Pirates Be Ye Warned - part 1

I do not usually comment on current affairs, but it is interesting that, next week, there will be a discussion panel at Southeastern Seminary on war and violence. It comes in the aftermath of yesterday's news headline about Captain Philips, and I wonder if the discussion will address this topic specifically. So, I thought I would try to mediate what I think the bible says about war and violence (since I can't attend the discussion) and provide my commentary on the situation of piracy.


I guess we have to begin in Genesis 4, since that is where we find the first act of violence:

8 Now Cain said to his brother Abel, "Let's go out to the field." And while they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him. 9 Then the Lord said to Cain, "Where is your brother Abel?" "I don't know," he replied. "Am I my brother's keeper?" 10 The Lord said, "What have you done? Listen! Your brother's blood cries out to me from the ground. 11 Now you are under a curse and driven from the ground, which opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand. 12 When you work the ground, it will no longer yield its crops for you. You will be a restless wanderer on the earth." 13 Cain said to the Lord, "My punishment is more than I can bear. 14 Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me." 15 But the Lord said to him, "Not so; if anyone kills Cain, he will suffer vengeance seven times over." Then the Lord put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him. 16 So Cain went out from the Lord's presence and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden. (Gen 4:8-16)

This is interesting. The first act of murder does not end in the first case of capital punishment. It ends in the first case of criminal pardon. (This mirrors the first case of grace and pardon you see in Genesis 3). Cain takes a life and is shown mercy. He ends up, in verse 16, living. In a way, his sentence is also reduced. The original sentence against him is alienation from the land - that produce would not grow for him anymore. But that sentence is changed. He is merely marked as a man who will have his sentence commuted to another day.

But this is not all there is to know. Look at Genesis 9:

5 And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man. 6 "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man.

In this passage, God is affirming that His desire is to replenish the planet with Noah's family. He wants a fresh start and no one is to interfere with His blessing of Noah. So this regulation is universalized: men are authorized to use capital punishment. I think it's important to point out both sides of the coin at this point in time. God's first "impulse" if you will (please excuse the word if you don't like it) - His first inclination is Genesis 4: mercy and grace. He provides, however, an overarching regulation that protects His favorite creatures from one another: "by man shall his blood be shed" - interestingly, not by God.

Armed with this knowledge, we can proceed to Exodus 20:

1 And God spoke all these words: 2 "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 3 "You shall have no other gods before me. 4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments. [...] 13 "You shall not murder.

So, first, we see that God establishes Himself as a God of Love and a God of Justice. He also establishes a clear relationship between Himself and His creation: friend or foe. Those who make enemies with Him, however, can expect relatively short-lived consequences - short compared to the consequences of loving Him. The "Ten Commandments" are actually part of an introductory speech. THE LORD is meeting Israel for the first time in person and is introducing Himself. Part of His introduction is this list of appropriate responses to Him - The Ten Commandments. The one that comes into focus here is in verse 13: "you shall not murder." In other words, God is saying, "Because of who I am, a God who loves and shows compassion and grace, I will not tolerate it when you murder." This is in keeping with what we've seen in Genesis 4 and 9. Murder is not tolerable. So, what is murder? I don't think we have to define it specifically, but I think it will help to define it in context.

Murder is a God-Defying act of violence toward a person that - ultimately - takes away the victim's life. It is an inappropriate response to who God is, and it is a response that places the offender in the position of "hating God" - of becoming His enemy. It invokes the universal principle of human-dispensed, capital punishment.

Thus far it seems that there is biblical merit in extending clemency to pirates by waiting until they have committed capital crimes before committing them to be executed. Even then, there also seems to be a God-Shaped heart in extending further mercy to an offender by reducing the sentence of death to a life-long sentence of punishment. But, I intend to explore the matter a little further in part 2 of this post and see whether there is any merit in preemptive measures and any real clemency in life-long punishment. Also, I already anticipate a part 3 which will deal specifically with what a government should do about such things in my view.

