Derek Webb’s new album ‘Stockholm Syndrome’ has been making its way around the blogosphere.  I have been a Derek Webb fan for a long time and have become increasingly impressed with his solo stuff since he left Caedmon’s Call.  His newest album’s promotion campaign included a spat with the record company for using potty language.  I have no idea how much of the public and twitter-laden conflict was promotion driven or completely legit.  I do know that I downloaded the album and am really diggin’ it.

Greg Horton of Wired Parish (RIP) fame and blogger at The Parish concluded his not-so-positive response to Derek by saying… Congratulations, Derek. Self-promoting, wild-eyed, faux righteousness just murdered one of your best pieces of work.

Horton emphasizes how not only the ‘christian music’ industry is opposed to profanity but much of the Christian community in general, so when Webb uses his well placed ‘sh*t’ he is alienating his audience.  I am sure he is alienating some people but I thought this may be a way an evangelical without a gay bashing agenda could get some attention.  This whole stir online makes me want to ask some questions\observations about transitions occurring in culture.

- I have heard much more coarse language come out of fundy Baptist ministers mouths but it was in a conversation with all men.  The ‘mixed company’ rules of speech are less and less important for more and more people.  I imagine there are more people who have no problem with Webb but will just avoid saying so to their grand parents.

- In the song Derek mentions the ‘language and tradition’ of Christianity and clearly makes a distinction between what is perceived as essential and important and what functions with that authority.  One of those things is a culture’s sexual norms.  How will evangelicals retell their ‘language and tradition’ in such a way it doesn’t induce automatic eye-rolls?  There are cultural barriers that must be eliminated so that the gospel can be heard such as….

- The song expresses what are a number of felt truths that many Christians are seeking explanations for.  People have a felt a desire to give a sh*t about poverty and not fight all the time about sexuality.  People have a felt desire to handle the sexuality debate in a completely different way, one that could pass as Christian in character.  People have a felt desire to see people of other faiths and traditions as more than targets or the problem…..there are more felt desires and Derek tends to discuss them in a fruitful way for many.  When I was a campus minister I found that to me true in many cases

With all that said, Derek can we get some old-school folk songs about your friends? Ants? Coffee drinking at a diner? Love? etc…..

Here’s the video of the song in question…What Matters

The 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s birth was celebrated at Cambridge.  Philip Clayton, a theology prof of mine, was in a public debate with Daniel Dennett (scientist and new atheist).  Dennett blogged about it:

Richard Dawkins’ wonderful sentence about how nasty the God of the  Old Testament is was read with relish by Philip Clayton, Professor at Claremont School of Theology in California, and the point apparently was to illustrate just how philistine these atheists were…though I noticed that he didn’t say he disagreed with Richard’s evaluation of Yahweh…

Clayton astonished me by listing God’s attributes: according to his handsomely naturalistic theology, God is not omnipotent,  not even supernatural, and . . . . in short Clayton is an atheist who won’t admit it.

Clayton responded here:

For my part, I can only express my amazement that Dan chose not to mention any of the philosophical questions, nor the call to dialogue itself, but only to answer with a series of dismissive comments and rhetorical moves. Not only does he decline the invitation to reasonable debate; he fails even to mention it. In fact, isn’t his choice of rhetoric instead of argument an instance of exactly what he is accusing theologians of doing?

I can only express my deep disappointment at a philosopher who has so lost interest in philosophical debate. I remember the pride in our discipline that I felt as an undergraduate philosophy major. We were willing to take the best of human reason into absolutely any area, and while many would be unwilling to follow “the force of the better argument” … or even to defend their views at all … at least philosophers would never shy away from the task. I remember looking up to famous philosophers, including the young Daniel Dennett, as ideas worthy of emulation.

Things to learn. When debating an atheist scientist you should remember that Christianity is only Christianity….

….if you are fundamentalist who takes the Bible literally in all cases

….ascribe the Greek philosopher and scientist Aristotle’s divine attributes (omnipotence being their favorite) to God

….agree with them that Yahweh, like every God worth the title of deity, wants to order genocide

IF you do not do these things and instead engage in a passionate and intellectual journey to articulate your faith in the God revealed in Jesus Christ through rigorous philosophy and scientific engagement you are clearly a closeted atheist.  Even more sneaky than that, Philip teaches at a seminary and prepares ministers for careers in churches all the while never admitting to anyone, even himself, that he has given his life to a sham.

UPDATE: You can download Clayton’s paper HERE

UPDATE 2: Denis Alexande posted his own response at the Telegraph

Bill Moyers does an outstanding job getting the voices of these outstanding theologians out.  Cornel West, Serene Jones, and Gary Dorrien (Dorrien drops the word down here) all bringing some theological imagination to our present crisis.  If you know what is best for you watch this and reflect.