3/21/2010 article

http://www.thesource4ym.com/youthculturewindow/article.asp?ID=111

Dad, can I download this song?
A Parent’s Perspective on Teaching Discernment
An article from Jonathan McKee at TheSource4YM.com
2/4/2010

“Dad, can I download Down?”

That’s what my 14-year-old asked me this week, hoping to download the song from iTunes onto her iPod. If you’re a parent, you may have experienced a situation similar to this, seeing that 76% of 8-18 year-olds now own these mobile music devices (KFF, Generation M2, page 29).

During lunch that day, Alyssa had heard Jay Sean’s song “Down” play over the school’s PA system (because that’s what our public schools often do in CA). There’s little wonder why my daughter heard this song at school. Though it’s currently ranked #23 on Billboard’s Hot 100, this song by Jay Sean and Lil Wayne has been on the charts for 30 weeks and it peaked at #1. In other words, this tune has gotten some serious air time!  I heard it in the airport last weekend.

My kids have an agreement with my wife Lori and me that they must review the lyrics before downloading any song. We’ve been trying to teach them to use discernment with what they listen to because we all know that music truly affects actions. (Just last week David’s Youth Culture Window article cited the unique study performed by the University of Sussex about the affect of music on teenagers. That study made me want to “knock some pencils off the table” in my house to see what happens!)

So when Alyssa asked me if she could download the song, I offered her the same response I always give. “Did you look at the lyrics?”

She answered honestly, “Yeah, but I couldn’t tell if they were bad.”

You gotta love this situation! Here’s my daughter being a normal teenager who likes the sound of a song. She knows the process in our house and she comes to me genuinely seeking an answer of what’s right… or just hoping I’d say yes!

Here lies the struggle. In moments like these I can’t help but second guess myself. Alyssa is a great kid. Am I monitoring her too much? Should I back off and let her just download what she wants? After all, my rules seem a little more stringent than many other parents I know…even some of those in my church.

Do you ever wonder what to do in these situations?

Sally and Shirley
I’ve met two extremes when it comes to making these kinds of decisions as parents. The first extreme is the parent I call Sally SoWhat. Sally doesn’t monitor what her kids watch or listen to at all. Despite the many reports from experts like the American Academy of Pediatrics about the effect that music has on our kids, and regardless of the fact that secular researchers who study the media consumption of teenagers all recommend that parents “need to understand how it’s affecting them” … Sally simply responds, “They’re gonna hear it at school anyway.” So Sally lets them listen to anything they want, and if you saw the sample of popular lyrics David provided in last week’s Youth Culture Window article, you see what music Sally is allowing her kids to feed their minds with for an average of 2 hours and 19 minutes a day. (More here on “Do the Lyrics Really Affect Our Kids?”)

The other extreme is the parent I call Shirley Shoebox. Shirley surprisingly doesn’t look up any lyrics or research any music at all. To Shirley, it’s all evil! She has banned all secular media from the house completely and tries to shelter her teenagers from any secular influence. Secular music is all bad in Shirley’s mind; she even has her own Christian version of the song “Happy Birthday,” not bowing to any societal conformities.

The Shirleys of this world think that their kids don’t ever hear any of the music because they are usually homeschooled or attend private schools (note: I’m not slamming homeschooling or private schools- I actually homeschooled my own girls during middle school. I’m just noting that Shirley thinks that this protects her kids). But the reality is, unless Shirley lives in Amish country in Pennsylvania, her kids do hear the music every time they walk through Wal Mart or go to a friend’s house. And for those “Shirleys” who actually let their kids on the internet (complete with CyberNanny installed, hoping to block all bad content), those kids hear the music on iTunes and see videos on YouTube without Shirley knowing. I know this, because I regularly speak at Christian camps around the country and talk with Shirley’s kids from coast to coast. They know many of the current songs and are familiar with the same artists as Sally’s kids. Often, Shirley’s kids aren’t taught to use Biblical values to make good choices, the choice is already made for them. Usually, they can’t wait to escape the “shoebox” that Shirley keeps them in, venture out in the real world at age 18, and experience everything they’ve missed while living in the shoebox.

