My Problem with Christian Rock

I don't like Christian rock. I really don't like religious music in general, save for traditional hymns which I appreciate more for their cultural and historical importance. It's probably better to say that I don't like mainstream Christian music, but Christian rock in particular. You're asking me to explain myself, I'm sure. The reason is this: it's not rock. You heard me right. Christian rock is not rock and roll. It might share elements of the latter genre, but it doesn't fall under its umbrella.

It's not like I'm a huge rock fanatic or anything. My tastes in music are fairly narrow, limited to a couple of bands and solo artists. But I hear a Christian rock song and I can't help but cringe because of what a pale imitation it is to the real thing.

There's one key element lacking in Christian rock that I believe really defines rock and roll as its own unique class of music. Rock is subversive. When you look at the genre's history, you can't avoid the controversies that emerged from its rise into mainstream popularity. Rock and roll was about rebellion in its myriad forms. Many in the Church said that rock music was demonic in origin because of its suggestiveness.

Christian rock is not subversive. It hasn't been without its share of criticisms, but it's never been rebellious. It's pretty white bread. It favors the establishment. It's safe. Now is it just me or does this description seem very unlike what Christianity is supposed to be?

If Christian rock wants to live up to its name, then it needs to be less touchy-feely and more about rebellion. That even means that sometimes musicians should rock the boat with their core demographic. These artists need to challenge the status quo and say something meaningful about the world and Christian life. The genre need not be pigeon-holed in its subject matter. Let it explore social issues. Allow it to be about imperfection, ignorance, and consequence. Let the artists bleed and show their sins.

Christian rock needs to get under the skin of the world. However, artists of the genre need a degree of authenticity if they want credibility. Some might take umbrage to that word; authenticity. I'm not fond of it, either. The point I'm making is that there needs to be some transparency involved where the music is concerned. I'm not saying that sin should be embraced or affirmed by an artist, only acknowledged as a flaw in one's life.  It's the chaffing that a Christian must endure as he walks through life. Some days are more harmful than others.

That's not to say that this will be easy. Christian culture will likely balk at it and look on it as a selling out or "being of the world" rather than in the world. But that's good. Let Christians get uncomfortable. Let there be rebellion. If it means furthering Christendom, I'm all for it. Plus, we can get some remarkable music in the deed.

-L. Travis Hoffman

7/31/2016

Yes, Religion Should Take Precedence Over Politics.

I hate politics. I try to take it in stride, but it seems like it always results in people talking about how horrible the opposition is. I'm passionate enough about defending the Star Wars prequels and that in itself can take a lot of energy. Hating or disliking or whatever seems like such a waste. Why expend all the energy just to be angry and miserable? Oh well. Not much I can do about that.

As for my own political views, they're a bit nuanced. Liberals would likely say that I'm too libertarian. Libertarians would say I'm too conservative. Conservatives would likely label me as a post-modernist but still like having me around for my personality. I'd never call myself a centrist, moderate, or an independent because that's just code for a closet liberal. I'm anti-party and anti-politician. The former seems to do nothing but cause unnecessary divisiveness and the latter is a civil service, not a career path. I don't trust the government with my tax dollars because they frequently waste it on excess. Then there's the endless list of programs they want to implement because they're already so efficient at running even the most basic of services. This last part, in particular, is what inspired this blog post.

I'm pro-life. No exceptions. Or anti-abortion, if you're on the other side. Technically, if an abortion could be done without harm to a fetus or woman then I'd likely get behind that. As it stands now, I'm against abortion. I think it's barbarism masked as compassion and female empowerment. We de-humanize a life to be nothing more than the property of a woman. "My body, my choice," the pro-choice groups cheer. Substitute body with slave and you have a curious parallel with fetal value and the Three-Fifths Compromise.

It's at this point that the pro-choice movement will say something along the lines of, "Keep religion away from my decision" or some equally trite and simplistic bumper sticker slogan. My response to them is, "No."

Should religion have been kept away from slavery? The Abolitionists were a largely religiously motivated movement. Frederick Douglass and William Wilberforce were both passionately Christian in their convictions. They believed that treating others as property was a sin. What about the Civil Rights Movement? Martin Luther King was inspired by loving one's enemies and turning the other cheek, both principles of non-violence taught by Jesus Christ. Religion was clearly of benefit in reforming society and establishing human rights.

So you can be darn sure that my Religion will intrude on your decision if it is immoral. It will be done without violence. Christians can make their voices loud and their convictions louder. We can influence policy. Even with my skepticism of government efficiency, perhaps we need tax-funded day care centers. That right there is my Religion taking precedence over my political views. We should push for paid and extended maternity leave. Most importantly, the Church itself can provide aid in all its resources. The Body of Christ must lead the charge in helping those in need, not the government. However, that can't happen if we aren't willing to let our Religion out into the world to bring change.

