Nichols on CCM

From today's lesson based on Nichols' chapter 5... (This is week 3 of a 4-week series. See: here for an intro to the topic and here for chapters 1-4 on the history of the American Evangelical Jesus.)

Daniel 1 probably provides the best overview of the Christian response to secular culture. Daniel accepts some of what he is asked/commanded to do as he enters exile and "officer training school" in Babylon. But he rejects other aspects respectfully and provides positive, palatable alternatives. In these areas, the Babylonian training has "crossed the line". The lesson: we are not to accept or reject all aspects of culture, but to discern wheat from chaff. Of course this begs the question: which is which? But Daniel's points the way forward by identifying the key question.

Little is said (at least explicitly) about a Christian response to Christian culture. The most useful exception would be the Biblical expression of expectations—and violations of those that would require various types of “church discipline”. In any case, in these chapters, Nichols is focused on the Christian response to Christian pop culture.

In this chapter, Nichols opens with the “Jesus People” of the 1960’s. They saw Jesus as “the answer” (yes, but that’s superficial), experiential (“authentic” with a focus on “love”), anti-authority (see: Jesus with the money-changers), and placed a heavy emphasis on evangelism and Damascus-Road-immediate life change (often vs. discipleship). Their movement led to the first outposts of Christian Rock—which was initially ghettoized, but then they looked for evangelistic outreach.

This outreach leads eventually to Contemporary Christian Music (CCM)—with the inherent tensions between evangelism and business, outreach and marketing. The songs tend to emphasize experience. Or as Nichols puts it: “Jesus appears a lot in CCM….He just needs more said about Him.” (Of course, it’s relatively difficult to do theology in songs, but this lack is even more troublesome to the extent that there is a theological vacuum within churches and among believers.)

Another manifestation: an emphasis on CCM as “wholesome, safe, and clean-cut”. (For example, a local Christian radio station’s motto is “safe for the whole family”.)

There is no clear-cut answer on these questions, but a call to more wrestling with these tensions.

Going beyond Nichols, we should also note that a given type/style of music is not troubling per se (except for the legalistic “weaker brother” of Romans 14). For example, Martin Luther’s “A Mighty Fortress is our God” came from a contemporary bar tune. So, people who get bent out of shape about Christian rock or rap are misguided.

One final angle not pursued much by Nichols: the range of theological quality available in praise choruses and hymns. Feel forward to post your most and least favorite examples of each!