america’s church police
I am disturbed by articles like this one. In light of this, I would like to present to you the officialCRN Method of Research:
When there is a shortage of juicy hit pieces, begin with step #1
- go to www.youtube.com
- seach for words like church, emergent, dance, elvis, crazy, funny, postmodern, young adult
- find a video from an event that you know nothing about that happened in a church that no one has heard of
- write a scathing headline like “I am sure that God is proud of this filth!”
- copy the URL to your piece and click “publish”
it’s as simple as that! You too can be the watchdoggie for every church in America!
It’s one thing to fight “heresy” in churches that are highly influential and affecting other communities of faith. It is another thing to become the theology/methodology patrol for every single church in the world. Ken Silva (who is the general editor for the editor, and thus responsible for all articles) has no idea what went on at this event, has no clue what was preached, or even what they believe. All he knows is that they had a funny opening at a young adults event. I am sure that Ken will give us some excuse about how God is pleased to have called him to police all of youtube now as well.
Edit:
Looks like the watchdoggie stormtroopers are starting to come out in the youtube comments. If you feel like leaving some encouragement please do so. -Tim Reed
December 9th, 2007 at 10:14 am
How to create a shadow blog:
1. Rip-off the name of the blog you wish to shadow
2. Focus on one or two individuals you don’t like
3. Link only to certain posts and ignore the multitude of other subject matter
4. Write a sarcastic headline complete with doggie photo
5. Copy url and hit publish
Voila! You don’t have to know anything or do any work at all.
December 9th, 2007 at 10:58 am
Chris P,
It seems you miss that you are not in any position to judge anyone… being you belong to an Arminian (man-loving semi pelagain) based denomination that Ken states those belong to are not saved…
Romans 2
1. You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.
2. Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth.
3. So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment?
4. Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness leads you toward repentance?
5. But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed.
iggy
December 9th, 2007 at 11:46 am
Ok, that was one of the stupider “promotions” I’ve seen. Sorry, but I like Garner’s take on it in “13 going on 30″ better.
(and for something really scary, look for “indian thriller” on youtube)
Ok, in Ken’s defense, they didn’t have to put that travesty on YouTube. If they did so, they obviously expect people to view it.
It’s just painful to me that this kind of thing is considered “cool” or “hip” or “insert word here”. Really, if this is the best that can be done, can’t we at least have the decency to not put it out there for all the world to see?
December 9th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
They were just having fun. It’s simply AMAZING that we’re willing to judge them with our personal preferences, when we don’t know anything about the surrounding circumstances.
Sure it’s silly and dumb, but like Iggy said…like the Bible said…
You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.
Maybe I’d listen to Ken’s “criticism” of this church if he stopped lying, slandering, and completely misrepresenting other Christians beliefs.
Cast the first stone guys, go right ahead. I’ll have no part in it.
Joe
December 9th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Chris P said:
So you ignored most of the content on this website also, that has nothing to do with ‘the two people [we] don’t like’ (which in itself is an important subject to talk about their slander and lies).
So you lied…come on man. Not good. =(
Joe
December 9th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
Chris P,
If I wanted to create a purpose driven church how would I go about doing that? Being that you’re one of the leaders of a purpose driven church and all.
December 9th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Also, I find it a little bit repugnant that we’d rain derision on a bunch of people who were just having some fun.
It reminds me a bit of this.
December 9th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
JazzAct,
Maybe it was put up on youtube so they could have the ability to embed it in something. What makes Ken the internet police? Even if I agreed with him on this post, I’m still not sure what makes him these people’s judge. He used to say that he only went after the “big fish” because they had a big impact and he was called to that ministry.
December 9th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
It was goofy but why post it? If they had a film of them boarding a plane for the mission field on YouTube would that have been posted?
December 9th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
I agree with Rick, Why post…A matter a fact, does Ken just float around youtube and grab somethings to post about? Whatever!
On the other hand, I don’t think it is appropriate to sing and dance to a MJ song in church( or out of church for that matter). Has the Bible been studied to all ends that we must find other cactivities in the church. Are there not Christian songs you can do skits with? Can we please keep as many wordly things out of the church as possible!
