Martin Luther once famously said “Next to the Word of God, the noble art of music is the greatest treasure in the world.” The writer of the classic hymn “A Mighty Fortress is Our God”, Luther understood much of the power and beauty of music.
Throughout the history of God’s people, music has been a profound means and vehicle for worship of God. From the Psalms of David and the Sons of Korah, to the hymns of the early Church to hymns like “Be Thou My Vision”, “Amazing Grace” and “In Christ Alone”, music has played a powerful role in how God’s People worship Him.
In recent years, the evangelical Contemporary Christian Music industry has “rediscovered” the role that hymns can play in worship. Following along in the wake of the praise and worship sub-genre, hymns have found a strong niche and small appreciation amongst CCM consumers. Formerly relegated to dusty old hymnals, “dead and dying” churches and youthful ridicule, hymns have found something of a renaissance in the evangelical world through the work of the Michael W. Smiths and Chris Tomlins of the world. Fortunately for CCM, such remakes and covers struck a chord and a money-making sub-genre of a sub-genre of a pseudo-genre was birthed and bloated to the point of mockery, shameless profiteering and ugly self-promotion.
Thankfully, not everybody involved in the writing and remaking of hymns have been sucked into the dark CCM vortex. Through the efforts of artists and groups such as Stewart Townend, The Gettys, Sovereign Grace Music, Indelible Grace and Sandra McCracken, true, respectful, worshipful and artistic hymn-writing has made a genuinely strong comeback.
Of particular note is Sandra McCracken’s beautiful “In Feast or Fallow”. A collection of new hymns, old hymns, old hymns remade and even a classic in its original form and with its original title, “In Feast or Fallow” is a solid exploration of plenty and need, and a worthwhile expression of praise to God; in times of feast and even in times when life’s ground must for a time remain fallow. Describing the context of the hymns, McCracken says “There are life seasons of palpable spiritual springtime, when the flowers burst with color and new leaves shoot out of every stem. There are seasons of desert isolation and winter darkness. There are whole years when you have so much stored grain and wine that you forget who you are and where you came from. And there are other times when you have barely enough, and your soul is still and satisfied.” This theme is carried throughout the album with songs born of grief (“Petition”, written by Anne Steele, as a response to her fiancé’s untimely death a day before they were to be wed), a song praying for God’s blessing (“Give Reviving”), a song celebrating life (“Hidden Place”, derived from a journal entry McCracken wrote 10 days before the birth of her daughter), a song celebrating Advent (Martin Luther’s “This is the Christ”), a song born of study of the book of Judges (“Sweet Sorrow”), a song about justice (“Justice Will Roll Down”, pulled from Amos 5:24) and a classic about the amazing Grace of God (“Faith’s Review and Expectation” by John Newton). Throughout the album McCracken calls herself and the listener to look to Christ for Hope to the Father for unyielding love and to the Spirit for the strength to carry on, even in the midst of profound suffering and sorrow.
McCracken teamed up with her producer husband, Derek Webb, for recording the album and the result in a perfect blend of worshipful music and lyrics. Blending the old and the new, the sound moves from traditional to a nuanced (and greatly subdued) expression of the electronica sound that Derek utilized more obviously in “Stockholm Syndrome“. What is clear is that McCracken and Webb are a dynamic and effectively creative team. Marriage serves to strengthen two people as individuals, even as both become one. This truism is quite evident in McCracken and Webb, as both have become better artists through each other.
Finally, it is heartening to see the respect and sobriety with which McCracken approaches her material and the material of Saints long dead, as she adds her own magnificent contributions to the voluminous tome of work that came before. Respecting the Tradition, yet confidently adding to it, McCracken shows great sensitivity and artistry. The closing song in the album, “Faith’s Review and Expectation” is a brilliant cover of Newton’s famously classic “Amazing Grace”, sung with tact, class and true to its original form and intent.
Perhaps there is not better compliment to McCracken than to say that Luther and Newton (and the host of hymn-writing saints who came before and after) would undoubtedly be proud and would give a hearty amen to the chorus of the song “In Feast or Fallow”:
In the harvest feast or the fallow ground My certain hope is in Jesus found My lord, my cup, my portion sure Whatever comes we shall endure Whatever comes we shall endure
Just as the individual Christian has responsibility for right, ethical living in the realm of social networking and the New Media, local churches also play pivotal roles of responsibility in such a plethora of media.
Over her history, the Church has been fairly consistent in her adoption of various new technologies and media. Whether it was the use of scrolls, codexes, books, magazines, newspapers, radio or television, the Church has generally done a fair job of keeping up with societal and technological changes and paradigm shifts in the forms and mediums of communication.