I don’t want to be Sally.

I don’t want to be Shirley.

Analyzing Lyrics
Meanwhile… Alyssa is patiently waiting for me to help her decide if the lyrics of Down are good or bad.

Here goes!

Alyssa hands me the lyrics to the song. “Are these bad?” she asked. “I can’t tell.”

Here’s a snippet of what she handed me:

You oughta know
Tonight is the night to let it go
Put on a show
I wanna see how you lose control

Aside from the lyrics themselves, one of the first things I noticed was that this song also featured the artist Lil Wayne. This made me flinch. The guy is a “playa.” His lyrics are always filthy and degrading to women.

This is one of those songs that often might be considered “clean” by most. After all, no cuss words. No obvious descriptions of lewd sexual acts. (Not bad for a song by Lil Wayne.)

But it’s not always easy to tell what a song is about just by reading or listening to its lyrics. Believe it or not…some artists try to sneak hidden meanings into songs.

Shocking, I know.

So, one of the things my co-worker David and I do is refer to the song’s music video. Often, they’re available for free viewing on sites like YouTube or Vevo. The music video for “Down” provides some enlightening insights into the song’s meaning. (This isn’t always the case, but today’s young people often watch the videos of their favorite songs anyway.) I asked Alyssa if she had seen the video. She responded, “Yeah, a bunch of times at Carly’s house.”

So I pulled up the video to take a peek for myself. To be fair, I’m happy to say that this video breaks rank with most of the Hip/Hop videos that feature hundreds of scantily clad girls writhing sexually while the singer calls them all kinds of foul names. However, it does retain enough elements of this genre of music to cause me concern.

For example, there’s the presence of Lil Wayne. I make no apologies for my stance on his art: it’s tasteless. In this video, his opening line (in verse 3) is “…down like she supposed to be, she get down low for me….” It doesn’t take too much interpretation to figure out what he’s talking about. Further, every online video that I researched has part of this line muted because even they know what he’s talking about.
    
Then there’s the fact that Sean promises a girl “you are my only,” yet he seems to enjoy dancing with several other ladies.

Again, it’s not the filth that usually accompanies Hip/Hop music, but are these elements the kind I want my child exposed to?

So I decided to look at the big picture for a moment. I was honest and real with Alyssa.

“So what we have here is a song that seems to be from a guy who wants to get ‘down’ with a girl, whatever that might mean. Maybe the writer of the song is keeping that vague for a reason. The only hints we have to what that means are in the lines, “I wanna see how you lose control” and “Come on and bring your body next to me.” I don’t think this guy just wants to play Duck-duck-goose.

We talked a little bit about the Lil Wayne lyrics and what those meant. But then I ventured a little further in my reasoning to Alyssa. ”Sex is a great thing,” I told her candidly. “I really hope that you enjoy sex with your husband some day. You two probably will even listen to romantic music together or read poetry together. Heck, Song of Solomon is pretty graphic, and that’s in the Bible. The author is pretty excited about God’s creation. Some day you’re going to experience that sexual joy… and it’s good stuff.

“But the question you have to ask yourself right now is, ‘Do I, a 14-year-old girl need to be constantly replaying a song in my head about this subject matter? Do I need to be thinking about this continually?’”

I actually did something I don’t normally do, I quoted some research. “A few years ago, a medical publication called Pediatrics did a study and concluded that ‘teenagers whose iPods are full of music with raunchy, sexual lyrics start having sex sooner than those who prefer other songs.’ The report goes on to say, ‘teens who said they listened to lots of music with degrading sexual messages were almost twice as likely to start having intercourse or other sexual activities within the following two years as were teens who listened to little or no sexually degrading music.’ The research is solid. The music does affect you.”

Alyssa sighed. “Dang. I really like the song!”

