamilton, Bruce Ware, Stephen Wellum, and Gregory Wills. I found much of their criticism of the book to be pretty high level, and I would recommend you watch it for yourself. I must say that I found myself disagreeing with the panel on their characterizations of certain sections of the book. Many times it seemed like they either did not understand what Brian was trying to say, or intentionally took some ideas to their logical extreme in order to rebut them. At the same time, I did find myself agreeing with certain of their points, but not many.

What perhaps spoke to me the most from the discussion was Bruce Ware's admission near the end that Brian is actually right about something. Here's what he said:

"I think we, conservative fundamentalist Christianity, bear some responsibility in promoting a kind of legalism and a tight rigid fundamentalism that is repulsive. He's (McLaren) right about that. And I mean, we have sinned in this regard I mean (for) so much of our history. I grew up in a baptist church that was legalistic, and my goodness, 95% of the youth group that I grew up with is not walking with the Lord. They just rebelled against that legalism, the hypocrisy that was there. Well there's a fair bit of that that is true, that a person like Brian McLaren, William Paul Young and The Shack, Donald Miller... I mean in a sense they are appealing to that same audience of a younger generation that is fed up with fundamentalism in its legalistic form. Honestly we bear some responsibility in the fact that we have not done well at promoting true Biblical Christianity. And boy, God help us."

Amen to that.

You can watch the video of the discussion in its entirety at this link:

http://tinyurl.com/yhdcx44

How Do I Love God?

...By loving people. I began this with a post and discussion about this idea. I gave a message to our church on it. Here it is:

Those People...

You know the ones. They're usually poorly dressed, with a backpack at their feet. The sign says "Will work for food", or "Homeless. Please Help". Maybe you see them on your way to work? Or while running errands? You pretend not to notice them. You avoid their glance. Yeah, those people.

Have you found yourself annoyed by them? How dare they stand there everyday and beg you for money. They're probably liars, scam artists, just out to make a quick buck. Or they're addicts and will just waste your money on drugs and alcohol. Whatever it is, you know there is no good reason why they don't have a job. They're obviously lazy. Let's see, what other assumptions can we use to make ourselves feel better about ignoring them.

My goodness, if you were to give some of your spare change to everyone that asked you, why that would add up to... uh, let's see here... 50 cents per day times the guy at 5th and main plus the kid downtown... carry the one... Well, TOO much, THAT'S for sure. And besides, you tithe to your church and give money every year to the homeless shelter. You're doing you're part, right?

So why can't you look them in the eyes? Why do you have to pretend to be on the phone? Why can't you roll down your window and say hello?

"Give generously to him and do so without a grudging heart; then because of this the LORD your God will bless you in all your work and in everything you put your hand to. There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land." Deuteronomy 15:10-11

This was originally posted in 2005.

A New Kind of Christianity: Part 2

Now at 35% read, I have just finished the question "Is God violent?" In it, Brian continues his idea that the Bible should not be read as a constitution, but as a library. He goes on to propose that we view the books of the Bible chronologically, and in so doing discover a progressing evolution of and improvement in our understanding of God.

In the Old Testament, we see a violent genocidal God, who destroys all life on the planet with a flood and who sends the Israelites to destroy neighboring people groups. Brian advances the argument that the OT books were written by a people whose understanding of God was primitive, and so their writings reflect this primitive understanding (again, not a new idea). And as we move further along in the library time line, we see humanity's understanding of God improving. By the time we get to Jesus in the Gospels, much of the old understanding of God is turned on its head (love your enemies instead of hating them, etc.). Brian suggests that this is not God changing, but our knowledge of him changing, his revelation of himself to us expanding.

In the book, Brian plots a line through a scatter diagram that shows a trajectory of our understanding of God, beginning in the early OT books and moving forward through the NT. The line travels upward, into higher and higher understanding. Then Brian adds points to the diagram to represent OT prophecy about the future, placing them higher still on the trajectory line. Finally, he places Jesus at the top of the chart, as the point through which the line finally travels at its highest position. In doing this, he attempts to give Jesus the highest place, to make Jesus, and understanding Jesus, the bearing marker which should guide our quest for a new kind of Christianity.

