“What Matters More” — Derek Webb, Stockholm Syndrome
Blog — By BWC on July 6, 2009 at 6:58 amSome of you may have been following the controversy and performance art marketing of Derek Webb’s new project Stockholm Syndrome. The song centered in the controversy was released by 20 thumb drives hidden strategically and put together over the weekend. If you want an audio only mp4 of the song, you can get it here.
Take a listen – what do you think? Right message? Wrong message? I think it’s “so susan isaacs”. Can I say that?
75 Comments
so why do christians spend millions of dollars to keep gay marriage illegal, but do little or nothing to make divorce illegal? or adultery? are the two sins not equal? why should one be legal and the other not? it's very hard for me to think of an answer to that that's completely removed from "because we hate them."
I guess because nobody has mounted an effort to make those things legal.
Is there an organization out there trying to change laws about adultery that I don't know about? The gay marriage thing has been an organized effort by those who care about such things, and in response, others who hold the view that gay marriage should not be legalized have exercised their rights as Americans to oppose such changes. They didn't initiate this stuff. They are responding to what the other side has initiated.
On a slightly-related note, the mystery of what causes homosexuality is no longer a mystery after all: http://www.ananova.com/entertainment/story/sm_960575.html?menu=
Go Team Aaron!
1) are you discussing your POVs from the perspective of homosexuality as actions or as an identity? Is a person who identifies him/herself as homosexual but remains chaste welcome in our Kingdom communities?
I'm speaking of actions. A person with homosexual feelings who remains chaste and agrees with the Scriptures and historical Christian teaching that the actions are sinful is really no different in my mind than a single heterosexual person that acknowledges that sex outside of marriage is sinful and remains chaste.
I would welcome such a person in the church community and think they should be eligible for leadership positions as well.
——————-
2) I don't think anyone touched on the literal definitions of hate but rather the standard political view, as in extreme intolerance. Moreover Jesus seems to talk in binary of love or hate. There's no in between: you me and hate family; cannot serve two masters – love one and hate the other or vice versa.
I get that, but I don't care for the hyperbolic terminology. All it does is breed misunderstanding and defensiveness. Call it a disagreement. Call it insensitivity. But hate goes over the line to me and strikes the recipient of such a charge as an attempt to illegitimately stack the deck in the debate.
——————-
How do we deal with that here? I've had enough gay friends or colleagues who are just like me struggling through life. Am I really loving them by voting against a legal status between them and the person they love? Is it not an unloving action to vote in a way that says "you are not worth the same rights as me"? If it is not love, then is that not hate?
That depends. If I'm saying they don't have the right to make a living, a right to housing, a right to basic protection from harassment and harm and so on, I'm in agreement with you. But I don't believe denying them a "right" to something that they can't have by definition is unloving. Marriage is a man and a woman. In some circumstances it has been a man and two or more women but that's not the norm nor the pattern God set forth and Scripture is replete with examples of the trouble such arrangements bring. If denying homosexuals the right to marry each other is unloving, I suppose I'm also unloving to polygamists or those who wish to create group marriages. They simply don't fit the proper definition of marriage and I don't feel any obligation to view this as their right to have.
—————–
Getting back to Derek's point, is it more important for the Church to push any anti-gay agenda than it is to say the tens of thousands of people who die everyday of AIDS and starvation and other dieseases? Is it more important that we worry about correcting our image as a Church than saving lives?
Could we not do both. Not "anti-gay", but could we not stand firm on attempts to redefine marriage AND devote ourselves to loving homosexuals, the hungry, and those dying of AIDS and other diseases? Does one have to approve of drug and alcohol abuse to love and minister to those who abuse drugs or alcohol? This seems like a false dichotomy.
The next two comments include my response – apparently I wrote too much:
Again, great continuation of this discussion. I also appreciate the cordial tone, which I think is necessary for any type discussion. I'm going to try to answer some of my own questions and others raised. I'll try to go in order of the comments since I have to scroll back and forth.
I appreciate the overall view that sexual sin in all forms is sin. I would add I think sexual sin is enhanced in its taboo-ness or consequence because of the very intimate nature of sexuality. The taboo-ness is what concerns me the most because we've placed it on such a high shelf it seems we've ruined all open conversation of sex in general.
I thought Erwin McManus did a very interesting and thorough sermon on Sex in an open sermon series he did based on questions from that fellowship. You can find it through the Mosaic podcast in iTunes. One line he said stood out: (paraphrased) Sole or primary identity based on sexuality is not good for anyone. We are much deeper than that.
