02.15.06
Posted in faith, fun at 11:33 am by Brandon
So, as is so often the case in these here parts, the minute I write a post about being an absentee blogger is the same minute that I have an idea that I feel the need to blog about. This morning on the drive into East Lansing I got to thinking about fundagelicals, and, well, how much fun they really are.
I got to musing about how lots of fundagelicals sing a good game in church on sunday morning, but their theology isn’t really best represented. Thus, I thought I’d, you know, help them out a bit by penning some more appropriate words to popular praise songs. If this goes well, I may work on a few more fundagelical praise tunes. If it flops, well, that’ll probably be no surprise to any of us and I’ll stop.
So here we go:
Withdrawn from the World
(To the tune of Shine Jesus Shine)
Stanza 1:
Lord this world that you made is so dangerous;
We’ll form a militia so that it won’t injure us.
Movies, and gambling, and whores abound;
We’ll keep our heads in the sand unfound.
Withdrawn from the world;
All boys and girls!
Chorus:
Withdrawn from the world
Hiding from all creation
Withdrawn from the world
May hell burn every nation
We’re so afraid
Come back today! (2x)
Stanza 2:
Those unbelievers, Dear God, they’re so awful;
The godless bastards will burn in hell.
We’ll pay lip service to saving the lost;
Meanwhile we’ll work on trademarking the cross.
Let’s run from all sin;
Ignoring what’s within!
Chorus:
Withdrawn from the world
Hiding from all creation
Withdrawn from the world
May hell burn every nation
We’re so afraid
Come back today! (2x)
Tags: Fundagelicals, Praise Songs
Permalink
Trackback URL »
http://www.badchristian.com/2006/02/15/if-they-sang-their-theology/trackback/
Posted in faith, fun at 11:33 am by Brandon
So, as is so often the case in these here parts, the minute I write a post about being an absentee blogger is the same minute that I have an idea that I feel the need to blog about. This morning on the drive into East Lansing I got to thinking about fundagelicals, and, well, how much fun they really are.
I got to musing about how lots of fundagelicals sing a good game in church on sunday morning, but their theology isn’t really best represented. Thus, I thought I’d, you know, help them out a bit by penning some more appropriate words to popular praise songs. If this goes well, I may work on a few more fundagelical praise tunes. If it flops, well, that’ll probably be no surprise to any of us and I’ll stop.
So here we go:
Withdrawn from the World
(To the tune of Shine Jesus Shine)
Stanza 1:
Lord this world that you made is so dangerous;
We’ll form a militia so that it won’t injure us.
Movies, and gambling, and whores abound;
We’ll keep our heads in the sand unfound.
Withdrawn from the world;
All boys and girls!
Chorus:
Withdrawn from the world
Hiding from all creation
Withdrawn from the world
May hell burn every nation
We’re so afraid
Come back today! (2x)
Stanza 2:
Those unbelievers, Dear God, they’re so awful;
The godless bastards will burn in hell.
We’ll pay lip service to saving the lost;
Meanwhile we’ll work on trademarking the cross.
Let’s run from all sin;
Ignoring what’s within!
Chorus:
Withdrawn from the world
Hiding from all creation
Withdrawn from the world
May hell burn every nation
We’re so afraid
Come back today! (2x)
Tags: Fundagelicals, Praise Songs
Permalink
Trackback URL »
http://www.badchristian.com/2006/02/15/if-they-sang-their-theology/trackback/
Joe said,
February 15, 2006 at 12:49 pm
dude that’s pretty much my favorite worship song of all time i don’t even see what words you changed…
ninjanun said,
February 15, 2006 at 2:27 pm
Heh. My husband used to say (in critique of the more fundamental evangelical churches) “We sing because we don’t DO.” That is, many Christians view “worship” as singing, instead of living our whole lives before God as a witness to her glory. And evangelicals lately seem very focused on music as the only valid expression of worship (at the expense of the more weighty issues, such as working towards justice and uplifting the downtrodden). Dude, I was a worship leader, and I came to see the shallowness of that mindset (which is one reason I’m not a worship leader anymore)! Telling God how much we love her by singing pretty songs is nice as far as it goes, but it tends to be a replacement in people’s minds (and lives) for true worship. It’s a bit like telling my spouse over and over (and over and over, often ad nauseum) that I love him, but never making a concerted effort to demonstrate my love by doing other things I know would please him.
