Cussing Christians (and Those Who Don’t Like It)
- 07.15.09
- God's Kingdom, Caedmon's Call, Derek Webb
- 8 Comments
I’ve never been a huge fan of the Christian band, Caedmon’s Call, but when one of their lead singers, Derek Webb, began making solo albums, my interest was peaked. It was peaked because he started recording songs that got him in trouble with the conservative Christian institution in this country. As a matter of fact, the biggest local bookstore here in Albuquerque won’t even sell his albums, and his latest release called Stockholm Syndrome was delayed because his Christian record label didn’t know what to do because of the lyrics of his song, “What Matters More.”
Here are the lyrics that forced his record label to label the album “explicit.”
You say you always treat people like you like to be
I guess you love being hated for your sexuality
You love when people put words in your mouth
‘Bout what you believe, make you sound like a freak‘Cause if you really believe what you say you believe
You wouldn’t be so damn reckless with the words you speak
Wouldn’t silently consent when the liars speak
Denyin’ all the dyin’ or the remedyTell me, brother, what matters more to you?
Tell me, sister, what matters more to you?If I can tell what’s in your heart by what comes out of your mouth
Then it sure looks to me like being straight is all it’s about
It looks like being hated for all the wrong things
Like chasin’ the wind while the pendulum swings‘Cause we can talk and debate until we’re blue in the face
About the language and tradition that he’s comin’ to save
Meanwhile we sit just like we don’t give a shit
About 50,000 people who are dyin’ today
Tell me, brother, what matters more to you?
Tell me, sister, what matters more to you?
Derek is using the same tact that Tony Campolo does when he says things like this: While you were sleeping last night, 30,000 kids died of starvation or diseases related to malnutrition. Second, most of you don’t give a shit. What’s more is that you’re more upset with the fact that I just said ’shit’ than the fact that 30,000 kids died last night. This song seems to be asking what message the church sends when we get all up in arms about homosexuality without being concerned about the global AIDS crisis.
While the song is – for sure – controversial in nature because of the use of two words that many deem inappropriate, I would argue that the song is by no means “explicit” in nature like his record label suggests. Many of the songs on the radio today make this song sound like a nursery rhyme in comparison. Besides, the message Derek is conveying is one that the church desperately needs to hear, but unfortunately, so many of the “normal” methods modern preachers and prophets use to convey it aren’t being heard.
So, my prayer is that the controversy surrounding this song will draw a large amount of attention to it, and that in so doing, the message of compassion, justice, non-judgment, and unconditional love (which the last time I checked is the message of Jesus) will be heard.
amen….i just wonder how many Christians will claim to be bothered by the “explicit” language, when in reality they are offended by the rebuke of our offensive actions and inaction as a church.
Although I am not offended by this and believe there is a place for it (a very small place), I don’t think there is anything wrong with having a problem with it. Not everyone is a radical follower of Christ. Not everyone is Gen X or Y and wants the new style of church. And most importantly not everyone who is struggling with their faith is going to understand this and could suffer a setback. You never know who is listening to your CD. My point being: this is not just a black and white deal. It is very complicated and gray. And what might be acceptable in one instance might be a horrible decision in another. So I cannot be like Megan and simply say “Amen”. It’s way deeper than that.
If businesses don’t want to sell this CD, that’s fine. It’s their business and I’m not so sure a CD is where you want to draw your line of principle. I have never had a problem with labeling CDs. What’s wrong with knowing a little something about what you’re going to buy especially if it’s a rare and controversial situation? What’s wrong with being informed? The Passion of The Christ was rated R for graphic violence and you knew that going in. So I don’t see a problem here. It’s not keeping anyone from making the CD they want and it’s not keeping anyone from buying it.
As long as one is following Christ there is nothing wrong with being the conservative type. I am the son of two.
just to clarify, chad, my ‘amen’ was in reference to the sentiment of the song (and blog) that we need to stop being poor representations of Christ in the way in which we interact with the world. it was not an ‘amen’ to allowing cussing in Christian music, or to not warning consumers of what is in the CD they are contemplating buying. i have no problem with labeling the music…
I have no problem with labeling albums, but to label this album “explicit” because of this song is rediculous. I could understand labeling it “controversial” but not “explicit”?
I will steal words from my good friend Mike Potter. In a situation like this “context is key”.