But I have a problem with this.

First, what Jesus are we talking about here? For this to work, the Jesus at the top of the trajectory has to be the actual Jesus. It can't be the Jesus that was revealed to us in the Gospels. That Jesus was made known to us through primitive peoples nearly two thousand years ago. Just as the God revealed in the OT was an incomplete and somewhat inaccurate picture, to be improved upon in later writings (according to the theory here), so too must the Jesus of the Gospels be somewhat incomplete and inaccurate. I don't understand the basis for Brian's assumption that the Gospels of 2000 years ago are somehow the complete revelation of Jesus. Such an assumption, while I tend to agree with it, does seem to fly in the face of the rest of his proposition.

So where do we turn to find newer and more accurate revelations of the true Jesus? People have proposed a lot of options for this. Islam claims to be a cleansing or repairing of the corrupted understanding of God we find in the scriptures. It came roughly 600 years after the Gospels were written. Could Islam be an evolved and improved understanding of God? Mormonism also makes the claim of a Latter Day revelation of Jesus. Are we to accept these as possibilities? If not, to what or whom do we then turn to find the Jesus that Brian places at the top of his trajectory? According to Brian, we cannot turn to the NT letters for this, as he makes clear that the letters should be seen as pointing back to the Jesus of the Gospels. To what then? To Jesus himself?? How???

The only way this makes sense to me is if the Jesus at the top of the trajectory line is the real Jesus, not the picture of Jesus painted in the Gospels. If God is revealing this Jesus to us even now, as Brian says, "even as we read these words", how do we determine the validity of these personal experiences? Brian seems to claim that we do this by looking backward along the trajectory line and see if it follows the correct course. Sounds good. But I think Islam and Mormonism then have a legitimate claim to being accurate revelations of God. Perhaps they are? Is this what Brian is saying? So far he has not made that explicit yet.

But there are a couple upcoming sections that may further address these issues, specifically, "Who is Jesus and why is he important?" and "How should followers of Jesus relate to people of other religions?" More good reading ahead!

Ken Bussell
Minister of Music & Adult Ministry
Our Place Christian Church
Sent via BlackBerry

A New Kind of Christianity

According to the new Kindle App for Blackberry, I have now read the first 20% of this book. I considered waiting until I finished before posting my thoughts, but then decided I couldn't wait.

I love this book so far. I'm going to try not to gush, but it will be difficult. Although I am only about a fifth of the way through, I find the book is meeting me exactly where I am. The ideas have been written about before. Tony Jones and Doug Pagitt have broken this ground with The New Christians and A Christianity Worth Believing, as have many others. A New Kind of Christianity comes across to me as sort of a "Part III", a conclusion to the trilogy. But I don't mean a conclusion in the same sense as a closing. This book is more like a distillation.

In the book, Brian asks us to consider ten questions. And this is the essence of what I mean when I say distillation. For many years, people have struggled to explain and understand what it means to be an emergent christian, what it means to be in the emergent dialogue, and it has caused a lot of confusion. People want definitions, they want doctrine, they want black and white answers to essential propositions... What Brian has succeeded in doing, at least for me, is to summarize what it is that I'm so uncomfortable with. These are the questions. This is what I am asking, what I am wondering. These are the conversations I am seeking. These are the ten things:

1. What is the overarching story line of the Bible?
2. How should the Bible be understood?
3. Is God violent?
4. Who is Jesus and why is he important?
5. What is the Gospel?
6. What do we do about the church?
7. Can we find a way to address human sexuality without fighting about it?
8. Can we find a better way of viewing the future?
9. How should followers of Jesus relate to people of other religions?
10. How can we translate our quest into action?

Brian points out early on that he is not proposing "answers" to these questions, but rather "responses" that are designed to encourage further discussion. In describing his approach, he uses the metaphor of a tennis match. His responses are not meant to be smash serves, with lots of topspin, intended to win a point and create a loser... but rather more like soft lobs, easy to return, intended to keep the game going.

