Owl City Allegory: Interpretation of Meteor Shower

My take: a blatant praise song sung publicly on stage during Adam's Ocean Eyes tour.

Adam recently posted the following on his Tumblr blog:

I see that the lord is always with me. I will not be shaken, for he is right beside me. No wonder my heart is glad, and my tongue shouts his praises! My body rests in hope. For you will not leave my soul among the dead or allow your Holy One to rot in the grave. You have shown me the way of life, and you will fill me with the joy of your presence. (Acts 2:25-28)

I recognized a similarity between this passage and two lines in one of his shortest (lyrically speaking) songs.

I can finally see

that you're right there beside me.

I am not my own

for I have been made new.

Please don't let me go.

I desperately need you.

These are the only lines to the song, with the last 4 being repeated once. The song is titled Meteor Shower. 

 

There isn't much in the way of imagery in this song, so a line by line interpretation wouldn't be very effective. I think the song as a whole seems to be, pretty clearly, a unidirectional conversation between the singer and God. What sold it to me, though, was seeing him point up at the sky, emphatically, as he sang it when I saw him in concert. [Here's an example in a video upload--right at the very end] Body language spoke louder than words at that moment.

Quickly:

• Why can he finally see? Because he wasn't certain he could before. Doubt or myopia prevented him from seeing the obvious. A possible reference to Adam's dead-end jobs prior to his discographic success.
• The 'right there beside me' seems to be a reference to the verses I posted above, whether they influenced the song or not.
• That he is not his own echoes 1 Corinthians 6: 19-20.
• That he has been made new echoes 2 Corinthians 5:17

• The final two lines seem more of a sincere emotional plea, rather than a theological statement. God won't let anyone go who belongs to Him (John 6:37), so it would be better to take "please don't let me go" as not referring to salvation in particular. It's a recognition of Adam's dependence on God for every thing. Hardly "me-focused," and better than the average CCM song just by virtue of that alone.

 

Agree with the analysis?

~ Rak Chazak

Time to Get Critical: Mandisa’s “Stronger” and “Overcomer”

Abstract

Mandisa is a popular CCM artist but her two most recent songs are poor influences. They encourage listeners to focus on their own abilities and to seek power to overcome difficulties inside themselves, rather than trusting in God for help. The songs make inappropriate guarantees of end to difficulty, and relegate God's role in our suffering to the sidelines, as someone cheering us on rather than leading us through it. For these reasons, I discourage everyone from listening to or promoting those two particular songs. Their melodies are no substitute for their lacking content.

Analysis

                I don’t know this particular artist, I can only judge the subject matter of the songs that are aired constantly on my local Christian radio stations. Their frequency implies that they are very popular, and so I think it’s important for there to be an analysis of them on the Internet somewhere. I’ll do my best to give them a fair treatment here.

                The songs are not blatantly anti-Christian, and in fact have a few references to Biblical doctrines (the latter more so than the former), but these would be easily missed by the Biblically illiterate main stream christian crowd, and especially any nonbelievers who might be listening in. The songs unfortunately fall into the category of CCM (Christian Contemporary Music) that can be summed up as “self-help encouragement.” The problem is not that it attempts to make people feel good, but that the emphasis is far too often on some alleged inherent capacity in the individual to “be great,” rather than on relying on God for blessings.

                Now I’ll look at a sampling of the lyrics. Here is the chorus from “Stronger”:

When the waves are taking you under

Hold on just a little bit longer

He knows that this is gonna make you stronger, stronger

The pain ain’t gonna last forever

In time, it (can/will) only get better

Believe me, this is gonna make you stronger, stronger

As is common when I write the longer blog posts, I’m not online as I write this, and so I can’t remember the entire song’s lyrics (repetitive as they are), but here is an excerpt from the second verse:

Try and do the best you can

Hold on (for as long as you can/and let Him hold your hand)

Go on, fall into the arms of Jesus [**the only reference to Him by name in the entire song]

whoa oh oh

****** (I can’t remember this line)

Even if you cannot feel Him

I promise you that He still cares

(chorus)

                All right. So what’s wrong with that? Let me count the ways: 1) emphasis on what you do, not what God has done for you or will do through you, 2) unBiblical promise that pain will go away (the song does not imply it will end in heaven), 3) unBiblical view of sanctification, 4) distant view of Christ as someone on the sidelines cheering you on.