Through this, I would agree with James with the assertion or understand that many gays are, as a group, a bunch of hurting people. Tony Campolo as sociological research supporting this, too, but I would broaden it to say we are all hurting people. We all have our identity baggage that wounds us from fully knowing the love of Jesus.
Because church leadership keeps coming up, I'll throw this out there. I don't think there is any scriptural basis for the present level of church leadership we have in place. None of the marks of leadership that Paul wrote about actually translate into the hierarchical and authoritative leadership we have in pastors, elders, deacons, etc. The scriptural basis of leadership is servant-based, exemplified by Jesus and spelled out clearly in Philippians by Paul. The qualities or "requirements" of leadership was not for those to lead over people, but for the protection of those who served under the church communities – to ensure they had what it takes to not lose their faith footing while taking on the serving tasks to support the faith communities.
So with that said, I can't participate in the same manner about whether someone should or shouldn't be in church leadership. I would rather say discuss whether it is wise for someone to participate in church servanthood for the good of themselves and the faith community.
Aaron asks an interesting question so why do christians spend millions of dollars to keep gay marriage illegal, but do little or nothing to make divorce illegal? or adultery?. I will take the liberty to say that the way christians seem to spend these $'s is by donations to political campaigns, whether candidates or agenda orgs. I personally don't know why because I don't spend money in that way myself. In fact, I'm, generally, against legislating morality. But as a political centrist, but also on intellectually, I understand both perspectives of protecting the traditional definition of marriage between a man/woman and the legal difficulties of unmarried but committed partners. Honestly, the solution is very simple and done in Europe: a combination civil unions and marriage. In most places in Europe, you get a civil union license from the state and marriage is left for the church to structure. The civil and legal contracts are bound and fulfill by the CU and the church and faith keeps the definition of marriage. It's also pure separation of church and state, which I also support wholeheartedly.
Ragamuffin just wrote I get that, but I don't care for the hyperbolic terminology. All it does is breed misunderstanding and defensiveness in response to my summary question of love/hate binary language of Jesus. I understand the difficulty in dealing with that hyperbolic tension, but Jesus did that for a reason. It's our opportunity in discussions like these to break through the defensiveness and misunderstanding. But more importantly, it's a view of God. Does that hyperbolic or binary perspective challenge our very idea of what love really is? Can we really love homosexuals while working or support those to defeat their agendas politically? Can we really fit in the overused cliche of love the sinner hate the sin? That always makes me uncomfortable. Here's an example based on a conversation I had with a friend over breakfast this morning.
There has been a person coming to one of our worship services who is a transvestite. Kind of hard to miss even in a crowd of 400. This person sought membership to our church and after discussion by our leadership, they extended a membership invitation with the caveat that future leadership would not be permitted. (ok, so now I'm bringing traditional leadership back into the conversation). My friend and I were discussing his conversation with another about whether this person should have been extended an invitation to join or not.
As I understand the definition, this person is dress and acting in a manner that he is really a woman. That makes me very uncomfortable. I just don't know how to relate to that perspective. He sits in the front row and I watch the pastors week to week interact with him as normal as ever and think "I can't do that. I don't know how." And then I get sad. I wish I could. I see no reason why he cannot come worship. I see no reason why he cannot be loved by Jesus and us as a community. I see no reason why he can't participate fully in the live of our community. I see no reason why I can't learn more about him and his lifestyle. Except fear. It's out of my comfort zone. It's unfamiliar and un-"normal" to me. It's culture shock.
Which brings me back to Derek's song. He is going for some culture shock here. And to answer Ragamuffin's question for myself – I'm not sure that I really can do both. I have a hard enough time doing love in the simplest way of giving my wealth away to the poorest of the poor.
More to the point of your question, I have yet to find a way to love someone as Jesus did when their life and cultural perspective is so different than my own. So I'm very hesitant to stand against them on an intellectual or political position without really knowing them because that's all that will be seen: my position. And that's not what I want them to see – I want them to see the love of Jesus. I'm finding the same in the simplest of arguments with my wife. I'm sad when I realize or learn she only sees and hears my position and not my love for her. Really, truly, I want love to stand out.
Tim wrote "Can we really love homosexuals while working or support those to defeat their agendas politically?"