And as I am only just getting started with the book, I have yet to really delve into his responses and understand them. I have finished the first two questions, and I found myself saying "yes!" over and over again. This is what I have been thinking, what I have been blogging, what I have been questioning and studying in my own personal journey of faith and belief.

I especially related to his responses in question two... "How should the Bible be understood?" He proposes that much of history has seen the Bible understood and used like a constitution, with theologians and church leaders playing the role of attorneys, quoting the Bible to create legal precedents. But Brian suggests that maybe the Bible ought to be seen more like a community library, a collection of books by a variety of authors, all with unique experiences and points of view. Perhaps the books of the Bible were not meant to be read together as a whole, like a constitution, but read individually, browsed through and gleaned from, like a library?

An interesting thing about this book is Brian's repeated use of the word "we". As someone who self identifies as emergent, I found myself reading the book as if Brian were talking to me, or talking to "us". And I found that satisfying. I was happy to hear him speaking to me and at times for me. But yesterday I was reading a few sections of the book aloud to someone else, and I found myself feeling like the person I was reading to was not part of the "we". I felt like when the book said "we", when I read the word "we", that I was talking about "us" to someone who is "them". That was a strange experience. "We" is an interesting word choice here. Brian is talking to two groups at the same time. He's talking to us, and he's talking for us to them. And depending on which group you are in, you will undoubtedly hear his words differently.

I will likely post more of my thoughts as I get deeper into the book. I have not been this excited about a book since Surprised By Hope. It surely has created a lot of controversy recently (canary fliers!). I would encourage everyone to read it for themselves.

Visible Grace Benefit Concert

Go to www.visiblegrace.org for info and tickets!

Divorce, Remarriage, Adultery, and Homosexuality

Many Christians hold that homosexual behavior is sinful and require that LGBT persons be repentant of such behavior in order to be accepted or remain in Christian fellowship. An LGBT person who is unrepentant, who continues in homosexual behavior, is considered to be continuing in sin and is liable to church discipline and/or exclusion from fellowship. These beliefs come directly from scripture. For many Christians, if the Bible says something is sin, then it is sin. Period.

But I would like to point out the hypocrisy of this as it pertains to divorce and remarriage. The dominant view of divorce among Christians today is that it is not preferable, but that it is allowed in certain circumstances, such as infidelity and abandonment by an unbeliever. But what is not discussed as often is the issue of remarriage. Jesus teaches about this in Matthew 5:32 -

"But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery."

And again in Matthew 19:9 -

"I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

And Mark 10:11-12 -

He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."

And Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, 15 -

"To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife... But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace."

And for Old Testament exclamation, Malachi 2:16a -

"I hate divorce," says the LORD God of Israel...

While it can be conceded that marital unfaithfulness and abandonment by an unbeliever are legitimate grounds for divorce, scripture does not allow divorce for any other reason. Therefore, according to the Bible, anyone who divorces for any reason other than infidelity or abandonment by an unbeliever and then later remarries is an adulterer.

So is this adultery sinful? Most Christians do not demand that remarried divorcees repent of their adultery and end their sinful and immoral behavior. Most do not cry out through political punditry that remarried divorcees are a threat to the institution of marriage and the family values of our nation. Christian politicians are not lobbying for legislation or constitutional amendments against divorce and remarriage. Isn't divorce a significantly more direct and damaging threat to marriage than homosexuality? Isn't God's Old Testament hate of divorce equivalent to His calling homosexuality an abomination? Adultery and homosexuality seem to be equivalent in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 -

"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

So why do Christians treat the two issues so differently? If there is a hermeneutic that allows for the acceptance of remarriage, why can't we also be accepting of homosexuality?

Pardon me for being cynical, but I think it is easy for Christian leaders to take a hard stance against homosexuality. Leaders cannot speak out so strongly against remarried divorcees because there are too many of them attending their churches. Half of all marriages in America end in divorce, and the number one cause of those divorces is financial stress. To take a solidly conservative Biblical stand against all those who have remarried after such a divorce would clear the pews in a hurry!

But do Christians truly avoid teaching these verses because it would be unpopular? Or is it that we don't believe them? Do we just decide for ourselves what we think is right and trust that God agrees with us, regardless of what the Bible says? Could our interpretation of these passages regarding divorce and adultery really be that dependent on our own ideas of morality?