I agreed with her. “I know. It’s really got a good sound, and it’s catchy. I kinda like it too. But should we only judge a song by whether we like the sound, or by what we know is right?”

She thought about that for a moment, stirring the carpet fibers with her foot, then looking up at me with her big blue eyes. “By what’s right.”

Then I did something that was difficult, but necessary as my kids get older. Something that not all parents should do with their 14-year-old, but something I thought Alyssa was ready for. I took a lesson from my buddy Walt Mueller in our THE SOURCE Podcast #30, who says parents have to move from “thinking for our kids” to “helping them think Christianly for themselves.” I kicked it back to her.  

Bottom line: I gave her the power to make the choice.

I told her.  “Then you know what to do—not what you think sounds cool—but what you think is right.”

Alyssa decided not to download the song.

Teaching Our Kids to Discern
I realize not all kids are as easy as Alyssa. If I would have given my 12-year-old Ashley the choice, she probably would have said, “The words don’t affect me! I’ll go ahead and download it!”

Parenting is a process that embarks with us making decisions for our children when they are young, and eventually arrives at the point where we completely release them to their own decisions when they are out on their own. The time in between is a segue from one point to the other. In my house, Ashley, a middle school kid, needs more guidance from us as to what is acceptable and what isn’t. Alyssa, a freshman in high school, needs less.

The difficult task is daily balancing exactly how much guidance our kids need… and when to just back off. The important truth we must realize is that if we neglect to give our kids opportunities to make decisions for themselves and face the consequences for those decisions, then they’ll never learn from their failures. Think about this for a moment.  Do you want your kids’ first experience with natural consequences and failure to be when they are out of the house or with you at their side?

Teach your kids values and then give them opportunities to make decisions using those values. That doesn’t mean becoming Sally SoWhat. It means equipping them to think Biblically about decisions and still allowing them to experience failure in your shadow.

As a parent, I struggle with this balance every day.

Dan— It is embarrassing to me that this book is even being sold at Christian bookstores when it definitely does not present the Christ or Christianity I read about in my Bible.  Will your beliefs come from fiction or scripture?

The Shack — The Missing Art of Evangelical Discernment

(Warning: Unbiblical theology being embraced by many)

By Albert Mohler (President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary)

Posted Wednesday, Jan 27, 2010 www.albertmohler.com

The publishing world sees very few books reach blockbuster status, but William Paul Young's The Shack has now exceeded even that. The book, originally self-published by Young and two friends, has now sold more than 10 million copies and has been translated into over thirty languages. It is now one of the best-selling paperback books of all time, and its readers are enthusiastic.

According to Young, the book was originally written for his own children. In essence, it can be described as a narrative theodicy -- an attempt to answer the question of evil and the character of God by means of a story. In this story, the main character is grieving the brutal kidnapping and murder of his seven-year-old daughter when he receives what turns out to be a summons from God to meet him in the very shack where the man's daughter had been murdered.

In the shack, "Mack" meets the divine Trinity as "Papa," an African-American woman; Jesus, a Jewish carpenter; and "Sarayu," an Asian woman who is revealed to be the Holy Spirit. The book is mainly a series of dialogues between Mack, Papa, Jesus, and Sarayu. Those conversations reveal God to be very different than the God of the Bible. "Papa" is absolutely non-judgmental, and seems most determined to affirm that all humanity is already redeemed.

The theology of The Shack is not incidental to the story. Indeed, at most points the narrative seems mainly to serve as a structure for the dialogues. And the dialogues reveal a theology that is unconventional at best, and undoubtedly heretical in certain respects.