Furthermore, not everyone likes or is capable of singing, anyway, so where does that leave them for the first 30 minutes or so of a church service?
zalm said,
February 15, 2006 at 2:53 pm
Wait. You mean to tell me that singing to my wife for 30 minutes a week isn’t enough?
I’m clearly going about this all wrong.
Jacke said,
February 15, 2006 at 2:54 pm
Brandon! Neat idea! I wrote one too, I liked the idea so much! Here’s a Progressive Christian Praise song, same tune:
Withdrawn from the Word
Stanza 1:
Lord, this world that you made so tedious;
We’ll form a movement so that it won’t bore us.
Gay marriage, abortion, entitlements abound;
We’ll keep advancing till the truth’s unfound
Withdrawn from the Word;
All boys and girls!
Chorus:
Withdrawn from the Word
biding in Darwin’s creation
withdrawn from the Word
may we finance every Nation
just don’t take mine
Come back today! (2X)
Stanza 2:
Those fundamental Christians, God they’re so awful
Standing up for what they believe! :0
We’ll pay lip service to loving all your children
meanwhile we’ll cut them down at the knee
Let’s all run from them
Ignoring what’s within!
Chorus:
Withdrawn from the Word
biding in Darwin’s creation
Withdrawn from the Word
May we finance every Nation
Just don’t take mine
Come back today! (2X)
Brandon said,
February 15, 2006 at 3:28 pm
Hmm…must’ve struck a nerve, I did.
he he he
Jacke said,
February 15, 2006 at 3:49 pm
Well, yes and no. The nerve you struck was in your generalizations, your pretense at being able to speak for what you call “fundagelicals.” You can no more speak for fundagelicals than a paraplegic from birth can speak on behalf of olympic runners, Brandon. It was my light-hearted way of making that point. Do you think what I wrote describes the theology of Progressive Christians? I don’t think what you wrote describes the theology of “fundagelicals.” That said, you can have all the fun you want with writing bogus song lyrics for other people, but I think it is rather ridiculous to pretend you would like to open a line of communication with them when writing such things. Of course, that’s your choice, you don’t have to please anyone but yourself. Just to clarify once again, it is generalizations about groups of people which I find unnerving and that is the very reason why I frequent your blog, to try to be a voice for myself instead of letting people who know absolutely nothing about me make broad generalizations about me, lumping me in with others who you seem to think you have some sort of understanding about, what a disappointment. I really don’t care but it does cause me to rethink advising someone to visit your blog. He is a PK and is eaten up with bitterness for some reason, he’s of the progressive persuasion and I had thought that he might find some reinforcement and peace by visiting your blog and talking with likeminded people. Now I’m questioning whether it would be a help or not. I think I’ll pass.
Brandon said,
February 15, 2006 at 3:58 pm
Enjoy the moral high ground, Jacke. I’m sure it’s comfortable there.
Jacke said,
February 15, 2006 at 4:05 pm
Brandon, I know you’d like to start a fight with me but I’m not in the mood, maybe some other time? I don’t think I am any more moral than anybody else in this world. You have a pleasant day, I plan to.
Shteevie said,
February 15, 2006 at 4:13 pm
Wow. I got deleted
Brandon said,
February 15, 2006 at 4:14 pm
Huh?!? I didn’t delete you! What did you post?
Shteevie said,
February 15, 2006 at 4:20 pm
Nothing substantial. Just that I’m a professional journalist and offered to look at your piece of journalism once it’s completed.
Brandon said,
February 15, 2006 at 4:22 pm
OH! That was the first post (the absentee blogger post)!
I did read that and was quite encouraged, Shteevie. I’ll shoot you an email when things start to materialize.