The skit/dance and the one who found and posted it are equally foolish.
December 9th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
Worldly….type-O
December 9th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
They posted it because they probably thought it was funny. They probably thought it would make a couple people laugh.
Personally I found it funny, but that’s only because I always make my baby son do the ‘thriller dance’ with his hands. Hahaha.
It was edifying to me, to see people having some fun. I didn’t add anything to it, just took it for what it was. I’ll probably take some flak for taking that position, but whatever.
Haha
Joe
December 9th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Joe C, In a church setting though…done by believers? Could it be funny out of church, I guess. But don’t we have better things to do when it comes to church settings?
December 9th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
My point was, we don’t know if they were gathering for “church”. We don’t know anything, other than they were doing the thriller dance. So I just took the video for what it was, and didn’t judge what I didn’t know anything about.
It could have been after church, it could have just been a friday night gathering, it could have been before or during church. But does that matter? We still don’t know anything about what they preach, teach, or what their praxis is.
Fun is fun. But I can see your point, probably isn’t appropriate when there’s building up of the Body to be done.
I don’t consider dancing the thriller dance “wordly” (define worldly…), as much as a parody or poking fun at the world.
Inside jokes. You know, something like that.
Bottom line, just like the terrible “Holy Night” rendition, we’re looking at this far too critically and deeply. All we have to go on is that it’s an attempt at humor. And our preferences are going to determine whether it’s funny or not to us.
Preference. Not Absolute Truth. Not on this one at least.
Joe
December 9th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
So here’s what we can say for certain: based on this vid Joe C can go to this church, Jon Frueh should go somewhere else. That’s OK.
December 9th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Oh, I don’t know if I’d go to that church. I certainly could. Don’t know if I would though. My preferences are a bit different than what it looks they do.
I agree Joe, it’s okay to disagree. lol.
Joe C
December 9th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Why post it?
It’s what YouTube is there for…
Maybe there were folk from the group who weren’t present and missed the fun…
who CARES!??!
It’s young people being light hearted.
give.
it.
a.
rest.
To the crooked all things appear crooked…
December 9th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
Whatever…
I duck taped my middle schoolers to the walls in the sanctuary. Videotaped and it will be on Youtube this week. Why put it on youtube? Because it’s funny. And the students and parents in my ministry want to see it.
Why must the watchdoggies take the most inane things, paint it all with the most negative commentary, and then cast aspersions on everyone involved?
Finally there is a person in my church who is overly critically with everything that I do. Recently when I went to this person about an issue they began to rattle off everything they didn’t like or mistakes they percieved I made. My response was “I also have a mental list of everything that you have done that I don’t like. However I choose to apply grace to you in those situations. In turn I would really appreciate some grace”. To the ODM’s the same could be said to you.
December 9th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
Chris P. you’re ridiculous.
December 9th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
I don’t “get” Silva.
But I’m never that surprised by what I read there, either.
December 9th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
That was hilarious. I don’t see anywhere in scripture where the Lord forbid something like this. Some have made the argument that they cuold be doing more important things with their time together. Maybe. But if they are laughing and enjoying their time together doing that, it’d be better than a bunch of grumps barely singing hymns they don’t know anything about getting upset that so and so was wearing tennis shoes to church.
Galatians 3:1ff - “You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. 2 I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? 3 Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort? 4 Have you suffered so much for nothing–if it really was for nothing? 5 Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard?”
4:8 ff - “Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods. 9 But now that you know God–or rather are known by God–how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable principles? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again? 10 You are observing special days and months and seasons and years! 11 I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you.”
December 10th, 2007 at 11:04 am
–They were just having fun.–
And that justifies it???
–Sure it’s silly and dumb, but like Iggy said…like the Bible said…
You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things–
So, I can’t have an opinion about what I think is a ill-conceived performance? I can’t say whether something was well or poorly done? Or that I think it was a bad idea?
Gee, I even made a reference to “indian thriller” (here it is again) for those of you who like bad remakes of Thriller.
–What makes Ken the internet police?–
Since when does giving an opinion make on the ‘internet police’?