While the literary device of an unconventional "trinity" of divine persons is itself sub-biblical and dangerous, the theological explanations are worse. "Papa" tells Mack of the time when the three persons of the Trinity "spoke ourself into human existence as the Son of God." Nowhere in the Bible is the Father or the Spirit described as taking on human existence. The Christology of the book is likewise confused. "Papa" tells Mack that, though Jesus is fully God, "he has never drawn upon his nature as God to do anything. He has only lived out of his relationship with me, living in the very same manner that I desire to be in relationship with every human being." When Jesus healed the blind, "He did so only as a dependent, limited human being trusting in my life and power to be at work within him and through him. Jesus, as a human being, had no power within himself to heal anyone."

While there is ample theological confusion to unpack there, suffice it to say that the Christian church has struggled for centuries to come to a faithful understanding of the Trinity in order to avoid just this kind of confusion -- understanding that the Christian faith is itself at stake.

Jesus tells Mack that he is "the best way any human can relate to Papa or Sarayu." Not the only way, but merely the best way.

In another chapter, "Papa" corrects Mack's theology by asserting, "I don't need to punish people for sin. Sin is its own punishment, devouring you from the inside. It's not my purpose to punish it; it's my joy to cure it." Without doubt, God's joy is in the atonement accomplished by the Son. Nevertheless, the Bible consistently reveals God to be the holy and righteous Judge, who will indeed punish sinners. The idea that sin is merely "its own punishment" fits the Eastern concept of karma, but not the Christian Gospel.

The relationship of the Father to the Son, revealed in a text like John 17, is rejected in favor of an absolute equality of authority among the persons of the Trinity. "Papa" explains that "we have no concept of final authority among us, only unity." In one of the most bizarre paragraphs of the book, Jesus tells Mack: "Papa is as much submitted to me as I am to him, or Sarayu to me, or Papa to her. Submission is not about authority and it is not obedience; it is all about relationships of love and respect. In fact, we are submitted to you in the same way."

The theorized submission of the Trinity to a human being -- or to all human beings -- is a theological innovation of the most extreme and dangerous sort. The essence of idolatry is self-worship, and this notion of the Trinity submitted (in any sense) to humanity is inescapably idolatrous.

The most controversial aspects of The Shack's message have revolved around questions of universalism, universal redemption, and ultimate reconciliation. Jesus tells Mack: "Those who love me come from every system that exists. They were Buddhists or Mormons, Baptists or Muslims, Democrats, Republicans and many who don't vote or are not part of any Sunday morning or religious institutions." Jesus adds, "I have no desire to make them Christian, but I do want to join them in their transformation into sons and daughters of my Papa, into my brothers and sisters, my Beloved."

Mack then asks the obvious question -- do all roads lead to Christ? Jesus responds, "Most roads don't lead anywhere. What it does mean is that I will travel any road to find you."

Given the context, it is impossible not to draw essentially universalistic or inclusivistic conclusions about Young's meaning. "Papa" chides Mack that he is now reconciled to the whole world. Mack retorts, "The whole world? You mean those who believe in you, right?" "Papa" responds, "The whole world, Mack."

Put together, all this implies something very close to the doctrine of reconciliation proposed by Karl Barth. And, even as Young's collaborator Wayne Jacobson has lamented the "self-appointed doctrine police" who have charged the book with teaching ultimate reconciliation, he acknowledges that the first editions of the manuscript were unduly influenced by Young's "partiality at the time" to ultimate reconciliation -- the belief that the cross and resurrection of Christ accomplished then and there a unilateral reconciliation of all sinners (and even all creation) to God.

James B. DeYoung of Western Theological Seminary, a New Testament scholar who has known William Young for years, documents Young's embrace of a form of "Christian universalism." The Shack, he concludes, "rests on the foundation of universal reconciliation."

Even as Wayne Jacobson and others complain of those who identify heresy within The Shack, the fact is that the Christian church has explicitly identified these teachings as just that -- heresy. The obvious question is this: How is it that so many evangelical Christians seem to be drawn not only to this story, but to the theology presented in the narrative -- a theology at so many points in conflict with evangelical convictions?