So I ask again, what is the hermeneutic that allows Christians to accept the adultery inherent in most remarriages? And if such a hermeneutic exists, why is it not applied to other sexual sins, such as homosexuality? And if it does not exist, why do Christians accept unrepentant remarried persons into fellowship but not unrepentant homosexuals?

Review: "Church Music", David Crowder*Band

I just finished listening to Church Music, the new David Crowder album. I think it is their best album to date.

According to Wikipedia:

The album runs continuously with no gaps between tracks, essentially creating a 73 minute song. To do this the band sequenced the tracks before anything had been recorded so keys and tempos could be finalized. According to David Crowder, ""We programmed the album first, forcing ourselves to write from the track up, and then, after the song emerged, we dismantled it, replacing much of the programming with live instrumentation but leaving the fundamentals that the song emerged from intact."

Listening to the album from beginning to end, you get the sense that the writing process created fundamental changes in the band's approach to style and genre. While still rooted firmly in sequencing and sampling, as has become DC*B's bread and butter, much of the acoustic flavor of their earlier work has been replaced by dark and dense guitar and synth soundscapes. The album's power is magnified by the band's attention to intensity and dynamic range. Songs often soar to maximum heights just before the instrumentation drops away to reveal previously unnoticed underlying tracks. The album pulses with a rising and falling from track to track, but all the while continuing to build from beginning to end.

For me, the record climaxes at track 16 with (dare I say it) the heaviest song on the album, "God Almighty, None Compares", a nearly seven minute minor key clinic of time changes, heavy electric guitar hooks, and a wailing Hammet-esque wah solo on the outro. This is not your typical David Crowder*Band album, if there ever has been such a thing. Gosh there's even a funk number on the album, "Church Music - Dance [!]". The funk guitar work is great, the 70s disco string hits don't feel out of place, the distorted synth bass figure keeps it current...

Another standout track for me is "How He Loves". The crowded coffee shop background noise cements a sense of community and shared experience that fits perfectly with the lyrics.

"And we are His portion and He is our prize, Drawn to redemption by the grace in His eyes, If his grace is an ocean, we’re all sinking. And heaven meets earth like an unforeseen kiss, And my heart turns violently inside of my chest, I don’t have time to maintain these regrets, When I think about, the way He loves us, Oh how He loves us, Oh how He loves..."

When so many CCM lyrics sound like middle school love poems, Crowder's lyrics rise above, reaching artistic and theological heights seldom heard. And I'm happy to say that the music on this album is more than an equal match for the lyrics. The license and creative freedom enjoyed by DC*B to pursue their muse is to be admired. Church Music is quite an achievement in this sense. From the original tracking and writing process down to the final outcome, the album is risky, and it succeeds.

One nitpick: I am not the greatest fan of the overcompressed brick wall limiting that has become almost standard practice in the music industry. The loudness wars have had a drastic effect on the dynamic quality of modern recordings over the last several years, and unfortunately this album goes too far with it at times. Although Church Music is far the worst perpetrator of recent date (the effect is not found throughout the album, and at times I found it to be musically pleasing, creating intensity and power in some key passages), still I found my ears tiring from the extreme compression during certain sustained sections.

Track listing

1. "Phos Hilaron [Hail Gladdening Light]" - 2:06
2. "Alleluia, Sing" - 4:30
3. "The Nearness" - 3:55
4. "Shadows" - 3:26
5. "Eastern Hymn" - 6:26
6. "SMS [Shine]" - 3:18
7. "The Veil" - 4:19
8. "We Are Loved" - 4:17
9. "All Around Me" (Flyleaf cover) - 4:37
10. "How He Loves" (John Mark McMillan cover) - 5:19
11. "Can I Lie" - 3:24
12. "Birmingham [We Are Safe]" - 3:38
13. "Church Music - Dance [!]" - 3:52
14. "What A Miracle" - 3:41
15. "Oh, Happiness" - 3:17
16. "God Almighty, None Compares" - 6:51
17. "In The End [O Resplendent Light!]" - 6:53

Homespun Concert Series, July 18th

You should check out this upcoming concert on July 18th.