According to the Barna Group,
“People within the Christian community are just as immersed in (and dependent upon) digital technologies and social networks as are those outside of it. Both evangelical Christians and other born again Christians emerged as statistically on par with national norms when it came to each of the 15 different areas that were studied. In other words, matters of faith played very little role in differentiating people’s technological habits.”[1]
In a world that is increasingly connected and compartmentalized, the Church is left with a pressing problem. On the one hand, according to David Kinnaman, “Church leaders have to strike the delicate balance between the spiritual and cultural potential of tech tools without surrendering to the false promise of these tools. Having the means of reaching the masses – for instance, through podcasting – is a good thing.”[2] The New Media, as a paradigm-shifting, conversation changing form of information communication, is precisely poised to be used in powerfully productive ways. “Yet, nothing matches the potency of life-on-life discipleship. In this respect, social networking and blogs can be effective tools to intimately connect with a small, natural network of relationships. The key is using the technology in a way that is consistent with your calling and purpose, not just an addictive self-indulgence.” [3]
This statement by Kinnaman reveals both the weakness and the power of the New Media. On the one hand, for its ability to quickly, effectively, efficiently and economically communicate information, the New Media is unmatched and unparalleled in human history. Yet, this strength is also the New Media’s greatest weakness, for in providing such volumes of information, facades of familiarity and community can be erected and these facades can in fact impede any real attempts at valid, human relationship-building interaction. For the Church, this means quite simply that there is no replacement for face-to-face, human, organic relationship growth. Humans are communal creatures.[4] The New Media does not, and cannot satisfy this basic need.
Furthermore, the Church has a moral and ethical responsibility to work through the issues that these New Media present. Kinnaman goes on to say
“One recent study we completed among teenagers showed that just 9% of church-going teens had learned something helpful about technology in their church during the past year. As each new generation becomes increasingly enmeshed with technology, these discussions and choices cannot be left to chance. Control, image, relevance, immediacy, transparency, purity, truth, stewardship, and escapism are some of the many issues that technology brings to the surface, not always with benign consequences.”[5]
Finally, the Church must understand and engage with the reality of the New Media, namely that it is a two-way conversation:
“Young people, for instance, think of themselves as creators of content, not merely consumers of it. Technology, in essence, gives them a voice and fuels their search for calling. Whether or not you welcome it, technology creates an entirely new calculus of influence and independence. The stewardship of technology as a force for good in culture is an important role for technologists, entrepreneurs, educators, and Christian leaders.”[6]
Local Churches must be equipped to deal with the ethical issues that the New Media bring. While Media are amoral, they do not exist in a vacuum. The medium, the agent of transference, not only conveys the message, but it works to shape it. Ideas are nameless, substance less notions until they are given shape and definition by language. Language in some sense is modified by the medium through which it is expressed. The Church, as Christ’s Bride and Witness must be wary of her message being unnecessarily warped by the media she uses to express it. Just because media are amoral does not mean that they are always necessarily right to use. Likewise, just because various media are used in terrible, awful and sinful ways does not mean it is wrong to use those same media in right ways. But one thing is certain: the Church is most assuredly called to remove herself from any naïveté regarding the New Media. She is called by Her Lord to communicate in a way that honors Him and brings Him renown. Her use (or misuse) of media will directly affect her ability to do that.
Conclusion
In the world of the Information Age, where communication and the New Media are kings, ethical issues abound. Questions of privacy, idolatry, predation, stewardship, slander and libel are daily conundrums for millions of bloggers, Facebookers and Twitterers every day. In a world of rapid change, where a massive paradigm shift has occurred in the way people communicate with one another and process information, confusion and fear can often rule the day.
Yet, God has not left the Christian in the dark. The light of Scriptural truth shines and the Christian is provided with clear teachings and encouragements for how to rightly, morally and ethically communicate to other Christians and to the world around. Whether it’s in the local church or on in the world of tweets and posts, blogs and vlogs, the Christian is called to rightly live and communicate, making the best use of the time, for the good of all men and for the glory of God.
[1]Barna Group, May 26, 2008, “Barna Technology Study: Social Networking, Online Entertainment And Church Podcasts,” http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/14-media/36-barna-technology-study-social-networking-online-entertainment-and-church-podcasts/ (accessed April 27, 2010).
[2]Barna Group, May 26, 2008, “Barna Technology Study: Social Networking, Online Entertainment And Church Podcasts,” http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/14-media/36-barna-technology-study-social-networking-online-entertainment-and-church-podcasts/ (accessed April 27, 2010).
[3]Barna Group, May 26, 2008, “Barna Technology Study: Social Networking, Online Entertainment And Church Podcasts,” http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/14-media/36-barna-technology-study-social-networking-online-entertainment-and-church-podcasts/ (accessed April 27, 2010).
[4] M.K. Smith, “Community,” in the encyclopedia of informal education, ed, http://www.infed.org/community/community.htm. (accessed April 27, 2010).