Angel said,
February 15, 2006 at 4:29 pm
BAHAHAHAHAHA love it!
I don’t mind praise songs now and then, but most of them, they bore me musically. They drive my hubby (who is more traditionally/classically inclined) absolutely nuts–he’ll probably be over to read this soon, I was laughing so hard!
Allison said,
February 15, 2006 at 4:48 pm
So, what’s the deal with so many of the popular praise songs dating from the late 80s, anyway? I mean, I haven’t regularly attended a charismaniac church since high school (okay, maybe early college in the early 90s too), but I know this song. I used to *lead* this song in youth group worship, damn it.
Funnnneeeeeee.
Yes, I get Jacke’s point about offering to reach out with one hand, then slapping down with the other, but frankly…I think anyone who doesn’t see the humor must be sorely lacking a sense of humor.
This pretty accurately represents the fundagelicalism that I grew up with, at least.
A
Allison said,
February 15, 2006 at 4:55 pm
You know, reading the lyrics again, I think it’s a little too heavy on the anger/hatred. Most of the fundies I’ve known don’t hate the world so much as they fear it. The “head in the sand” description is the absolute closest!
Brandon said,
February 15, 2006 at 4:59 pm
I really hate to have to say this but, it was satire.
timmer k. said,
February 15, 2006 at 5:14 pm
My dad is fond of stating Mark Twain’s position on the issue. It was something to the effect of:
Only one man in ten enjoys singing.
Only one in ten of those who enjoy singing are any good at it.
If the essence of heaven is singing to God for all eternity…is it really heaven, or would that be hell?
meg said,
February 15, 2006 at 6:25 pm
oh, oh, me too! I wanna play. hm, I’ll have to think about this one awhile but, what fun! And, don’t worry Brandon, if you ARE somehow disqualified from speaking about fundagelicalism, I’m pretty sure the 22 years I spent in the world should provide me with some cred. With that cred, I heartily endorse your, what was it you called it? Oh, yes, that’s right. Satire.
Recovering said,
February 15, 2006 at 10:03 pm
Brandon,
Hilarious! Thanks for the chuckle (I got a chuckle out of Jacke’s too)…
jeff said,
February 15, 2006 at 10:41 pm
Brandon,
I still lead worship at my church. With your permission, we’ll be doing this song next Sunday!
oh, and yes it was satire
and yes it was funny
and yes it was pretty true, too!
I recently heard someone I truly admire say, “We use terms like ‘revival’ to describe the day when ’sinners’ will flood our churches. When, in actuality, we will be ‘revived’ when we leave the church and begin flooding the world with love.” (not a precise quote, but close enough)
Dan Lewis said,
February 16, 2006 at 1:24 am
I too am a worship leader. Strange how so many of us have descended so quickly on this blog post.
We rotate bands at our church, so I’m only up there once a month. It is hard to drag worship away from performance and beautiful singing, but I try to when I’m up there; it’s a time for prayer, a time to think about our world, and not just a time for warm fuzzy feelings.
I think Jacke is being a little unfair to Brandon’s opus; it doesn’t target all the people who proudly call themselves fundamentalist and evangelical, but it does target a certain insular attitude that makes it easier to stay on the reservation of our tribe’s particular Christianity and rot. Tracy’s The Analogical Imagination: Christian Theology and the Culture of Pluralism refers to the same temptation not to have to understand people of other cultures and faiths. I certainly understand the temptation, living as I do as a Protestant in Utah. Awesome book, by the way.
I like the song; it challenges me to get out of my comfort zone and be real. But YMMV.
Kyle said,
February 16, 2006 at 2:10 am
As an English major, I think I may have to criticize the song’s poetry, b/c it is far too good to pass for a fundagelical “worship” “song,” at least the kind of “song” that has staying power.
Now playing: Sufjan Stevens, “Casimir Pulaski Day” (now there’s a song that kicks ass! (though in an understated, pensive-banjo manner))
jeff said,
February 16, 2006 at 7:22 am
Looking back, I do see a couple of major flaws with the lyrics…
To be a modern-day worship song, you absolutely MUST mention “the river” at least once… and you must say the word “holy” twice.
