I’m with you on the whole Crowder thing. His music is not as inspired as critics have made it out to be.

With Webb, though, I’ve got to disagree. I’m wondering why you only hear a series of bleeps and bloops with Stockholm Syndrome.

John, sorry to say — but if you’ve proved one thing, it’s that you don’t have a real sense of what makes Radiohead albums great.

This is not a bad album. No Webb album ever is. But this disc’s bleeps and bloops and experimental tendencies are about the only thing it has in common with Radiohead. I’m happy to hear Derek experiment, but he’s nowhere close to creating the atmospheric soundscape of a Radiohead or Sigur Ros. Derek’s songs can also be quite hit or miss. The doo-wop of “Freddie” may have some wit, but I find it nearly intolerable to listen to.

Actually, this disc reminds me more closely of the David Crowder Band. “A Collision”, considered their masterpiece, is also a highly-overrated disc in my mind. It’s got a lot of stylistic and production experimentation, and some genuinely great moments. But in the end, I find it disjointed; it really doesn’t hold up to the scrutiny or the hype.

Please don’t get me wrong: I will pick up every disc that Webb puts out. I appreciate his own work, and his advocacy for other artists in the American Church’s currently-tepid arts scene. But I wouldn’t label this as his best work. I’d still laud that honor upon his first solo disc, “She Must and Shall Go Free”.

The whole “it’s depends on the culture” argument always seems a little off to me. Of course vulgarity depends on the culture and time period you’re in. That doesn’t make what’s offensive in our culture and time less offensive to a lot of people. I don’t think there’s some master list somewhere of all the words we shouldn’t say. We have to be in tune to what people in our context may find offensive and be sensitive to them. This is loving. It doesn’t matter if the words that offend them might be in common use in 20 years. If it’s going to offend them now, why can’t I just maintain control of my words and choose ones that won’t lead to that?

We might not think the words should be offensive, and in many cases, we’re probably right. But that’s a prideful response on our part. The loving thing is to take into consideration others before I speak. I struggle with this, especially since in my context, many words are considered offensive that are almost laughable to me. But I’m trying to learn humility and consider these people before my own right to speak whatever I want to. Nothing about this is cut and dry, and I don’t think it’s supposed to be.

I’m not sure how I feel about the back-and-forth over language. A lot of the people who disagree with its use tend to have perspectives on the biblical text that I don’t share (we came across this road-block once ourselves). I mean, 40 years ago, terms like “Lord-uh-mercy” were considered profanity (blasphemy, specifically), and now on any given day I could hear an old conservative minister say those words with no hang-ups or moral qualms.

In the 1930s, a few profanities were “flig” (which referred to someone of little to no social class), “opossum” (which was a woman of sexual deviance), and “banger” (which served as an alternative to male genitalia). The point? No one finds these words offense, or even cares about their use. My question is this– why is this discussion relevant? Granted, if I were around folks who were offended by the use of these words (or more modern “dirty words” like “damn” or “hell” and so on), I would hope I have the decency to refrain from tossing them around like so much crass confetti. Having said that, language propriety depends on WHERE you are as much as WHEN you are.

I live on a Catholic campus, where there’s no such thing as profanity — any word is fair game. There are a couple folks I know who are the exception to the rule about word use, but overall the attitude is “Why so serious?!” My point, then, is that Protestant Christianity seems all worried about something other sectors have moved on about.

Again, if you don’t swear — that’s awesome. Is it relevant to the overall discussion of Jesus and his teachings? Eh, not so much. But, like Paul said, if any man feels that something is immoral, then by all means he should stay away. We each follow our convictions to their conclusions. Nothing more can be asked of us. I do fear that, in our efforts to split theological hairs over these issues, we fail to make ourselves available to folks on the outside who aren’t quite sure they like “Jesus people” (a completely valid feeling, I might add). It plays out like this — we talk about “salvation by faith alone,” attach an asterisk to it, then lay out a load of social behaviors that we judge one another by. No wonder we’re losing believers left and right!