                And the part that bothers me the most is the most subtle: “He knows that this is gonna make you stronger.” The He knows part galls me. Why? Because it says that whatever you’re going through is going to make you a better person somehow, and the only role Jesus has in the whole situation is to know that that’s the case. He apparently DOES nothing, just watches you suffer. At most, the song implies that Jesus tells you that it’s going to get better. But He doesn’t actually help you. The lyrics frame Christ as either unconcerned, sadistic, or impotent. Combine this with the end of the last line of the second verse: when I first heard the song, it sounded as if it would naturally end in, ‘Even if you cannot feel Him, I promise you that He’s still there.’ But according to this song, Jesus isn’t even present with you in your afflictions. He “cares,” but “Stronger’s” Jesus doesn’t ever show it. He’s like the estranged grandparent who lives in the next town over and sends $20 and a generic Hallmark card on birthdays but never visits or calls. I don’t want a God who “cares.” Personally, what has always made most sense to me is to have a God who “knows.” Because since He is omniscient, that means He knows all about my problems, and He knows the best way to answer my prayers. I can trust such a God. But a God whose main emphasis is on emotion divorced from rationality is a scary thought. What good does it do if God, or anyone, “cares” but doesn’t help you? The problem I have with this is that emotions, in the present culture, are viewed as chemical sensations and not as goal-motivators. When I say that God cares, it means that He’s actively being intimately involved in your personal struggles and is guiding you through them for His glory and your good, as the Bible says. When the Culture says “God (or anyone) cares,” it means that He feels bad for you – but that’s the extent of it. In the contemporary view of emotion, God caring about you doesn’t mean anything! It does nothing for you! So how, then, can this possibly be encouraging to someone? I affirm that it can’t. And so the song, though it seems aimed at being encouraging on its face, really plants seeds of discouragement in the listener. Because what happens after a person has been struggling for 30 years, wondering every day when their affliction will end, and all the time people are telling them “hey, God cares.” They’ll despise the gesture. It’s as meaningless as saying “Jesus loves you” because people don’t know what love IS. We need to explain these things, we can’t just throw them out. And sadly, the context of how the words show up in this song confirms that the “encouragement” is empty.

                Do I have a Bible verse to justify this with, so I’m not just throwing out my opinion? You bet. And this is what I challenge the people who say “God cares” frivolously with:

“Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it?”

James 2:15-16

Theological Lyrics Thursday: Friel-Proof Christian Music

Hello Internet,

12 days after starting blogging, my post entitled The Wretched Podcast is the most popular, due largely to Elizabeth Prata's encouragement from a blog post on her website, http://the-end-time.blogspot.com/. In that post, I made mention of Todd Friel's radio program, and used it to springboard into a discussion of song-lyrics in Christian music and the danger of judging it by how it sounds rather than what it says. 

The idea hit me that I could present a few songs once a week, as a regular upload, to encourage any potential readers to check out songs that can offer them not just a good listen but also theologically meaty lyrics, to help us grow in our walk and remain 'heavenly minded.'

Since I can't limit myself to just one, here's what I'll do today--I'll make three categories:

1. Doctrinal Exposition -- this song emphasizes an important Biblical doctrine of some kind.
2. Good Idea -- this song delievers a message consistent with, or derived from, the Bible but isn't necessarily phrased in doctrinal language; less explicit, essentially.
3. Mostly Air -- this song may or may not have some redeeming qualities, but will be mostly fluff, with little or nothing to distinguish it as exclusively Christian music, and would be best avoided. However, in most cases you can get away with listening to it as long as it doesn't make up the vast bulk of your music library. 

Here comes the first batch:

Doctrinal Exposition: Children of God, by Third Day

+3 Brownie Points for having the singer look like the stereotypical 'Anglican' Jesus we see in paintings.

Here's what's good about the song: 

It emphasizes the doctrine of adoption -- the brief clip at the beginning emphasizes that point. The Bible says in Ephesians 1:5 that through Jesus Christ we (those who are saved) have been adopted as children of God into His family. Romans 8:14 says that "all who are led by the [Holy] Spirit are children of God." So the message is more than just sentimental, but an important Biblical truth to recognize. That's the great strength of Third Day's song. Extra credit is awarded for the manifold references to us being redeemed, the fact that we are "free from the judgment that we deserve," the implicit references to the Trinity through reference to the Father and the Son, and the correct identification of believers as Saints -- "we are the Saints, we are the Children, we've been redeemed, we've been forgiven," a bridge chorus that shows up later in the song.