-L. Travis Hoffman

12/16/2015

Denominations are a good thing.

Though this has never happened to me personally, I have heard stories of Protestants being told by Roman Catholics that they are "going to the wrong church". They claim that the Roman Catholic Church is the one, true church begun from the ministry of Christ. Peter was the first pope. Mary lived a life of virginity and sinlessness, was born of a sinless mother, and ascended to heaven, being spared from the curse of death.

I'm a Protestant. Well, technically, I belong to a non-denominational church. The church had began in the Baptist tradition and later chose to leave the denomination.  My point is that I don't share many of the beliefs and traditions found in Roman Catholicism. I don't believe they are the original church or that Peter was a pope. I recoil at the excessive reverence toward Mary and the claims that she and her mother were sinless. I don't believe in papal infallibility.

All this is said with my sincere belief that Roman Catholicism does teach from the Gospel. Many Catholics are, in fact, Christians. I do believe that the Pope is a sincere servant of Christ. This is not a popular view among some of my peers, who believe that Catholicism is idolatrous, legalist, and promotes salvation being achieved through good works. From Rome's point of view, this isn't the case. They revere Mary, but she isn't a god to them any more than the Trinity is polytheistic.

I do have a major problem with the Roman Catholic Church and it pertains to none of things above. My problem is that the Catholic Church doesn't do a good enough job with explaining what salvation is and how it works. Many Catholics, in their ignorance, believe that living a good life is what guarantees them a place in Heaven. This is where denominations come in.

For those not familiar with Christendom, the Protestant Reformation was a point in history where an explosion of theological dissent from Roman Catholicism occurred. Up until the 15th century, there were only two dominant churches; the other being the Orthodox Church. The Reformation was a call for Christians to reject Catholic authority and to acknowledge the corruption occurring within it. Martin Luther is considered one of the fathers of the movement, posting his Ninety-Five Theses in 1517. This sparked further protests.

The Church, that is, Christendom, needs followers of this stripe. You'll hear a lot of, "Why can't we all just get along?" in today's culture. We're obsessed with unity, yet have little to no knowledge of what came before. It's yet another example of anti-intellectualism within the Church. I'm not asking for every Christian to be an Augustine, but they need to have the passion to know and understand the convictions and conflicts of our forefathers. The Church is not a country club. There's no place for the half-hearted. If the Church is to flourish, we must have thinkers. We must have brothers and sisters that will challenge the churches. Denominations serve in that purpose. Unity will only homogenize and, eventually, water down the Church.

There's a conflict over the Calvinist doctrine of Preservation of the Saints, also known pejoratively as "once-saved, always-saved". Roman Catholicism objects to this teaching, believing that a Christian essentially gets a hall pass to do whatever he desires. Luther, a believer in said teaching, countered that if a man truly has Christ in his heart, his desire will be to please Him.

I love that! I love that people within the Church can and will care enough about the Word to argue over these things. The Bible should not be approached frivolously. It's meant to be studied. We have the benefit in today's world to debate peacefully. We need to take advantage of that gift. While there are absolute deal-breakers existing within theology, it's debate that will bring Christians together in their mutual love for desiring Christ, not the abolishment of denomination.

-L. Travis Hoffman

9/30/2015

Faith of a Child

We had a guest speaker (Justin Grunewald) in church today. While he gave an excellent lesson and I hope that he comes back to speak again, there was one specific thing he said that really lodged itself in my mind. He related how he accepted salvation when he was only five years old. He made a point to emphasize how surprising it is for a child so young to do something like that. And then something donned on me.

I accepted salvation when I was somewhere between 6-8 years of age. Not as young as five, but still pretty young. Young enough that I really didn't understand the depth and implications of being saved. I did speak to someone in the church and I was even in a group class that taught about it, but I was the youngest in that group. It didn't really click. All I could wrap my head around was that Jesus died for my sins and that we needed to ask Him into our heart. So I did just that. I did it because I knew that was what we were supposed to do.

I've always found that to be kind of unusual. You always hear stories about how people came to be part of the Church after struggling with the choice. It seems so foreign a thing to me because I just did it out of obedience, like it was no different than doing school work or making sure to have good manners. I'm not trying to diminish my fellow Christians' testimonies or say that I'm in some way more spiritually mature. I'm only trying to explain how my mind worked at that time.

These have been discussed in a previous post, but Justin Grunewald's words brought to mind one of the five points of Calvinism, Irresistible Grace. Maybe my asking for Christ's salvation was purely an act of the spirit as opposed to relating to the mind. Jesus did say that the Kingdom of Heaven belonged to children and He instructed those around Him to have the faith of a child. It starts to fall into place.