Other than that, it’s worthy…
Joshua said,
February 16, 2006 at 9:01 am
Singing is just a tool that is meant to draw you into worship. Worship is your soul giving adoration to God and knowing Him in the moment. I’ve had some of my best worship experiences on the toilet!
wildwest said,
February 16, 2006 at 12:00 pm
Wow! LOL!! I’ve never heard the word ‘fundagelical’ before. That’s great.
(Where have I been?)
Audrey said,
February 16, 2006 at 4:29 pm
Allison’s right: fundamentalism is about fear.
I’ve been trying to understand fundamentalism and fundagelicals better. Part of my process was reading Karen Armstrong’s book on fundamentalism. It examines American Christian fundamentalism, Jewish fundamentalism, and Muslim fundamentalism in Iran and Egypt.
One of the common threads Armstrong finds is fear. Fundamentalists fear their co-religionists first, but soon replace that with fear of the society they are embedded within. Basically, the fear moves from an internal locus to an external locus. When the locus of fear is externalized, it’s easier for anger and hate to enter the mix.
Fundamentalists also view themselves as God’s chosen people, and that makes it easier to view them as arrogant.
Audrey
Leighton said,
February 16, 2006 at 6:03 pm
There are two different definitions of “fundamentalist” at play here (well, I suppose “fundangelical” is the actual word employed).
First is the descriptive doctrinal usage–which I’ll call Fundamentalist/Evangelical–groups that actually profess theology and beliefs that are historically Fundamentalist or Evangelical; and often practice the beliefs too.
Second is the more colloquial, pejorative usage of “fundamentalist”, referring to any group, regardless of doctrine, many not even Christian, that governs its membership through mechanisms of fear and social control rather than crafting responsible disciples with a deep level of self-awareness.
There are Fundamentalist groups that are not fundamentalist, and fundamentalist groups whose beliefs are quite different than those of Fundamentalists.
Related to the colloquial use of “fundamentalist” is the relatively new term “fundangelical”, which doesn’t refer necessarily to groups whose doctrines might fall under those that are historically Fundamentalist or Evangelical (although there is often a lot of overlap), but rather, as best I can tell, a particular branch or collection of branches of the (mostly) American church that on the one hand seems deeply committed to social action in the name of their faith, but on the other hand seems to get their marching orders and all their information on how, when and on what issues to act from sources who, despite their fluency in the “fundangelical” religious dialect, are basically in the business of acting for themselves in the realm of secular politics and finance.
Jen (the wife) said,
February 16, 2006 at 7:19 pm
As the supreme lurker on this blog, I’ll step out once and stick up for Brandon. Is Brandon overgeneralizing about fundamentalism? Of course! Is this satire? Well, I probably won’t teach it to my freshmen, but yes, he is blowing something out of proportion in a humorous way to make a point. And this might be an overgeneralization, but knowing the context Brandon comes from, he’s not doing it with the mean spirit that Jacke might suggest.
You see, Brandon has to live with me, a woman who grew up fundamentalist, whose family still is, and whose college friends still are. All of these people come from several denominations, so it is not a denominational thing but rather a life attitude. And all of these people, and myself to some extent, even though I live with Brandon, tend to separate ourselves in some way from the world and culture that God created because we see some parts of it as evil. So the “withdrawn from the world” part of the song rang very true to me. We also can be very judgmental; maybe “may the rest of the world burn in hell” is a bit extreme (but it is satire…Jonathan Swift didn’t really want people to eat their babies), but I certainly looked down on other Christians who did things that I didn’t consider very Christian, and one of my college friends mentioned at Christmas that she now thinks less of Heath Ledger because he played a gay man. So I definitely know others, and myself, have condemned others to hell.