The Cobalt Season is Ryan and Holly Sharp, who are the designers of Shane Claiborne's last book "Jesus For President" and toured in support of it, as well as Brian McLaren's "Everything Must Change" tour. They're great people who have explored a lot of life and their music reflects the changes that many of us have lived into and the residual questions we are continuing to bump up against. You can find out more about them at thecobaltseason.com.

Molly Jenson is a great new artist who is pure pop/rock gold...her voice and stories are awesome. She's truly amazing. Check out the tracks from her new album on myspace at /mollyjenson.

Besides all this, the homebrewed beer and sangria are cheap and GOOD. And the whole event costs only $3. This is a brilliant way to spend an evening.

A Jesus Manifesto fails to answer "How?"

So after reading the new Jesus Manifesto by Len Sweet and Frank Viola, I find myself in agreement with almost all of what they propose. Yes, Jesus is alpha and omega, beginning and end, and Christianity has lost sight of the centrality of Jesus, all things that presume to replace Christ or supercede Christ are pretenders, etc. I get that. I agree with that.

And I really liked the part where they say that Christians don't follow a book, they follow a Person. I actually felt a shiver of excitement when I read that. Without degrading or belittling the Bible, they put it in its rightful place, the rightful place of all things, under Jesus.

Julie Clawson makes some very good points in her blog about justice, and I agree that this manifesto seems to belittle the role of justice, and of faith communities that see justice as central to their relationship with Christ. One of her points is that while the manifesto claims that Jesus cannot be separated from his teachings, it also seems to claim (somewhat falsely) that some christians are doing just that.

The point of the manifesto seems to be that christianity is in some ways failing to give Christ his proper place, that we as Christ followers are supplanting Christ with lesser things. And they specifically point to justice. But in making this point, the manifesto fails to give any advice on how to put Christ first, other than warning against putting other things first. And while this is a good and always timely warning, it lacks any positive exhortation. It does not tell us HOW.

How do followers of Christ make Jesus central? How do we make him Lord? One might argue that he is those things apart from us and what we think or do. But that is not the point of the manifesto. The point of the manifesto is that we must avoid putting other things over Christ. But I don't believe that Jesus magically becomes our Lord once all other lords have been set aside. He does not become central merely by filling a vacuum. There must be concrete ways that we MAKE him our Lord.

I believe that love, and more specifically a justice that flows from love, is the answer to this question of "How?" This is the action that makes Jesus our Lord. The greatest commandment is to love God, and the way to love God is to love others. That is why the second greatest commandment is "like" the first, because loving others is like loving God. Before Jesus died he gave us a "new" commandment: to love one another. And he says if we love him we will obey his commandments. In the parables of the Sheep and Goats and of the Good Samaritan Jesus drives home the key idea that love for others is what it means to love God. He even suggests that failing to give justice to the poor will lead to separation from God. Whatever we do, we do to him. Whatever we don't do, we don't do to him. This is perhaps the most important aspect of relationship, not what we think of others, but how we relate to them. What we think or believe about God is far less important than our relationship with him. And our relationship is dependent on how we treat him. And Jesus teaches that how we treat him is synonymous with how we treat others. The sermon on the mount is full of teaching on how we are to live with and love others. Paul teaches that love is even greater than our faith. James, in a different way, teaches the same thing, that faith without works is dead. And in all of these examples this idea of love and works is directly tied to poverty and justice for the poor. Over and over again it is taught. It is inescapable.

So it seems to me that any manifesto of Jesus MUST attempt to tell us how we are to make Christ central. And any answer to this question that leaves out justice is flawed. So not only does the Sweet/Viola manifesto fail to tell us the answer, it actually admonishes us to give less place to the answer.

But other than that it's great. :-)

Ken Bussell
blog.emergingworshiper.org
Sent via BlackBerry

Organizing Music Charts

One of the features I like most about having music files on my computer is the ability to sort them by their id3 tags. Using iTunes (or most any mp3 player), I can sort my music by genre, artist name, song title, album title, year, and many other categories. Everybody who listens to music in some sort of digital format takes this kind of powerful sorting and searching capability for granted.