Where Is the Rock-and-Roll in Christian Music?

In February of 1964, the air of America was stirred by the music of The Beatles as they appeared in the flesh on American soil. American pop-culture was never the same. The most influential band in Anglo-American culture, these ambassadors of rock and roll continue to hold records for producing chart-topping music*. In many ways the Beatles defined the 1960's, particularly the trajectory for the American popular music industry.

However, 45 years after the Beatles toured America for the first time, what has become of rock and roll? It has been turned into the envelope that delivers commercialism, the battlefield of ideologies, and the forgotten echo of a bygone era. Pseudo-Electronica threatens to undo it. Pop wheedles its way in to replace it. The organic, passionate cry of the singer/songwriter is lost in the whirling advance of industry.

And all of this seeps into our churches through the music that is a vehicle for worship.

I have often heard that, musically speaking, the church is behind. Usually, people say this to mean that the musical trends of the church are several years behind the trends heard in commercial music. They are generally correct. The Christian music industry has a tendency to ape the mainstream movements of its parent companies (most Christian labels are subsidiaries of major production companies).

I'm proposing an alternative position, however. Worship leaders, singer/songwriters, even pastors, are caught in the tidal pool of industry and are further behind than "a couple of years." Musically and culturally speaking, most of us are about 45 years behind. We never embraced rock and roll. We never joined the Beatles or any other rock group from the 60's in the defiant departure from popular mainstream music. We never joined the revolution.

Now, I know that you're probably thinking, "But the Beatles became mainstream." Sure, now they are, but not when they were being denounced from pulpits across America as the ambassadors of evil. Their music had as many opponents as adoring fans. Their counter-cultural message was not appreciated - particularly as it related to the music industry.

And that message - that counter-cultural, defiant criticism of the music industry is what I want to advocate and encourage. There are some wonderful exceptions to the rule but, in the main, we are filling our churches, iPods, and heads with mechanistic, industrial glop. The scandalous, beautiful, difficult, powerful message of the gospel of Jesus the Messiah is lost in the profit margins, contracts, endorsements, radio ads, and irresponsible, churchless noise that is amplified by radio towers and empowered by the iTunes store.

It's time to stop. It's time to think. And here's what I'd like us to think about:

1. Is this music good? I mean REALLY good - not tolerable, GOOD. Is it complicated enough or simple enough to be consistent with the message it presents? Is it innovative? Does it have soul? Does it accomplish its created purpose?
   
2. Who is providing this music? The question is NOT, "who is singing the music?" The question is, "who is providing the music?" Who wrote it? Why did he write it? What is this person's character? What is his theology? What is this person's motivation? How is it being produced and promoted?
   
3. To whom is the musician responsible? (In other words, "What church supports this musician?") There is an anti-church, anti-establishmentarian, underground, sub-culture that flourishes in the Christian music industry. These artists and producers spread an anti-church message of "free worship" and "free Christianity." They are the unaccountable and should not be supported.

How will we answer these questions? Responsible journalism. I would love to see more churches interviewing bands and free-lance worship leaders, discerning their motivations, and publishing these findings for other churches. Christian magazines tend to ask promotional questions, endorsing new talent, new products, and more consumption. They tend to shy away from the difficult questions. (This is not a typical interview: "So, Lance, how is your relationship with your pastor(s)? Oh, gee, Sally, I don't really have a pastor. Lance, do you mean to tell me that you aren't in a covenant relationship with a local church? Well, Sally, if you put it that way...no.")

Where are the interviewers who will ask these questions and the bands who, like Casting Crowns (to name one), can answer these questions with responses like this: "We love our pastor and love our church. We find a greatest measure of joy in bringing new music to the church, finding constructive criticism there, and taking that creative fellowship into the recording studio." Where is the producer who finds joy in being held accountable - not by his recording label but by his church? Where are the artists and managers who are that counter-cultural, who defy the system?

Where is the Christian, rock and roll?