In an age of deception and misinformation about who the Saints are, and who is a child of God, this song does a great service by emphasizing that both of these terms refer to believers in Jesus Christ, in contrast to Roman Catholic teaching that Saints are an elite, exclusive class of believers who have died and now answer prayers directed to them, and the false worldly misunderstanding that everyone on earth is a child of God, when in fact unbelievers are referred to as "children of wrath." (Ephesians 2:3)

Good Idea: Blessings, by Laura Story

Here's what's good about the song:

It questions the mentality that says that God will make life into a cake-walk for every believer. It directly challenges the 'every day a Friday' attitude that expects Christians to be happy all the time and everything hunky-dory for them. It repeatedly questions, in several clever ways, whether the seemingly bad things in life may in fact be "blessings in disguise," reminding us that "this is not our home," and suggesting in one verse that "we doubt your goodness, we doubt your love, as if every promise from your word is not enough." This challenges us to be careful to not lose faith when prayers are not immediately answered with the relief we seek. It points the listener away from their material circumstance and refocuses them on God's promises. This is not 'your best life now.' Our best life is a future life after death, promised to us by God, for those who persevere in faith through the trials of life. (James 1:3) (Hebrews 6:12)

Take-away verse:

What if my greatest disappointments, and the aching of this life, is a revealing of a greater thirst this world can't satisfy?

Mostly Air: 10,000 Reasons by Matt Redman (has redeeming qualities)

There are many songs out there that aren't terribly BAD, they're just not full of theology. In this case, I've chosen one of the better ones; I have this one in my library and I'm not worse off for it.

The main message of this song can be boiled down to a single verse: no matter what happens, praise the Lord continually without giving up. Hey, that's a great message. But if you remember my suggestion in the article The Wretched Podcast, if you remove the brief shout of "Jesus!" at the end of the song, then this song can be sung by Mormons, Jews, Muslims, Roman Catholics; and when even the monotheistic versions of Hinduism can appropriate it, it means that it's not a remarkable song--it isn't distinctively Christian.

Now don't get me wrong, that doesn't mean the song is taboo, or terrible. But if you were trying to casually witness to someone on Facebook, and were going to use a song out of these three that I've given today, to give to someone in one of the religions I mentioned above, then you would do well to choose the first one in the list. This one can be fine to listen to to worship God, but be wary of the cumulative effect that many such songs can have on your personal theology.

The most theologically distinctive the song gets is the single line, "You're rich in love, and You're slow to anger." It implies, but doesn't exactly scream "Jesus," so be wary of getting watered down. 

As long as you're cautious, you can listen to music with watered-down lyrics, or shall I say, with a low doctrine-to-verse quotient? But when you're setting priorities, do your best to seek out songs with a more complete message than just "worship God."

Tune in next week for a second installment and three (or two, depending on how you're reading this) more songs!

~ Rak Chazak

The Wretched Podcast

Once or twice weekly, I open up my computer and go to hit up my favorite websites to see what's been added in the past several days. One of these websites happens to be Wretched Radio, hosted by Todd Friel, a guy who used to be a pastor, discovered he was a false convert, and now is a true convert who spends his time combating various heresies through the medium of the air waves. Being an unemployed almost-grad, I don't have the privilege to watch his show on t.v. or to subscribe online, but that's okay, because there are free goodies to be found there anyway.

Specifically, the 15-minute excerpt of the 2-hour daily radio show is something I've made a habit of watching. Here's the link to this Tuesday's episode: 

The Wretched Segment of the Day -- March 12, 2013

Now I'm going to proceed to give my two main thoughts on this episode.

1. They start out by mocking (a valid method of correction if done right) what I guess could be labeled as "mainstream Christian pop," by playing sections of the lyrics of popular songs that don't hold up to theological scrutiny. I recognized one of them from my own music album, so this hit home a bit for myself as well.

I didn't recognize all the songs, though "we say yes lord, yes lord, yes yes lord" were the lyrics on one, "I am a friend of God (x3), He calls me friend" was another, and then there was the disturbingly-too-much-like-a-romance-song "I love the way you hold me, whoa oh oh oh oh oh" that I heard on the radio a year or so ago. Catchy tunes, no doubt. But they hardly compare to these examples:

"Because the sinless Savior died, my sinful soul is counted free; for God the Just is satisfied to look on Him and pardon me" -- The old worship hymn, Before the Throne of God Above

"I will not boast in any thing, not gifts nor power nor wisdom; but I will boast in Jesus Christ, His death and resurrection." -- The hymn How Deep the Father's Love for Us

Notice a difference in terms of the theological 'meatiness' of the lyrics? Mmh hmm.