So as a former fundamentalist (and always will be, a little, I’m sure), this song rings true to me, in a very blown out of proportion way. And if Brandon is honest with himself, he would probably say that Jacke’s song rings true too (we certainly have some big ticket items in our house that aren’t helping the poor any). I think we have to all be okay with some finger-pointing in the Christian community, as long as it’s meant to help people see God and our world from different points of view. We all have a lot to learn from each other, and we can all help each other change to be more like who God wants us to be. I know that this has been the case for Brandon and I, in this marriage of two very different people. Heck, I even got a Calvinist to question predestination! But, in all seriousness, I hope this blog can also be a place where people from different backgrounds can point fingers a little bit as long as the goal is to help each other.
So feel free to point the finger back at Brandon (he often needs it, and it makes my job a bit easier), but understand he does speak from a context of having to live life with me!
Brandon said,
February 16, 2006 at 11:58 pm
Smartest. Woman. Ever.
Makes first blog comment…ever.
And, she’s right, I probably deserve the finger of ridicule every now and again.
a badchristian blog » of the seemingly endless wisdom of the woman i call Jen said,
February 17, 2006 at 12:48 am
[…] Thus, when my wife offered a comment with regard to my post “if they sang their theology,” I knew, even without reading it, that it would be worth the time of frequent visitors to this blog. Here’s what she had to say: As the supreme lurker on this blog, I’ll step out once and stick up for Brandon. Is Brandon overgeneralizing about fundamentalism? Of course! Is this satire? Well, I probably won’t teach it to my freshmen, but yes, he is blowing something out of proportion in a humorous way to make a point. And this might be an overgeneralization, but knowing the context Brandon comes from, he’s not doing it with the mean spirit that Jacke might suggest. […]
MMM said,
February 18, 2006 at 9:36 am
In the church I ran from a while back, we had “polite” jokes about singers.
“How about singing a solo. So low, I can’t hear you.”
Or my personal favorite:
“I would love it if you would sing a solo, on a hill, far away.”
(snerk)
Jacke said,
February 19, 2006 at 5:35 pm
Audrey said,
February 16, 2006 at 4:29 pm
Imagine the largest eyeroll imaginable and you will have my response. Why? Generalizations. Here we go again. Audrey speaks in terms, albeit from her source, as though all fundies believe the exact same thing for the exact same reasons. Duh and duh. I’m sorry, it is difficult to treat this as anything serious or relevant. As far as Fundies believing that they are “God’s chosen people?” That is a scriptural truth, and their belief is based on that scriptural truth, however, that does not necessarily mean that they exclude everyone who isn’t a fundamentalist from that “chosen people” moniker. A humble Christian will not view that scriptural truth as an excuse for arrogance. A humble communicator will not lump every single fundamentalist into a generalized group and draw broad conclusions about the entire group.
Doctrine is an important thing, now I know that many of you may disagree with that, but it is an important aspect of organized religion. Upon what we base our doctrine is a key to what our beliefs are and what drives our actions. Announcing broad assessments of sweeping groups of people is a very tempting thing to do but in labeling others you, in essence, label yourself…take that how you will.
Islam bases its doctrine on the Koran. The problem lies in the fact that many Muslims cannot read the scripture of the Koran, they are reliant upon leaders of the Muslim faith to interpret its meaning and some Muslims have allowed their faith to be hijacked by a political movement. This can happen to any religion. What if we all believed everything Pat Robertson says and didn’t study the Bible for ourselves, or worse yet, couldn’t study the Bible for ourselves? We must be careful that we don’t allow politics to hijack the Christian faith. Following is a link to an article written by Iranian author, Amir Taheri. I have been reading his work for some time and value his insight immensely. I would recommend that you read it. Not only is it quite telling of how a religion can be hijacked by politics but it should serve as a warning to us all.
I suppose what I dislike most about the mentality of the comment I am responding to is that it is a fact that many “Progressive” Christians seek to build themselves up by tearing down more prevalent doctrinal beliefs of their more conservatively political BROTHERS AND SISTERS, a frog is still a frog, though, even when it points out that that other frog is froggier. One frog says Bud…the other one says…weis…the next one says…er….but they’re all still frogs.