Absolutely. As a dad, I love my children constantly by not allowing them to do things which they want, but which I know are harmful. God does the same. We, the church, are an extension of Jesus. Allowing the church to believe that sin is not sin is akin to harming the church. See the "hair on fire" description above.
"Can we really fit in the overused cliche of love the sinner hate the sin? That always makes me uncomfortable."
I'm sorry it makes you uncomfortable, but looking at the example set for us by Jesus, He managed to do both (a)make people uncomfortable; and (b)love the sinner while hating the sin.
"As I understand the definition, this person is dress and acting in a manner that he is really a woman." This person should be loved by everyone in the church, no doubt. Does he have sex outside of marriage? If so, we see plenty of Scripture examples which tell us that his fellow church members should not fellowship with him. It's very clear. We can't just choose which scriptures we want to ignore.
If I were in church leadership with this man, I would get to know him, find out what caused the hurts which have led to this behavior and address those.
"I see no reason why he cannot be loved by Jesus and us as a community."
I think that pretending that this behavior is what God wants for this man's life is the most unloving thing you can do. Please see my most recent blog post, which covers the topic of God watching us hurt ourselves with our sin.
"I have yet to find a way to love someone as Jesus did when their life and cultural perspective is so different than my own."
Jesus didn't tolerate sin. That's His way of loving people.
But here's the thing…it may be hard to do both but I think we *have* to give it our absolute best attempts. We won't be perfect at it, but I don't see maintaining a stance on morality and loving those who don't follow said morality as mutually exclusive.
For example, the woman caught in adultery. Jesus didn't condemn her in the sense that He shamed the Pharisees into not stoning her, not only because of their own sinfulness in other areas but because of their unequal treatment (where was the male participant waiting for his stoning?). Jesus looked on her with compassion but what He didn't do is affirm her in her okayness. He told her to go and sin no more.
Yes loving people while still holding that some things they do are wrong is hard. Yes it seems at time to be two ideas in tension. Yes it's a tightrope to walk. But walk it we must.
Now as to the hyperbolic language, I think we have to be careful in employing such language just because Jesus did, because we don't have the perfect knowledge and pure motivations that Jesus did. When we who do not typically evaluate others' motives properly and without prejudice start tossing about accusations like "hate", it does little to further the conversation. It's sort of like the advice you hear on "fighting fair" in a marriage. When arguing about something of importance to you both it's key not to use blanket statements or exaggerated words. Things like "you always do this" or "you never do that" should be off limits because the conversation only crumbles into bickering over whether it's *really* always or never and debating examples rather than the central issue. Similarly, don't tell the other person what they feel or what their motives are. It's fine to tell someone "when you do/say that it makes me feel unloved/hated/etc." But don't go and tell them "you only do that because you hate me." You don't know their heart so don't presume to.
The question is whether you want to foster conversation or win an argument with rhetoric. To me, using words like "hate" to describe actions you don't like or disagree with steps over the line and presumes to know someone's motives and heart. And it's terminology destined to cloud the issue rather than effectively deal with it in conversation.
Tim said "is it more important for the Church to push any anti-gay agenda than it is to say the tens of thousands of people who die everyday of AIDS and starvation and other diseases?"
Christians can walk and chew gum at the same time, Tim.
I think the point of this song is that we are distracted by discussions just like this one. This is the 41st comment. The last article about aids (http://burnsidewriterscollective.blogspot.com/2008/12/twentieth-anniversary-of-world-aids-day.html) generated 1 comment. Interesting comparison.
It is interesting, but then again, that article did not pose a question ask people to give their impressions on the subject. It reads almost like a PSA.
On the other hand, this subject takes a provocative song on a controversial subject and asks people to engage the debate. It asks specific questions. And once you get a few answers to those questions, you get people responding to the responses and it snowballs from there.
All that to say, interesting but not apples to apples.
Jeremy, I don't think the song is just about distraction. DW uses inflammatory, provocative accusations and words like "hate". It's bound to spark some discussion.
In contrast, what more is there to say about AIDS? We all know it's bad. We all want a cure. There's very little to discuss there.
Jesus never condemned people who were considered sinners, we only see Him condemning religious people. with the woman at the well, He didn't "affirm her in her okayness," but he also specifically said that he didn't condemn her. he spent much of his time with the lowest of the low, but there's never any indication that He made sure they knew He thought they were the lowest of the low. i think that's pretty key to what tim is saying. you might think that treating homosexuals like lost children is a loving thing to do, but that's not really the example Jesus sets forth. Jesus loved people as friends, not as people who needed someone to tell them what they were doing wrong. it seems to be the people who would point out the sin that Jesus would condemn, saying "hey, you're not so great yourself you know."