But I want this same kind of tagging functionality for ALL of my digital files, especially Microsoft Office files like Word documents and Excel spreadsheets.

As a music pastor I create all of my own music charts in Microsoft Word. I transcribe the music myself, transpose it into a variety of keys, save the Word documents with file names like "Name of Song - Key.doc" and save them in a folder called "Charts". The problem is that Finder (or Explorer on a PC) is very limited with regard to sorting and searching. I can organize the files into folders, and give them long complicated file names with lots of information, and I can search within the contents of the files for keywords like "Love" or "Mission", but I would prefer a way to "tag" them like I do my mp3 files. I would love to be able to sort my Word docs by Artist, Genre, and more.

I would especially like a way to add custom tags. I would create a tag category called "Theme" that would support a list of keywords (comma separated?) like Easter, Christmas, Sacrifice, Mission, Kingdom, etc. Then I could tag each file with a variety of theme keywords whether that word is actually in the lyrics of the song or not. From a planning perspective, this would greatly facilitate my ability to select songs based on their themes without having to rely so much on my memory.

I guess there are probably many types of workaround ideas using the properties of the file to add keywords and such, or creating long file names and duplicating files across a variety of folders, but I think this would become an organizational nightmare. Does anyone know of an app that does this? I would really like a browser window that has all my tag categories as column headings (like iTunes) so I can just click a column heading and sort by that tag (like Theme or Genre). And a Boolean search function to find all the files that match set of criteria, like all songs with a tempo between 100 and 120, or all songs in the key of G with an alto lead.

I could imagine some sort of meta data appended to a file that might look like this:

[artist="matt]
[genre="rock"]
[theme="mission,love,incarnation,easter"]
[key="am"]
[tempo="85"]
[voice="baritone"]

Having this information embedded in a Word doc would make my planning time so much more efficient. I imagine the ability to add custom tags like this would be useful in a wide range of situations. It would be much more powerful than simple keywords. Is anyone aware of such an app?

The Complete Library of Christian Worship

I have been aware of these books for several years now, but I have just recently begun to tackle them in depth. They are a collection of essays edited by Robert E. Webber in seven volumes (eight separate books), which are as follow:

Vol. I: The Biblical Foundations of Christian Worship
Vol. II: Twenty Centuries of Christian Worship
Vol. III: The Renewal of Sunday Worship
Vol. IV: Music & the Arts in Worship (Book A and B)
Vol. V: The Services of the Christian Year
Vol. VI: The Sacred Actions of Worship
Vol. VII: The Ministries of Christian Worship

Volume I begins by outlining the Old and New Testament vocabulary regarding worship. This is of course a great way to begin, as it comprehensively covers the language used in the Bible to describe and prescribe worship. An important point gets made early on in comparing the wealth of Old Testament writing regarding worship to the relative absence of such writing in the New Testament. While the Old Testament is full of songs, poems, gatherings, rituals, feasts and festivals, the New Testament has comparatively little that matches the scope of the OT. This is perhaps a result of the context in which the NT was written, where there were few chances for Christians to carry on large-scale public worship gatherings. Instead, the New Testament writers used the worship vocabulary of the OT in their interpretation Christ.

For example, in the New Testament Christ is referred to as the Passover Lamb. In the OT this was not a sin offering, but was originally the meal that the Israelites ate to signify their deliverance from the Angel of Death. The blood of the passover lamb marked the people of God for their protection from the judgment that was coming upon Egypt. In the same way, we as Christians eat the body of Christ, our passover lamb, when we share in the Lord's Supper in communion. And it is His blood that marks us as His people and delivers us from death.

Volume I also notes that in the OT it was not a male lamb that was offered for sin, but usually a ram, bull, or goat. Jesus is never likened to these animals in the New Testament. He is always referred to as the Lamb. When John the Baptists calls Jesus "the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world", what must he have meant, if not as a sin offering? Jesus takes away sin "through his victory over sin, in the utter obedience of His death on the cross... He takes away sin not only by his offering of himself, but by his victory and dominion over evil as the 'great King' who delivers his covenant people from their enemies. He takes away sin through the power of his life, dwelling as God himself in the midst of his people, the new Jerusalem (Rev 21:1-8)."

