Skip to main content
I would say I'm pretty conversant with pop culture; maybe too much. Then again, I think I'm pretty discerning. All prospective (Protestant) pastor-types learn to develop a little voice in our heads that affirms (in some sense, if possible) and challenges everything that we, or our parishioners may watch or hear. Like every twentysomethingish (American) dude who happens to be a Christian, I have my odd list of famous or influential people that I'd love to befriend and testify to Christ in their general direction. In my dreamworld, it's set up like this: "You have one hour to tell influential person X whatever you wish about Jesus and the gospel, and they won't run away." It's a rotating list of sports heroes, political figures, pop singers, etc. I realized today I had to add a name to my list, even though he's not American, and he is, in my words, an "awesome pariah": George Michael. You can't grow up in the 1980s (especially listening to pop radio) without encountering him. When I read his Wikipedia page, I didn't even realize how successful he's been. That is of course knowing a big handful of really well-known songs, not as one who's scoured the man's catalog. But I know that my mother bought his greatest hits compilation--one of them, anyway--and I remember thinking that I had heard of all of them, and really liked a lot of them. Whether as part of "Wham!" with schoolmate Andrew Ridgeley and others or as a solo artist, the guy definitely made an impact. As you can read from various sources, George has some problems. Drugs and alcohol, as well as sexual sin are present. But when God-given talent is made so plain in a person, you say, "It's a shame that's being wasted, in some sense" even though you don't know him. Every time I listen to Sirius/XM satellite radio, if I listen long enough, George will come on. Gut reaction every time: "Yes!" Even if I haven't heard a song by him, he's in "I Gotta Hear This One Out" territory. Try not to laugh. I had a friend play a trick on his mother using Madonna's greatest hits once: he put it on, and didn't tell her who it was. Result: she liked it. Sometimes, famous people have done bad things or weird things, and they have earned a fair amount of mockery, scorn, or whatever. But if you try this test with George Michael, it may surprise you. Now, don't get carried away. How might Bryan or Larry say it, if they listened to every song? "He has disordered desires." Undoubtedly. Still, most famous people are famous for a reason, and there's no sense denying the ordinary gifts of God in people and running to our Christian cultural ghettos, as good as separateness can be at times. In truth, I share a ton of cultural reference points with non-Christians that some of my brothers in Christ don't because of how they grew up, (though of course there's loads of good about that, as well) and that makes me feel comfortable when the uncomfortableness of the gospel shows itself.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un