And Christians wring their hands and bemoan how people are fleeing Christianity and the faith…well, maybe it’s because they see legalists pick fights over silly stuff like this. Snoop Dog is Explicit. Paris Hilton (when she forgets her underwear) is Explicit. This song is not explicit. And for his record label to brand it as such, just goes to show that they are narrow minded and well…hypocrites. They loved Webb when he was doing his “normal” stuff and raking in money for them – now it’s a different story that he’s chosen to address the controversial topic of AIDS or starvation or even homosexual themes.
Although the language may cause one to flinch, shame on us for not being deeply grieved that our churches are not welcoming places for those who are broken and afflicted in ways that offend our sensibilities. The homosexual community at large, (not the activists who strive to be confrontational), are full of fear of condemnation to enter the average church. How often do we expect certain “undesirable populations” to get their act together before they come to the local church? As believers we find our personal life-dominating sins difficult to overcome. We know it is impossible to overcome apart from Christ, yet our understanding of grace often falls short and we fail to wait on Jesus for change in the “difficult cases” because we are ignorant, afraid and our love and faith falter. Homosexuals are the “untouchables” in the Christian world. Mother Teresa has much to teach us, especially about comforting the dying in the parts of the fallen world in which we live.
You said: “This song seems to be asking what message the church sends when we get all up in arms about homosexuality without being concerned about the global AIDS crisis”
Many Christians are concerned about AIDS and people dying from it, but before AIDS there was malaria, leprosy and tons of other diseases that have killed thousands of people. We live in a fallen world and death will be a part of it until Christ’s return. We have no cure for death, we do have a cure for sin, Jesus. Ultimately, saving the souls of people through explaining why we believe their presuppositions are wrong, and the Bible absolute truth (and Jesus the central, and most important person to walk this earth) is more important.
And then: “Many of the songs on the radio make this song sound like a nursery rhyme in comparison” Many things make others look not so bad in comparison, that doesn’t make it right.
Also: “While the song is-for sure-controversial in nature because of the use of two words that many deem inappropriate” There are entire movie and CD rating systems that label media by the amount of cursing in them.
“Unconditional love (which the last time I checked is the message of Jesus)” It’s part of the message, but that is not a complete description of it, following Jesus requires repentance, and turning away from our sins.
“So, my prayer is that the controversy surrounding this song will draw a large amount of attention to it, and that in so doing, the message of compassion, justice, non-judgment, and unconditional love (which the last time I checked is the message of Jesus) will be heard.” A christian using cursing in an attempt to shock people into thinking about the plight of dying people is ineffective at best and most likely harmful. Ineffective, because no one is paying attention to the message, all anyone is talking about is his language(this blog post isn’t about people dying of AIDS it’s about whether cussing is an acceptable way to grab attention) not the lives of people dying from AIDS. Harmful because not only is no one thinking about the disease but many will be turned off from his music and any influence he could have held will be lost and his message will disappear with it.
As for the song itself:
’cause if you really believe what you say you believe you wouldn’t be so damn reckless with the words you speak [well isn't that ironic?]
if I can tell what’s in your heart by what comes out of your mouth then it sure looks to me like being straight is all it’s about [actually it's all about loving Jesus Christ and showing that love through your love and actions.]
Pastor Mike
“I have no problem with labeling albums, but to label this album ‘explicit’ because of this song is ridiculous. I could understand labeling it ‘controversial’ but not ‘explicit’” I don’t think that would work, if the album had a disclaimer saying ‘this is controversial’ that could mean anything from his political views to his views on the authority of scripture, what is “controversial” about the record needs to be explained explicitly (pardon the pun) so that people can know whether or not they will be bothered by it, the simplest way to do so would be to label the album explicit ( which is widely accepted as meaning an album contains offensive language.)
Ms. Darcy
“Maybe it’s because they see legalists pick fights over silly stuff like this” What’s legalistic about thinking something is wrong?
“Snoop Dog is Explicit. Paris Hilton (when she forgets her underwear) is Explicit.” I think Paris Hilton is explicit more than just when she forgets her underwear, but these people are not followers of Christ and don’t follow the word of God, so they cannot be expected to go by the same standards.
“And for his record label to brand it as such, just goes to show that they are narrow minded and well…hypocrites” How so? I encourage you to look up the lyrics of his song “Wedding Dress” from an earlier album, which they had no problem with, but as mentioned by others, context is key.
Although, all any of us can do is speculate about what will happen with the CD until it has run its course and see what happens.