Then I think about how incredibly fortunate I was to be blessed with that proclivity as a young church-goer. I could've been older when I got saved. I could've gone through a chunk of my life without Christ being bonded to me. It's true that the Lord is always with us. But there's a difference between the Lord being with you and the Lord being in you. I haven't always been the most dedicated of Christians. Yet it has always been something important to me in some way. Which brings up another point within Calvinism, Preservation of the Saints. That is, that the saved will always be guided back to the Lord, however far they've drifted away from Him. That's the distinction. I'm glad that I was able to have that gift as a little boy.

-L. Travis Hoffman

8/30/2015

The Double Standard with Sex and Violence and Why I'm Okay with It

I don't like sex scenes in movies. I don't care for nudity, either. Call me prudish, but it comes off as gratuitous and unnecessary in a film. Violence, however, I can get behind. In fact, I enjoy certain types of violence. That will sound strange and even unsettling to many who will read this blog entry, but I'm choosing to be honest here. Maybe the word "enjoy" is misleading. It's probably better for me to say that I can be entertained with violence in a film while comfortably seeing it for what it is.

It's been seen said ad nauseum, especially in Hollywood, that it's easier to get excessive violence through the ratings board, whereas it's like pulling teeth to keep a sex scene without any cuts. There's an excellent documentary, This Film Is Not Yet Rated, that discusses this very thing. The director makes use of interviews and compares footage to make a case that the MPAA has a double standard. And it is double standard. Very much so. But I don't see that as a bad thing.

From infancy itself, we are exposed to violence. We experience pain and we know how it feels. When we hit someone, we're scolded for doing so. If our loved ones are harmed, we sympathize and have emotional distress from it. Barring mental and/or psychological problems, we conclude early on that violence is bad. As we get older, we recognize that the use of force can be necessary to prevent even worse acts of violence against others. Regardless, we can still see that violence is painful and to be avoided.

Sexuality is mostly presented at puberty. Before that, our experiences around it are pretty much limited to hugs and kissing. Then somewhere between fourth and sixth grade we're given sex education. It's awkward, uncomfortable, and often quite funny. We learn about our changing bodies and reproduction and all that good stuff. Most importantly, we learn that sex is enjoyable. When we walk out of that class, that is the deepest engrained fact; sex is good.

This is where the problem presents itself. It's true that sex is enjoyable, but it's not always good. It's not always to our benefit, though we often ignore the consequences and go through with it, anyway. Compare that to violence. Violence is painful and bad, but it can sometimes be of benefit in the long run. We hesitate to use violent ends because we know that there will always be painful consequences. There's frequently idiots who will eschew this common sense, but I'd hope that most people are capable of proper discernment.

I believe media contributes to our culture's short-sightedness with sexuality. Think of 10-20 movies that you've viewed that have a sex scene, however explicit or conservative it might be. After you've done that, think of how many of those movies take the time to explore any negative consequences that could or do come about. I'm talking about emotional or psychological turmoil, its effect on other characters outside of the act, STDs, unwanted pregnancies, abortions, etc. How about even the emotional depth of the act itself? I would wager that most of those 10-20 films don't even graze over these topics. If we're realistic, we know that a lot of sexual relationships (especially pre-marital and/or promiscuous ones) come with this sort of baggage.

There's a great quote from David Lynch where he said, "Sex is a doorway to something so powerful and mystical, but movies usually depict it in a completely flat way. Being explicit doesn't tap into the mystical aspect of it, either. In fact, that usually kills it because people don't want to see sex so much as they want to experience the emotions that go along with it. These things are hard to convey in film because sex is such a mystery." For someone who's never had that kind of intimacy, I'm certain that David Lynch hit the nail on the head. But our youth culture doesn't understand the emotion and can only see the physical pleasures of it. I believe that we all want it, but we aren't aware that it even exists.

Just so I can further prove my point, think of 10-20 movies with violent scenes. When you've done that, think of how many movies show characters mourning, reflecting, regretting, experiencing emotional or psychological distress, etc. Count the movies where a person is in pain or dies. Do you see what I'm saying? However explicit or mild, realistic or stylized, violence is honest in its appearance. Most audiences probably don't watch violence for the sake of violence. Porn has a far wider appeal than snuff films. When we watch a violent movie, it's because the bloodshed is a means to an end. It's violence that is used to prevent further, darker atrocities. It's good against evil.  

