Jul
27
2012
60 Second Summary: When Evangelicals Were Cool
Articles you need to know about, summarized in 60 seconds (or less).
The Article: When Evangelicals Were Cool
The Source: RealClearReligion
The Author: Philip Jenkins, distinguished professor of history at Baylor University
The Gist: While historians tend to downplay the effect of popular culture on religion, rock music played an integral role in the spreading evangelicalism in America.
The Excerpt:
Historians do a fine job of showing how Christian movements and leaders developed during these years, highly influential groups like Campus Crusade for Christ. But those groups faced a daunting challenge in reaching out to a non-believing audience that was at first deeply unsympathetic to the moral and cultural messages they preached. To say the least, the years around 1970 were not a promising time to be preaching chastity, heterosexuality, and a drug-free lifestyle, all the more so if the media stereotype of evangelical ministers was drawn from Inherit the Wind, Elmer Gantry, and even the homicidal pastor in Night of the Hunter.
In turn, many evangelicals were also deeply suspicious of the whole rock music culture. And however trivial this issue may seem in retrospect, hair length constituted a stark cultural boundary. Young Christian groups could organize to their hearts' content, but they were not going to have a wider impact on the secular world until they could span that cultural gulf. And yet, obviously, they did succeed. By 1970, evangelical Christianity was having a real impact on hippyish subcultures and Jesus People groups were becoming commonplace. By 1972, Campus Crusade attracted tens of thousands to Dallas for Explo '72, a kind of Christian Woodstock.
Divine intervention apart, how on earth did they manage it?
The Bottom Line: While Jenkins may be overstating the case for particular artists ("If we can't exactly claim [the Byrd's] Sweetheart of the Rodeo as the album that changed America's faith, then it made a mighty contribution."), the role of rock music in shaping American Christianity---for good and ill---has been underestimated. Much of the music Jenkins discusses certainly served a pre-apologetic function during the 1970s, making evangelicalism palatable to younger audiences.
While it is too soon to say for certain, the rise of Christian hip-hop may be playing a similar role in broadening the appeal of conservative evangelicalism. Unlike in the 1970s, when Christian rock was viewed with suspicion by older believers, many evangelical leaders are embracing and encouraging this movement. The unlikely alliance of pastors and performers is also producing a more theologically informed musical form than in previous decades. If the Reformed tradition becomes more popular within the African American community, future historians will certainly have to credit the influence of Christian rappers.
13 Comments
Sweetheart of the Rodeo is such a great record!
Perhaps the most impactful Christians in history were the Puritans. I don't believe their concern was with spanning a "cultural gulf." Were their times that much different or are we just too worldly?
Coincidental or causal is the real question that comes to my mind. Having lived through the time in an area of the country that was at the for front of the sexual revolution, having gone to Explo’72, having been in college at the time when the wettest “dry” campus in the nation, according to some magazines, had a revival and is now one of the most Christian, I have some opinion on this topic. The real answer is a revival, where the Holy Spirit chose to work on enough in the hearts of enough students on some college campuses of America that Christianity was accepted as viable by the media and then society. Music is important, being able to communicate is important, living a biblical lifestyle is important. Most important is to pray that we are aligned with God to be ready for Him to move. Future historians may say all sorts of things about rap and reform, but the bottom line is the sovereignty of God and the malleability of His people.
"If the Reformed tradition becomes more popular within the African American community, future historians will certainly have to credit the influence of Christian rappers."
That would be "da Bomb"!
Am I kewl or what?
... No.
"..the years around 1970 were not a promising time to be preaching chastity, heterosexuality, and a drug-free lifestyle"
And is it any more promising now as a result of the cross pollination between pop culture and evangelical Christianity? Previous efforts to broaden the appeal of evangelicalism simply broadened evangelicalism itself to the point that the contemporary evangelical church is a mile wide and an inch deep.
Seeker friendly solas: Sola Relevancy
Some things never change.
There will always be grouchy, self-canonized ‘Super Christians’ whining about how "seeker-sensitivity", "relevance", etc. will irrevocably void the Gospel message.
No one with any sense is suggesting that we alter the Gospel to appease our audience or that we can entertain people unto a love of Jesus.
To be sure, there is potential for abuse, and we should guard against it, but this “seeker-sensitivity”/pursuit of “relevance” is not necessarily the boogeyman some have made it out to be.
Consider what Paul the Apostle, inspired by God the Holy Spirit, says in 1 Corinthians 9:
“To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some.23I do all this for the sake of the gospel…”
Obviously he is not saying that he reinvented the Gospel to suit different cultural contexts or any such nonsense, but he did adjust his *methods* in light of contrasting situations.