First off, great comment Jeremy.
Secondly, I think the point that Derek is making is in the title itself. "What matters more" to us as a church, and as Christians?
Does it matter more that the people we can or do identify as "homosexual" are chaste, not in leadership, behaving themselves, repenting, and tighlty bound up into our straight interpretation of how they should act in order for us to accept them, or does it matter more for us to just see them as people Christ died for and love them without pre-qualifications.
When I encounter a homeless person on the street I don't say, "ok well, before I give you this money I want you to promise me you won't spend it on drugs because drugs are sin and I can't make it seem like I encourage you sinning". That's proposterous. You give him money because he's hungry and he needs it, and Jesus commanded us to.
It should be the same with homosexuals as it is with straight people. If someone straight comes into church you don't ask them to stop all their sins before fully accepting them, as I feel Christians expect gays to do. We're showing exactly what we think "matters more" by singling in on and focusing on their sexuality instead of their identity as people.
I also completley agree with Tim who said that Europe's model for civil unions/marriage is what we should have here. Regardless of whether or not you think homosexuality is a sin the government should have no right to legislate laws based on religion. There's a reason we have seperation of church and state. Marriage SHOULD be up for the church to facilitate but the state sanctioned CIVIL rights afforded by it should be given to whichever two consenting adults would like it.
Jesus never condemned people who were considered sinners, we only see Him condemning religious people. with the woman at the well, He didn't "affirm her in her okayness," but he also specifically said that he didn't condemn her. he spent much of his time with the lowest of the low, but there's never any indication that He made sure they knew He thought they were the lowest of the low. i think that's pretty key to what tim is saying. you might think that treating homosexuals like lost children is a loving thing to do, but that's not really the example Jesus sets forth. Jesus loved people as friends, not as people who needed someone to tell them what they were doing wrong. it seems to be the people who would point out the sin that Jesus would condemn, saying "hey, you're not so great yourself you know."
I think you make the mistake of equating "no condemnation" for "never mentioning that something is sinful." No he didn't condemn the adulterous woman, but neither did He act like her behavior was no big deal and just give her a hug. He said 'go and sin no more.' Implicit in that statement, as gentle and loving as it is, is the notion that what she had been doing is wrong and she should not continue in it.
Neither is making such a statement "conditional acceptance." He walked that fine line just right: no condemning, uphold God's view on the matter, love the person.
exactly. which in this case would be "my personal view is that homosexuality is a sin, but i won't stone you by using all my time and energy to make sure you can't get married." there's a difference between acknowledging sin and actively working against people.
"All my time and energy?" What if I simply decide that when the subject comes up and I'm asked, I express my opinion on the matter and if given the opportunity to vote, I participate in the process and in good conscience vote against gay marriage?
You seem to swing between these wild extremes of what the opposing position has to be without considering that the real situation on the ground is far more nuanced. One can be opposed to gay marriage without running around "stoning" people, ranting and raving about it all the time. You seem to be setting up this false dilemma where the only way not to "hate" is to simply abandon the discussion altogether or better yet, fully support gay marriage.
Aaron, for one thing it's not just about what Jesus said. He is referred to as The Word. The entire bible is the Word, and therefore it's all His words. Some of it happens to have been written through the likes of Paul, Moses, Peter, Isaiah, etc. But all the words of Scripture are Jesus' words.
Secondly, Jesus told the woman to go and sin no more. Paul later told Christians to say the same toward Christians who were in sexual sin.
Third, when Jesus called out the religious people, it wasn't because they were religious; it was because they were prideful. They put themselves and their mis-interpretation of God's commands above God Himself. That is no different from anyone in 2009 who would seek to place themselves above God's commands regarding sexual sin, including minimizing that sin.
I think it's the wrong message. I also thinks it's the wrong way to present any message.
To use coarse language to try to slap other Christians for being against homosexuality doesn't make any sense. I've seen no place in scripture where coarse language is an approved tool of communication, so there seems to be a problem before we even get to Derek's point.
And, without him explaining exactly what he's addressing, it's hard to know the details (and motivations) for what he's trying to say.