Evangelical observers have not been alone in asking this question. Writing in The Chronicle of Higher Education, Professor Timothy Beal of Case Western University argues that the popularity of The Shack suggests that evangelicals might be shifting their theology. He cites the "nonbiblical metaphorical models of God" in the book, as well as its "nonhierarchical" model of the Trinity and, most importantly, "its theology of universal salvation."

Beal asserts that none of this theology is part of "mainstream evangelical theology," then explains: "In fact, all three are rooted in liberal and radical academic theological discourse from the 1970s and 80s -- work that has profoundly influenced contemporary feminist and liberation theology but, until now, had very little impact on the theological imaginations of nonacademics, especially within the religious mainstream."

He then asks: "What are these progressive theological ideas doing in this evangelical pulp-fiction phenomenon?" He answers: "Unbeknownst to most of us, they have been present on the liberal margins of evangelical thought for decades." Now, he explains, The Shack has introduced and popularized these liberal concepts even among mainstream evangelicals.

Timothy Beal cannot be dismissed as a conservative "heresy-hunter." He is thrilled that these "progressive theological ideas" are now "trickling into popular culture by way of The Shack."

Similarly, writing at Books & Culture, Katherine Jeffrey concludes that The Shack "offers a postmodern, post-biblical theodicy." While her main concern is the book's place "in a Christian literary landscape," she cannot avoid dealing with its theological message.

In evaluating the book, it must be kept in mind that The Shack is a work of fiction. But it is also a sustained theological argument, and this simply cannot be denied. Any number of notable novels and works of literature have contained aberrant theology, and even heresy. The crucial question is whether the aberrant doctrines are features of the story or the message of the work. When it comes to The Shack, the really troubling fact is that so many readers are drawn to the theological message of the book, and fail to see how it conflicts with the Bible at so many crucial points.

All this reveals a disastrous failure of evangelical discernment. It is hard not to conclude that theological discernment is now a lost art among American evangelicals -- and this loss can only lead to theological catastrophe.

The answer is not to ban The Shack or yank it out of the hands of readers. We need not fear books -- we must be ready to answer them. We desperately need a theological recovery that can only come from practicing biblical discernment. This will require us to identify the doctrinal dangers of The Shack, to be sure. But our real task is to reacquaint evangelicals with the Bible's teachings on these very questions and to foster a doctrinal rearmament of Christian believers.

The Shack is a wake-up call for evangelical Christianity. An assessment like that offered by Timothy Beal is telling. The popularity of this book among evangelicals can only be explained by a lack of basic theological knowledge among us -- a failure even to understand the Gospel of Christ. The tragedy that evangelicals have lost the art of biblical discernment must be traced to a disastrous loss of biblical knowledge. Discernment cannot survive without doctrine.

www.albertmohler.com

1) Preparing for college – facebook warnings for college applicants, etc  http://newsletter.collegeassistanceplus.com/febmar102.html

2)  Teens Love Facebook, Hate Blogging, Are Always Online, Don't Use Twitter http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/zachary-wilson/and-how/pew-survey-finds-increase-social-media-internet-time-decrese-blogging-te

3) Coming in April for Girls: Table for Two: Doing Life & Savoring Scripture Together:  http://www.lifeway.com/e9/shop/?id=005260394

4) Parenting a Troubled Teen: Dealing with a Defiant Teenager http://teen-discipline.suite101.com/article.cfm/parenting-a-troubled-teen

5) Get a Parenting Makeover http://www.lifeway.com/article/?id=170077

6)  8 Reasons Why Students Reject Christianity  http://mikecalhoun.wol.org/blog/blog/8_Reasons

7)  Your Teens Are More Generous Than You Think:  http://multivu.prnewswire.com/mnr/worldvision/42471/

8)  Good News for Parents of Tweens and Teens: You Rule!  http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/life/20100208/yourhealth08_st.art.htm

Focus on the Family - parenting teens site www.focusonthefamily.com/parenting/teens.aspx

& http://www.focusonthefamily.com/parenting.aspx  

click here - Finally! The Latest On Kids and Media. . . .