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/61728.htm
Shteevie said,
February 19, 2006 at 8:29 pm
The term fundamentalism, as a descriptor of Christianity, is fairly new. My Oxford companion to the Bible tells me that the term could have been adapted from The Fundamentals, a 12-volume treatise on essential Christian doctrine that was making the rounds during the early part of the 20th century.
With the rise of naturalism, Christians found it necessary to re-define themselves in their faith so that they would not be swallowed up by this movement. Hence an emphasis on the historicity of Christ’s virgin birth and vicarious atonemet on the cross. The fundamentalists affirmed that these events occurred within history and that they would lose all meaning if they were to be relegated as myth.
I affirm these things too.
wildwest said,
February 20, 2006 at 11:19 am
The term ‘fundamentalist’ was coined in 1920 by Curtis Lee Laws, editor of the Northern Baptist *Watchman Examiner.* Yes, it was a reference to the 12-volume *Fundamentals.*
Leighton said,
February 20, 2006 at 12:34 pm
“Fundamentalist” does, in fact, come from the “Fundamentals” set. However, the word has, through popular usage, taken on new and distinct meanings, as I pointed out above.
“Fundamentalist” can mean one of two things. First, it can mean people who, doctrinally, hold to the 1920s formulation of what some folks thought were the fundamentals of the Christian faith. This is not how most folks on this thread are using the word.
The second interpretation is not quite so clearly defined, nor does it refer to people based on their doctrine or beliefs. It is, as I said above, a pejorative term used to refer to any group, regardless of doctrine or beliefs, that uses methods of fear and manipulation in order to control the thoughts and feelings of its membership–or, more generally, to any group, regardless of doctrine or beliefs, who have trouble seeing the world in anything other than stark black and white, for whom there are no moral dilemmas, no questions, no room for anything other than blind certainty. In popular usage, there are fundamentalist Christians, fundamentalist Muslims, even fundamentalist atheists. None of these can be pigeonholed according to doctrine, but their common element is a network of unhealthy social relationships that leaves their adherents as a combination between animal and robot–acting blindly on fear and instinct while parroting a collection of social scripts.
As I said above, not every fundamentalist in the first sense is a fundamentalist in the second sense, and vice versa.
If Audrey were using “fundamentalist” in the first sense, which she was not, her post would be a more or less useless generalization. However, as she uses “fundamentalist” in the second sense as referring to folks who practice methods of collective thought control, her post is dead on. Anyone who has lost family members to cults masquerading as purveyors of truth will realize that there is a living, breathing problem that needs to be addressed.
Some groups who are fundamentalist in the second sense are better than others; some, for instance, raise their membership to be able to function more or less normally in society but be afflicted with lifelong self-loathing and with various neuroses. (Most ex-christians come from this category, in my experience.) This phenomenon is largely independent of doctrine; it’s all about the group dynamic and has little or nothing to do with what beliefs the group affirms.
To sum up: the word “fundamentalist”, as it is used in practice, rarely refers to a group of people who affirm specific things that they believe to be fundamental about Christianity. It almost always refers pejoratively to–well, just about anything its user wants to paint as narrow-minded and controlling; but in this thread it’s used to talk about specific groups whose common thread is a deeply dysfunctional, controlling group dynamic.
wildwest said,
February 21, 2006 at 11:19 am
We are the Lord’s elected few,
let all the rest be damned.
There’s room enough in hell for you,
We’ll not have heaven crammed.
http://www.founders.org/library/reform.html
Jacke said,
February 21, 2006 at 12:02 pm
http://www.founders.org/library/reform.html
Jacke said,
February 21, 2006 at 12:13 pm
http://www.founders.org/library/reform.html#N_8_
Jacke said,
February 21, 2006 at 12:22 pm
Thank you for sharing that link, wildwest, it was very interesting and informative.
wildwest said,
February 21, 2006 at 12:31 pm
Thanks for reminding me where I found it. I’d forgotten.