Moreover, we also see this concept at work in the Gospels themselves.
Luke, written in large part to the notoriously “pontificational” (if you will) Greek audience, is by far the longest of the synoptics, giving additional details and insight not mentioned elsewhere. Conversely, Mark, primarily directed to the no-nonsense, pragmatic Romans, is much shorter and "to the point"- almost reading like a script to an action movie. Matthew, mainly with the Jews in mind, offers an expanded focus on genealogies and Old Testament references that would particularly resonate with the people of Israel.
So we see, even in The Bible itself, there is one *message*, but three distinct *approaches* for three distinct audiences.
Are we to chastise the Word of God for being “seeker-sensitive”?
Oh foolish Holy Spirit, inspiring The Bible to compromise with culture in a silly quest for “relevancy”!
If only He could be as prudent as us…
-David Kent
TheDavidKent.com
Actually, David Kent, I wouldn't deny that one should not speak at their audience but rather, they should speak to them. However, my fear is that what is communicated by "Christian Woodstocks" is the attitude of "people won't listen unless we wrap it up in a cozy cover of (insert most pertinent cultural expression, music, fad, or movie genre)" Is sin and the desire for grace not relevant enough?
I quote from an article on your good blog: "Actions speak louder than words, and teens are not nearly as deaf as we’ve treated them." If you seriously think that teens aren't "as deaf as we've treated them" then why would we talk to them as if they are deaf and cannot comprehend the truth without these devices?
Also, you say: "Their 'faith' is, God help us, a terrifyingly accurate reflection of what we have modeled for them." That being the case, for my children and those I instruct I take this to heart. It is extremely important not to add fluff to your role as a model. That's not to say there isn't joy or happiness or fun. But they will not be the condition for the Gospel. Comics and kids games are good and fun, but Jesus Christ is not just another super hero. My witness will not espouse that nor imply that.
Well, in my previous comment here and in the article you referenced, I am responding to two separate issues.
The former is a question of communication *style*, which we need not be dogmatic about. We shouldn’t automatically cry “heresy!” whenever someone tries to bridge a cultural gap or “speak the language” of their audience.
On the other hand is the issue of content, which we absolutely *must* be dogmatic about. In the article, I am referring to ‘ministries’ in which putting on a show and entertaining the audience has become the point. The Gospel (justification by faith alone, through grace alone, in Christ alone) is jettisoned- explicitly in word or implicitly in deed- in favor of moralistic deism. This should be emphatically opposed on all fronts.
To summarize, *how* we preach is open to innovation; *what* we preach is not.
While we obviously cannot regale our listeners into a genuine love for the person and work of Jesus, we can certainly repel them through cultural friction (whether real or imagined). With that in mind, it is acceptable and even laudable to reach out and seek some measure of common ground via music, film, etc.
As you say, it is not the *condition* for the Gospel, but cultural divisions will often *obscure* the Gospel, and that is the last thing we want.
Of course, salvation is ultimately dependent on God the Holy Spirit. However, we are still commanded to preach the Gospel, and- I think- we should strive to do so with wisdom and a proper sense of acumen.
Thank you for the kind words and insight.
-David Kent
TheDavidKent.com
PS- Bear in mind, I have an extremely high view of Superheroes. ;)
Well, in my previous comment here and in the article you referenced, I am responding to two separate issues.
The former is a question of communication *style*, which we need not be dogmatic about. We shouldn’t automatically cry “heresy!” whenever someone tries to bridge a cultural gap or “speak the language” of their audience.
On the other hand is the issue of content, which we absolutely *must* be dogmatic about. In the article, I am referring to ‘ministries’ in which putting on a show and entertaining the audience has become the point. The Gospel (justification by faith alone, through grace alone, in Christ alone) is jettisoned- explicitly in word or implicitly in deed- in favor of moralistic deism. This should be emphatically opposed on all fronts.
To summarize, *how* we preach is open to innovation; *what* we preach is not.
While we obviously cannot regale our listeners into a genuine love for the person and work of Jesus, we can certainly repel them through cultural friction (whether real or imagined). With that in mind, it is acceptable and even laudable to reach out and seek some measure of common ground via music, film, etc.
As you say, it is not the *condition* for the Gospel, but cultural divisions will often *obscure* the Gospel, and that is the last thing we want.
Of course, salvation is ultimately dependent on God the Holy Spirit. However, we are still commanded to preach the Gospel, and- I think- we should strive to do so with wisdom and a proper sense of acumen.
Thank you for the kind words and insight.
-David Kent
TheDavidKent.com
PS- Bear in mind, I have an extremely high view of Superheroes. ;)
[...] 1. 60 Second Summary: When Evangelicals Were Cool [...]