I found this clarification refreshing. In fact there is an entire section of the second chapter devoted to atonement theory which handles the topic very generously. I find the emphasis of the atonement to be much more about Jesus' life than about his death. Good Friday is not the most important day in the Christian calendar. Easter is. I think there are certain atonement theories that get this backward. And I think we sometimes get it backward in our worship as well.

Chris Tomlin has a great song out now titled "I Will Rise". I like it because the lyrics give great emphasis to the resurrection. Not only to Christ's resurrection, but to our future resurrection at His return. No thoughts of dying and going to heaven to be found in this one. I wonder if he was inspired by N.T. Wright's book "Surprised By Hope"? Here is a sample of the lyrics:

Jesus has overcome. And the grave is overwhelmed
The victory is won. He is risen from the dead

And I will rise when He calls my name
No more sorrow, no more pain
I will rise on eagles' wings
Before my God fall on my knees
And rise. I will rise

And I hear the voice of many angels sing, "Worthy is the Lamb"
And I hear the cry of every longing heart, "Worthy is the Lamb"

OK, back to the book. The early chapters go on to cover Jesus as the Light and Glory of God, very familiar terms in OT worship, as well as interpretations of Christ through OT worship language of covenant and sabbath. It also discusses the worship of Christ at his birth and during his ministry, Jesus' worship of the Father, prayer, communion, and more. I am really looking forward to finding more inspiration for my worship songwriting. I have been in a rut lately, falling back on the same themes over and over. It's easy to get lazy and "go with what you know". I will post more insights as I get deeper into the collection. Hopefully there will be some new songs to post as well.

Strange Realization About Coffee

I had a strange realization a while back about coffee. I was sitting in Starbucks looking around at the decor, the artistic black and white photography of coffee beans... the milieu of stainless steel and ceramic cups and mugs, some for home, some for travel, some large, some small... the machines for sale, the grinders, the coffee makers, the espresso makers... the varieties of beans and roasts for sale, Ethiopian, Colombian, et al....

And then it suddenly hit me. "I am in a head shop."

Is it just me, or is the subculture and paraphernalia surrounding coffee very similar to that surrounding marijuana? While it has been a very long time since I have smoked marijuana, I remember all sorts of varieties and strains with international and domestic origins, different flavors, growing practices, and potencies, with brand names like skunk, hydroponic, G13, purple hair, and the like. It seems very similar to the variety of beans and roasters you find in the coffee industry. And I remember all the pipes and bongs at the head shops, glass and ceramic, brass one-hitters, water filtered, vaporizers, etc. It seems very similar to all the mugs and cups and machines you can buy at Starbucks. I remember walking into head shops and smelling the incense burning, being reminded of the smell of marijuana, and I find the experience of walking into a Starbucks and smelling the coffee somewhat reminiscent of that. The coffee related art on the walls at Starbucks doesn't seem all that different from tie-dyed marijuana leaf posters. And head shops were selling music long before Starbucks had that bright idea.

Of course, these similarities should not have surprised me. In both cases we have plants that are grown and consumed for their mood altering properties. Marijuana is much more potent in this regard, and hence much more controversial. I would certainly not attempt to equate them on that level. But when one visits Amsterdam and wants to smoke marijuana, where do they go? To the coffee shop. And does anyone dispute the physically addictive nature of coffee?

I knew a guy once whose nickname was "Coffee". He drank coffee all day every day. When he was broke, which was much of the time, he panhandled to get "coffee money". He got severe headaches and became very irritable when he didn't have any. You knew what he wanted when you saw him coming. He carried a coffee mug with him wherever he went. He never washed it. He claimed that the brown resinous buildup on the inside of his mug actually enhanced the flavor. I suspect when he was out of coffee he may have scraped off the brown gunk and added hot water to get a quick fix. I never understood how addictive coffee could be until I met a man who took it as his name.