I will say that I don't believe people are ever drawn toward repentance by being made to feel good about their sin or told that their sinful behavior is no big deal. Should we spit on the sinner? Of course not. Never. But we sure shouldn't pat him on the back and stand by his side when people who care tell him he's doing wrong (as verified by the scriptures).
I can feel in my own heart that the times we live in now are tearing people away from the truth. (Hmm, seems like I've read somewhere that this would happen!) Of course I don't know what's going on in Derek's life, but seems to me that he's more caught up in creativity and controversy than he is being conformed more to Christ.
The bottom line? would Jesus have made (and then profited from) this song?
Welcome to the discussion Jeremy, Emily, and Martt! I'm glad that you contributed.
A couple things real quick – I forget where it is, but there is a place in Paul's letters where he uses the Greek for shit. I'm not great with my Greek or my memory of such references, but I have heard it discussed by people who know this better than I a few times. As far as what is course language, that is a bit more relative even than our conversation of what is love, sin, and hate.
I'm seeing a couple patterns developing here, and I wanted to throw out an idea that comes from my review of Phyllis Tickle's book The Great Emergence which was published here a couple weeks ago. These are two patterns of community happening today in churches and faith communities:
Believe -> Behave -> Belong
Belong -> Behave -> Believe
I'm not trying to tie down anyone to either of these streams, but I think each of you would feel more comfortable in one than the other. But they are diametrically opposed in how they build community and faith, and I think it is important to recognize that difference.
It is equally important to recognize where we fail to live up to God's standard of love, which is what I am trying to communicate in some of my comments. Every Sunday morning I'm surrounded by a bunch of secretive sinners with whom I blend in perfectly. We don't have to deal with that in our face at all. But then someone different walks in to worship God who possibly to wear their sin on their sleeve or marked on their chest like an scarlet letter. My response in that moment is what defines what matters more to me. Right there in my heart, maybe on my face, but mostly in the secret of my heart. That's where I'm at in all of this discussion.
i'm mostly ready to step away from this discussion, but wanted to back up tim's last comment… the verse in question is philippians 3:8 "What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ" in the greek, the word that is translated as rubbish (skubalon)was a vulgar word for excrement, which would more accurately be translated as "shit." i think it's very sad that people find a need to censor the bible to make it acceptable to christians.
@aaron
I'd say there's a big difference between using 'shit' to accurately describe something for comparison sake, and using it to be 'coarse' and to elicit a shocked reaction.
When I was a kid, I heard my strong Christian grandad use the word once or twice to describe 'exactly what it was'. I knew it wasn't foul or coarse in that context.
The way it's used by millions of people everyday (and I believe in this song) is specifically designed to be rebellious and shocking. I might be wrong, but seems the motivation to be rebellious and shocking is pride.
So, if you were talking to me, I wasn't censoring (however, unlike the kids these days, I think censoring, at the right times, is not only a valid but absolutely necessary tool in living life)
Rock on.
i wasn't talking about you, i was talking about the translators and publishers.
@aaron
K : )
Those of you who don't think this song is relevant in 2009, I am curious to know what community/culture group you are a part of. I believe this song is still very relevant to a majority of people who call themselves Christians today.
James said
"In contrast, what more is there to say about AIDS? We all know it's bad. We all want a cure. There's very little to discuss there."
Really? Here are some discussion questions,
How can we get the drugs we do have to the people most afflicted? How can we curb the spread of AIDs in areas with high poverty? How can I get my church to help with AIDs caregiver kit building? How do I contribute to the poverty that is causing massive inequity in the world… This is all so much more important than nuanced discussions about homosexuality.
I'm curious as to who said it wasn't relevant. I don't really think that's what the discussion has been about at all.
Really? Here are some discussion questions,
How can we get the drugs we do have to the people most afflicted? How can we curb the spread of AIDs in areas with high poverty? How can I get my church to help with AIDs caregiver kit building? How do I contribute to the poverty that is causing massive inequity in the world… This is all so much more important than nuanced discussions about homosexuality.
However, none of those questions were asked in the AIDS post. It read like an FYI or a public service announcement. On the other hand, this thread showed a video clip of a song that provocatively engaged the topic of homosexuality and the church and specific discussion questions were asked about what we thought of the song.
Hence, you get discussion on one thread and none on another. If all these questions were of such burning importance, perhaps one of you who brought this up could have posed them on that thread.
Well I guess that is an indictment of us. That atrocity occurs, and we only comment when asked to.