I might also add that in the next few years, these declining numbers will mean less money for churches nation-wide. And make no mistake, when churches start losing money, they will experience new “divine revelations” to counteract the leavers and attract new interested parties. It’s the tried and true method for integrating women, social minorities, and races of various kinds into the fold: cut off the trust funds of these leaders and they will do complete 180s.

That’s not to discredit the whole of divine communication with humanity, only to suggest that it’s a rare, beautiful thing that shouldn’t be credited for every menial decision we make as a spiritual collective.

You said something interesting in your last post before the link. You said, “…I use it all the time, provided I’m in the company of those who aren’t going to be offended by it.” I like that consideration.

Compare that to Ephesians 4:29: “Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear.”

I think that’s the real issue with language. We don’t always have the best interest of our hearers in mind when we choose that type of language. If you’re in the company of someone who isn’t offended by the words you choose, fine. The problem is, very little of what we say now (ESPECIALLY online) is guaranteed to only be heard by those we intend it for. 1 Corinthians 8 is helpful.

There’s also the issue of the heart. Some may be able to use foul language without sinning, but I think sometimes people rationalize to excuse their behavior. When I resort to that type of language, it’s out of anger or frustration. Yes, it communicates my feelings, but it’s also sinful. I think others use it because they don’t consider it’s effect on others.

Either way, language is important. The bible addresses it many times, so this is a good discussion to have. Some take prohibitions against language way too far, but I think we’re slightly reacting against that now and swinging to the other extreme.

http://www.patrolmag.com/opinion/1811/losing-their-salt

It all boils down to where your priorities are. As was written in Colossians Remixed (great book by the way), offensive language can’t just be relegated to “dirty words” you would hear in the playground, it has to include the rhetoric of empire (in direct contradiction to the practices and teachings of Christ and the apostles), which is all over Western Christianity, and other such misleading or inappropriate communication.

I’m not vilifying anyone who disagrees with me, but I stand by my earlier premise that there is far more potentially offensive, subversive language on this album than the words on “What Matters More,” which means either no one’s picking up on it, or that the ones who have aren’t talking about it– but why?

For the record, if you don’t believe in swearing, good for you. Really. That’s great. My best friend is in the process of becoming a Catholic priest, and he is entirely against it, whereas I use it all the time, provided I’m in the company of those who aren’t going to be offended by it. People believe things for very real, very valid reasons. And they’re entitled to, without being beaten senseless by angry bloggers, myself included. I’m just confused as to why it always goes back to the language thing, or the gay issue, with people discussing this album.

Grace and peace, guys and ladies. Good discussion.

Do I like Derek Webb’s style? Yes. For sure. Does that make it right? Nope. Not in the least. And that is a reflection of where our faith has gone. I’m part of the problem. We’ve got this “bigger fish to fry” mentality that is wreaking havoc on the faith and allowing us to do all manner of things that Jesus is grieved over while turning around and saying “He’s pleased with this because of the greater good accomplished.”

Anyhow…this is a good debate to have, as well as a debate surrounding how we treat others.

It’s comments like this that get me so frustrated over the stereotypical Christian/Christian music. We now believe that the ideal model for Christianity is Ned Flanders and artists like the David Crowder Band make millions from recycling old, tired-out Worship song formulas coupled with mindless pop. I’ve been debating how I feel about Derek Webb’s use of cursing to convey a song’s point, but it’s comments like this that make me realize he used such words to show how misguided Christians have become. Jesus was a radical who was willing to die in order for us to understand God’s love, not a prim-and-proper Conservative who scolded gays and hunted deer with his buddies. Although Mr. Webb could have probably conveyed his points in a more G-rated way, he included such lyrics for the purpose of reawakening people to the world around us and the injustices we look past in our hometowns and in other countries.