[5]Barna Group, May 26, 2008, “Barna Technology Study: Social Networking, Online Entertainment And Church Podcasts,” http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/14-media/36-barna-technology-study-social-networking-online-entertainment-and-church-podcasts/ (accessed April 27, 2010).
[6]Barna Group, May 26, 2008, “Barna Technology Study: Social Networking, Online Entertainment And Church Podcasts,” http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/14-media/36-barna-technology-study-social-networking-online-entertainment-and-church-podcasts/ (accessed April 27, 2010).
This leaves the Christian with a series of questions. First, the Christian must ask himself what he is communicating. Is this blog post going to unfairly hurt somebody? Is this comment on this friend’s Facebook page something that will edify the reader, or will it communicate hurt? Is this YouTube video God-honoring, or man-honoring? Is this particular Twitter post about the silly-bird-that-just-flew-past-my-window-for-the-10th-time-isn’t-that-cute intended to be an encouragement to one’s Twitter Followers, or is it simply an exercise in some rather pathetic narcissism?[1]
Secondly, the Christian must ask herself how she is communicating her information. Does she post a hasty comment on a blog that has greatly angered her, or does she take her time to think (and maybe pray) about what she is close to saying? Does she post on Twitter so often that her followers “un-follow” her because she has become so annoying?[2] Does she follow thousands of Twitter accounts to satisfy some problematic longing for the approval of complete strangers or to show that she really belongs?[3]
Third, the Christian must ask himself whom he is communicating to. The openness of information in the New Media can be particularly problematic when it comes to issues of privacy[4], predation[5] and the sharing of sensitive information[6]. While social networks such as Facebook have championed the user’s right to privacy, such claims are often called into question.[7] The problems with predators alone are enough a possibility to cause parents to seriously consider some severe limitations on their children’s internet time. The issue is a simple one, and is a weak spot for the New Media. One often never really knows who one is communicating to or why they are receiving the communication. Whether it’s a blog post that could be read by anybody from China (provided the site is not blocked by government censors[8]) to South Africa to Iceland to California or whether it’s a Facebook Note that “should” only be read by your friends, the question of exactly “who” is absorbing one’s communications is a vexing one.
Finally, the Christian is faced with the ever-slippery question of why. Why is she is about to post this article or that video. Why is she writing this blog post? Why is she following this Twitter account? Why is she viewing this YouTube clip, that Hulu movie or this message board? This question cuts to the essence of what it is that she does and often reveals something of who she is. Does she do it out of thanksgiving to God? Is she in some small way seeking His honor? Is she seeking the glory and fame of men? Does she post this blog post so that she gains a readership so that she will be liked and subscribed to? Does she comment on certain well-read blogs for the express purpose of people following the links back to her blog? Does she come up with witty responses to friends’ Facebook posts so that they’ll see how clever she is? Does she do it for attention? For acceptance? For some small measure of love?
These questions drive the Christian to pursue solution of the ethical quandaries that the New Media provides. Christians are not given a Biblical roadmap showing how to particularly navigate through the Internet wilderness. They are provided with some fairly clear principles dealing with communication, though, and in reality, communication of ideas and information is what the New Media is all about
[1] David Sarno, “Don’t fear invasion of the mindcasters,” LA Times, March 11 2009, http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2009/03/on-twitter-mind.html. (accessed April 26, 2010).
[2] Nitrozac and Snaggy, The Joy of Tech, Comic, Picture http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyarchives/1202.html. (accessed April 26, 2010).
[3]Wefollow.com, “Home Page,” http://wefollow.com// (accessed 26 April, 2010).
[4] Daniel J. Solove, “Do Social Networks Bring the End of Privacy?,” Scientific American, September, 2008,, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-social-networks-bring/ (accessed April 26, 2010).
[5] John Kreiser, “MySpace: Your Kids’ Danger?,” CBS News, February 6 2006, Video and Article http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/06/eveningnews/main1286130.shtml/ (accessed April 26, 2010).
[6] Liz Gannes, “U.s. Military Turns To Social Networking To Encourage Sharing Official And Sensitive Info,” Gigaom, January 22, 2010, http://gigaom.com/2010/01/22/u-s-military-turns-to-social-networking-to-encourage-sharing-official-and-sensitive-info// (accessed April 26, 2010).
[7] Doug Gross, “Sharing Vs. Your Privacy On Facebook,” CNN, April 1, 2010, http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/ptech/04/01/facebook.developers.privacy/index.html. (accessed April 26, 2010).
[8] Tania Branigan, “Google Raises Stakes In China Censorship Row,” Guardian, March 22, 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/mar/22/google-china-shut-down-censorships/ (accessed April 26, 2010).
RSS