December 10th, 2007 at 11:19 am
–Has the Bible been studied to all ends that we must find other cactivities in the church. –
I’ve nothing against using humor, doing dances or movements to music, doing something silly for the sake of humor.
There is the fact that it’s a MJ thing, which I find more then a little distasteful. At that time, he probably hadn’t gone too very wacky (or at least it wasn’t showing). I wouldn’t denigrate Michael English’s “In Christ Alone” simply because he fell into some serious sins after he sand it.
I was part (the sound guy) for a performance ministry team which had a skit/sketch which used some secular music in it, bits from songs like “She’s Got the Look” and “You Give Love a Bad Name”. It was a good bit, and the songs weren’t used in a way that would glorify their message.
One of my main gripes with the church’s production in the video was that it’s poorly done and had no business being posted for all the world to see. It’s one of those “Christians can only imitate” things, and we can’t even imitate all that well.
December 10th, 2007 at 11:20 am
I agree Jazz, however, that is not Ken’s argument. His argument is that this should never have been done for theological reasons.
December 10th, 2007 at 11:41 am
I wonder…let’s take Ken out of the equation! I believe some here would disagree with singing and dancing to a secular song in a church setting, but the drive to combat Ken burns inside like California wildfires!
Out of curiosity, does anyone here disagree with incorporating secular music within the gathering of believers(I’ll just leave the personal life alone for now)?
December 10th, 2007 at 11:48 am
Jonathan,
without getting into a huge battle over music, what do youi classify as “secular” music. I make no divide in music, separating things into “secular” and “sacred”. I listen to music, period. If a song delivers a message that is in line with that I believe, then cool. We use music that isn’t sold at Chri$tian Book$tores all the time in our church gatherings. I think when you begin to dichotomize art (or anything other than doctrine) as “secular” and “sacred”, you begin to make something holy that really isn’t… essentially idolatry. How can a song be holy?
But we are missing the point… these guys were not promoting MJ’s lifestyle, they were not making a theological statement, they were not selling the album… THEY WERE HAVING FUN! It was a stupid thing so everyone could see the leaders. It made people laugh and no harm was done. Goodness, is this really that crazy?
December 10th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
I personally do not believe there is such a thing as Secular and Spiritual music. To quote a friend of mine, “Everything is Spiritual.”
December 10th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Joe,
Your friend ripped off Rob Bell.
Jonathan,
I think you might be wrong.
December 10th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
I don’t have an issue with using secular music amongst a gathering of believers. I just ran my young adult ministry’s Christmas party this past Saturday. We had about 2 hours of dancing to secular music. We reviewed every song, every lyric to make sure it wouldn’t offend. We had songs like “ABC” by the Jackson Five.
Too be honest, there aren’t a lot of Christian songs that people want to dance to.
December 10th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
“Too be honest, there aren’t a lot of Christian songs that people want to dance to. ”
Those are all I do dance to, especially the Jewish genre.
December 10th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
Nathan,
No matter what I believe is secular or not you will not see my side of the matter…you believe music is music and that’s your bottom line. That view includes Tupac (which includes horrible language and sexual in content) and hate group music( which includes racial hatred) so we will not agree.
Having fun?…I don’t believe it’s that crazy ( especially how the church acts today), but I do believe it’s not appropriate to play music in a church setting that doesn’t glorify the Lord in some form. That music is from someone who is lost…Period
December 10th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
Tim,
Maybe my friend is Rob Bell.
December 10th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
“that music is from someone who is lost..period”
Jon, would you have problems with a church playing classical music?
December 10th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Joe,
Do you have a problem with a church playing MJ music?
December 10th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
Jon, please answer my question. It’s a pretty simple yes or no. I’ve already answered yours but since you missed it, I promise I’ll answer it after you answer mine.
December 10th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
Your answer will allow me to give a more clear answer to your question…
December 10th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
No. Now please answer my question.
December 10th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
No.
December 10th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Oh snap!
December 10th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
Jon,
I’m trying to engage you here, and your playing cat and mouse, why?
So you’re saying that Classical music should not be used in church?
December 10th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
Jon,
Which one of Rick’s son’s are you?
December 10th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
I do not believe in playing any music that isn’t Christian at the gathering of believers commonly called “church”. And there are certain songs that may be called “Christian” that I would not prefer be played in church either.