Now don't get me wrong. I like coffee just fine. I'm not trying to say that coffee is a terrible drug, and that Starbucks is the dopeman. Lots of people drink coffee, and it actually has a positive effect on their life. It's great in social settings, it helps people start their day, to wake up, to stay focused and alert. And it can be quite comforting on a cold day to cuddle around a warm mug. I don't have a problem with it. I can quit anytime I want.

Ken Bussell
blog.emergingworshiper.org
Sent via BlackBerry

"Is the Bible True?" Three Kinds of Biblical Truth

Lately I've been in discussions with a number of people about the inerrancy of Scripture. It's by no means a new discussion, and emotions typically run deep when the subject comes up. Through these conversations I've been working out a succinct (and necessarily simplistic) way to express my understanding of Biblical truth. The question "Is the Bible True?" seems to me to mainly depend on what kind of truth one is looking for.

As an example, let's take the parable of the Prodigal Son. Is it true? Or does it contain truth? Is it true because it is in the Bible? Or is it in the Bible because it is true? It seems to me that one can find at least three different types of potential truth in this parable:

1. Is it true that Jesus actually taught this parable? Are the words recorded in Scripture truly Jesus' words, and are they truly verbatim?

2. Is the parable a true story? Were the characters in the story real people, and did the events truly happen as described?

3. Does the parable accurately describe God's relationship with humanity? Is what the parable teaches about God's grace and mercy true?

Please notice that none of these potential truths need be related. As is the case with all parables, they do not have to be true stories in order to teach truth. It does not matter if the Prodigal Son is a fictional character. Further, it is not even necessary that the recounting and attribution of the story be true. If it were in fact the Apostle John who taught this parable, and even if it were not a completely accurate transcription, that would not cause the "moral of the story" to become untrue.

In other words, as we nearly all agree, if number two is false, it does not follow that number three must also be false. In fact, if number three is true, it matters not if the others are. Either way, number three remains true. And if true, it is not its cannonization that makes it so. It is true of its own merit.

So when confronted with possible errors and contradictions in Scripture, we need not flee from them. We need not systematize them. We need not disguise them with adjectives like "apparent" or rebrand them as paradoxes. The Gospels do not need us to harmonize them. James and Paul do not need us to arbitrate their disputes. Job does not demand we believe in fire-breathing dragons. Genesis does not require creation science as an explanation. The truth of the Bible is not dependent on inerrancy or infallibility. The Bible can be inaccurate on a variety of levels and still be true where it matters most.

So what kind of truth matters most? Of the three potential truths listed, which is the most important? Put another way: If only one could be true, which one is mission critical?

I ask this on behalf of those who believe that the Bible is false because they have found it to be inaccurate... for the biologists who struggle with the creation story... the linguists who question the tower of Babel... the logicians who identify the contradictions... the historians who question the timelines... the multitude of college students who eventually disavow their faith after receiving a "higher" education... Must we force them to forego the opportunity of discovering the truth of the Bible by demanding that they accept it as true in every way? In doing so, are we not sabotaging truth itself?

My choice is number three. The truth in the Bible that matters most to me is what it teaches me about God. That is the truth I am looking for. And I believe it is there to be found by anyone who seeks it. The existence of inaccuracies, errors, and contradictions in the texts and translations do not sway me from this belief. Nor does my acceptance of them lower my regard for the Bible. It heightens it. If some passages of Scripture are not literally true, it may still be that many others are. In either case, the figurative truths remain unchanged. And the fact that these truths have remained available to us in Scripture despite its factual shortcomings makes the Bible that much more amazing to me. It is a testament of God's desire for us to know Him. It is His revelation of Himself to us. And it is in this light that I esteem Scripture so highly, and for this reason that I have dedicated my life to understanding it and living it out... in order to know Him, even as I am fully known.

I don't care if the Bible makes a poor science textbook or historical record. That's not what I find important.

Homespun Concert Series

Host: Ryan Sharp, Holly Sharp, Brittian Bullock

Date: Saturday, June 20, 2009

Time: 7:00pm - 11:00pm

Location:
The Green House next to the Historic Belmont Fire Department
908 SE 35th Ave
Portland, OR

Email: homespunconcertseries@gmail.com