Mockery is supposed to be embarrassing when you realize that you or something you like is being mocked. That's how it motivates you to change your behavior if you're in the wrong. Assuming, of course, that the mockery is given in love and not intended to hurt more than your feelings. And I think Todd's mockery of these songs is well-intentioned, and effective.

That's why it was awkward for me to again notice that another one of the songs he mocked was the Newsboys rendition of "God's Not dead." Consider the lyrics: 

"My God's not dead He's surely alive
He's living on the inside
Roaring like a lion
He's roaring, roaring
Roaring like a lion (2x)"

Catchy tune, and it gets you pumped to blast it through your car speakers, but it doesn't have a solid theological message. At best, its message is emotional. So I acknowledge Todd's criticism, but I'll keep this one song in my album, and here's why:

I don't think Todd is saying that this music is evil or should not be listened to. I believe the concern is that when songs with watered-down lyrics like these make up the vast majority of music played over the radio, and when there are comparatively very few songs that exposit a Biblical truth, then those who are listening to this music are not being fed with good "soul food," if you will. They're getting candy for three meals a day and no vegetables. It can sure taste sweet to your ears to hear MercyMe sing "you're beautiful" to the tune of delightful guitar music, but if all you hear is about you and not about God, over time you'll develop a jaded impression. MercyMe's other song, "All of Creation" does more to exposit the change in the relationship we have with the Father because of the Cross. I have both in my music library. Some music just sounds good, and you're allowed to get your "fix" every once in a while. But our evaluation of whether Christian music is good Christian music should not be based on how it sounds, but on what it says. I think this is Todd's big push.

I happen to have a lot of "theologically meaty" songs in my collection, and hence I haven't been negatively affected by vague lyrics. It's a matter of balance, I believe. You can listen to "Draw Me Close To You" by Nicole Nordeman, which is a wonderful song and helps to emphasize that God should be all we want, and nothing else, but make sure to complement it with a song like "Children of God" by Third Day. Just like with real food, you've got to eat a balanced and healthy meal or you'll get sick to your stomach.

So ask yourself, is most of what I listen to wishy washy emotional music? Or do I listen to enough  solidly theological music ("Manifesto" by City Harmonic, for example) that I can listen to the other stuff without also washing down my own personal theology? 

As a general rule, consider: if a song can be sung by a muslim, mormon, catholic, Jew and jehovah's witness, as well as an 'Evangelical Christian,' then that music is not Christian music. It's far too vague to qualify. That doesn't mean Christians can't listen to it. But it's nothing special on its own.

I might suggest, too, that the more good theology you listen to, the less pleasant the wishy-washy stuff will become to you. I've found myself weighing the theological merits of a song before downloading it, more and more, recently. So I think Todd has a point. Surround yourself with "the good stuff" and it will improve your spiritual life.

If you want me to suggest further theologically sound music, beyond the tracks I've made mention of above, you can contact me through my email (or leave a comment below) and I'll be glad to offer you more suggestions if you want to spiff up your Christian music album.



2. Penn Jilette, in correcting Piers Morgan on what Catholics believe, gives glory to God

Towards the end of the Wretched podcast, Todd plays a clip of Penn Jilette, a famous atheist, on Piers Morgan's talk show. Piers is apparently Catholic (who knew?), but he questions many of the beliefs and practices of the Roman Catholic Church. Penn Jilette corrects him by pointing out that true Catholics have to believe everything the Pope says, because that is an article of the Catholic faith. Since Morgan wanted to question the Pope, Jilette pointed out to him that that was what Martin Luther started, when he said that he believed everyone had the right and ability to interpret the Bible themselves.

This reminds me of what Paul the apostle wrote in Philippians 1:

"¹⁵ Some indeed preach Christ even from envy and strife, and some also from goodwill: ¹⁶ The former preach Christ from selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my chains; ¹⁷ but the latter out of love, knowing that I am appointed for the defense of the gospel. ¹⁸ What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is preached; and in this I rejoice, yes, and will rejoice."

I think we can rejoice that God saw fit to use a kindly atheist to correct a lapsed Roman Catholic and to point the entire viewing audience (in the hundreds of thousands?) to the fact that it is Protestant Christianity that asserts that everyone has the freedom to read the Bible on their own, to seek after truth.

There are many who are caught up in the false religious system of Roman Catholicism, which teaches many things that are contrary to the Bible. The fact that this exchange between Piers and Penn may give occasion for some Roman Catholics to question their supposed faith, and to read the Bible for themselves, is a cause for us all to rejoice.

~ Rak Chazak