Gospel, contemporary, fast or slow, praise or worship, celebration, orchestrated or single keyboard, all kinds of music as long as their message is clear and distinctively Christian. I do not think it is sin to play classical music, I just personally believe it takes up time that could be better used for a Christ exalting messaged song.
Sorry.
December 10th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
Jon is my oldest = 27 yearsold.
December 10th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
Rick,
While I disagree with your statement (some of the nuances) it is at least clearly spelled out. If I understand you correctly you are saying the words–or message if I may put my own understanding on it–are the thing that matters. So the eternal state of the person who wrote is a non-issue, correct?
December 10th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
Yes. I believe the style of music can have variance, the message must be distinctly Christian. I realize some songs we sing were written by men of questionable character and even salvation, but I do not suggest a witch hunt about it. I believe instrumentals should be a recognizeable Christian song or at least have a title that indicates the theme of the song.
I am a full fledged dancing worshiper and surely no stick in the mud, but my preference are those I have laid out.
December 10th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
“you believe music is music and that’s your bottom line. That view includes Tupac ”
I chuckled at this… OF COURSE TUPAC IS MUSIC! What else would you call it? A baloney sandwich? Now, there are very few (if any) tupac songs that jive with my standards and morals, so I would not play them in a church setting.
Jonathan, you have a bad habit of dismissing other’s questions and opinions as unimportant. You cannot use “No matter what I believe is secular or not you will not see my side of the matter” as an excuse to not answer a question.
Here’s the deal… these guys were not using thriller as “worship”. It was a funny opening. Is this really any different from a silly skit at church camp or a funny. How bout you listen to the thriller song and tell me what goes against scripture.
December 10th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
OK Folks, I’m off to get on a plane. Jon, you need to brush up on your debate skills. Playing cat and mouse or dismissing legit questions is not logic. It hurts any legit argument you might have. If you truly believe that music written by unsaved people cannot be played at church I want to understand how this is played out consistently in your life.
December 10th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
Rick, I can respect that. I’m not sure it applies to this song here and I’m not sure I agree across the board but thank you for laying out your case.
December 10th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
I Don’t have to improve on my debate skills concerning this issue. I wanted Joe to answer me so I could judge whether I would engage him or not. If he believes it can be appropriate to play MJ songs in a church setting then my side would not mean anything to him accept a difference of opinion. So why engage.
Concerning my life? I have no problem discussing that, but isn’t that off the topic?
Nathan,
I was not debating what is music and what is not music, but we were talking secular or not…..I pointed out that whether Tupac or whatever kind of music it is, you don’t put a heading of secular or not! That was how I read your comment. Therefore, any type of music can be used in a church setting if none have the heading as secular/worldly. That is what I was trying to relay.
December 10th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Jon,
You responded by being upset that I considered Tupac music… you did not say acceptable music, or sacred music. Re-read your comment.
“Therefore, any type of music can be used in a church setting if none have the heading as secular/worldly. That is what I was trying to relay.”
Any music who’s lyrics jive with my theology and does not violate my moral standards as found in scripture is cool with me. I NEVER said that ANY type of music and be used. But, since you will not answer my question, the discussion cannot be continued.
December 10th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
In other words Jon, you’re right why engage? Brilliant. No really, I mean that.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:54 am
There’s not a single one of them, in that video, who do not know what MJ’s “thriller video” was about, what it portrayed, how it looked and what it was styled after. Not one.
How many times; over and over and over; did they have to fill their heads with the imagery from that video - just so they could have some yuks.
And it is highly likely that any person in the audience over the age of 30 also knows.
That’s why we didn’t go see Mel Gibson’s bastardized “Passion”… Same principle. (Plus that pesky commandment thingy…)
“Guard your heart… and finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, are just, pure, lovely, …”
Can you hear me now?
Good!
December 14th, 2007 at 7:43 am
I hear you, Kirby, but I’m not sure I understand what you’re getting at here, with both “Thriller” and “The Passion”, unless you’re trying to elevate your personal preferences into some sort of biblical absolute, which just…isn’t…biblical.