I'm not about to say that we don't have our share of problems with it. Every year it seems like there's conflicting studies about whether or not video games make children aggressive. Personally, I don't think it does. Not on any substantial level. If I'm wrong, however, shouldn't we be studying whether sexually explicit media increases promiscuity, teen pregnancy, divorce, or depression? Shouldn't this be brought into prominence too? I say yes.

-L. Travis  Hoffman

7/28/2015

Freedom of the Atheist vs. Freedom of the Christian

The idea of freedom is easily the greatest appeal of atheism. Intellectual freedom. Philosophical freedom. Freedom of lifestyle. Freedom from the guilt and restrictions provided by religion. If you don't want to use your money for charity, you don't have to. Marriage? Sure, if you want. Or you can have a great life of sex. There's no reason why you shouldn't. We're here to procreate; it's instinctual. And if you don't want a child or can't handle one, there's no reason why you can't get an abortion. This is about self-preservation. Again, it's necessary to rely on our biology. It knows us better than ourselves. So long as we aren't hurting anyone, nothing is wrong with holding an atheistic worldview. Society would run more smoothly if we allowed ourselves the freedom of naturalism.

Except that it wouldn't. The natural world can be a brutal place. Watch the Discovery Channel and you'll see it pretty quickly. When you realize that these animals are acting on instinct, things come into focus. Naturalism is able to explain how life works. In simplistic terms, organisms are what they are because of chemical reactions to stimuli. Everything is dictated by this. And that terrifies me.

An atheist, a true atheist, must subscribe to this view. Even Secular Humanism, which claims that humanity can be moral without spirituality, must concede to this fact. Atheism rejects God and the supernatural in favor of empiricism. The natural world is tangible and it can be tested and have proof. Because science is the study of nature and provides knowledge for these things, it becomes the highest form of truth.

However, in accepting naturalism there comes the necessity to yield what atheism values most: freedom. Choice no longer exists or, rather, it never did. Everything you are, everything you do, feel, and think is nothing more than chemical reactions to stimuli. Nothing is "wrong" or "right" because it's just things doing what they do. You're nothing more than a machine that's part of a machine and so on and so on. Nothing has value and, therefore, you have no value.

It's for this reason, first and foremost, that I'm not an atheist. A clockwork existence is a sad and pointless one. Critics of Christianity like to point at how we "suppress" rights and halt progress without realizing that we believe in an actual, non-illusory freedom.

I believe in the processes of how things work. It's undeniable. What differentiates me from the atheist is that I believe in transcendent ideas. I believe that actions and thoughts, sadness, hope, morality, love, and creativity are more than just chemicals. I believe that they are what God put in us. It's what separates us from all other life. It reveals our value and our individuality. It reveals God's love in creating us. And any true atheist that's intellectually honest with himself will recognize that he cannot believe in these things without a God in existence.

-L. Travis Hoffman

7/23/2015

"But Jesus Was God!"

Hebrews 4:15

"For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are -- yet he did not sin."

Every once in a while, you'll find yourself at a place in life where things just plain suck. Things that don't seem to be getting better. Inevitably for the Christian you will likely be met with the consolation that even Jesus went through rough times. Very rarely do I ever feel any sort of relief from that. In fact, it almost always irks me.

Jesus was God. I mean, he still is God but I'm speaking specifically to His life on Earth. At the same time, He was also fully man. As such, He felt the pains and temptations of sin that plague every one of us. But did He really? I find myself asking this question frequently. If Christ felt temptation to sin yet was still perfect and pure in nature, was there any real temptation to be had? He was aware of His own divinity. Wouldn't He also be aware that He would never succumb and, therefore, never needed to be concerned? This is where I get annoyed.

Until recently, it never occurred to me that my questions and frustrations are exactly what makes Christ so far beyond our understanding. The Bible says that He faced temptation and always conquered it and I believe this to be true. I've never given pause to think that I could be interpreting this verse incorrectly. For all the times I've stressed contextualizing scripture, I found myself falling to the same mistake that again and again I've had to address.

So what if Jesus faced temptation? That doesn't need to be the draw of Hebrews 4:15. The point is that "he did not sin". Picture a time in the past when there was something that you really wanted to do, agonizingly so, but knew that it was wrong and that, in your conviction, you would never do it. Now take that and apply it to Jesus with every single temptation in His life. Imagine the emotional and even physical toll that would take upon a man. An ever-increasing burden made worse with the knowledge that He would be taking all of mankind's sins with Him in the most horrible death imaginable. It's no wonder He was sweating blood.

I could very well be misinterpreting this verse. My knowledge of hermeneutics is limited, however much I find it enlightening. But I have little doubt that the conclusion I've made is consistent with the character of Christ. The value in that is something that has brought me comfort in a way that it never had before.

-L. Travis Hoffman

7/23/2015