Thoughts About Getting Older

I was at the bookstore yesterday, and there was a special edition of U.S. News and World Report, dedicated to the Civil War. There was a photo of Abraham Lincoln on the cover, and it was one of the photos, taken late in his life, which made him look particularly old and haggard. There was another, somewhat similar photo inside the magazine.

I was looking at the dates when they said Lincoln was born and when they said he'd died, and I realized with a bit of a start that he'd only been a few years older than I am now when he was assasinated. Specifically, he was 56 years, two months and four days old; whereas I'm almost 52 years old.

Now, I won't claim that time hasn't taken a toll on me physically. I went bald a long time ago. Financial problems have contributed to the inability to afford the kind of medical and dental care I would have preferred, so I'm missing several teeth, and I have some other medical issues which still haven't been properly addressed. Earlier this year, I had a patch of skin cancer removed by a dermatologist, and it left a slight bump on my head which wasn't there previously. I'm now taking a number of medications for hypertension, which was never an issue for me (to my knowledge) until just this past year.

Nevertheless, all things considered, I think I've aged fairly well. My skin still looks fairly youthful. I've only recently started to see a few gray hairs on my head and in my beard and moustache (although I'm "clean shaven" at the moment). I can still climb the stairs to my apartment on the 12th floor, although I do sometimes have to stop and rest for a minute or so, on the way up, to catch my breath.

Based on outward appearances, I think I've aged in a manner which is somewhat similar to how "Meet The Press" reporter Tim Russert aged. He still looked fairly youthful even during his final year on earth.

Nevertheless, looks can be deceiving. Tim Russert died just last week of a heart attack, at the age of 58. The intensity of the tributes now being paid to him is obviously a reflection of the affection people felt for him, largely on account of the fair and professional manner with which he dealt with the guests on his show. But it's likely that people were also a bit shocked that someone who seemed as vigorous as he seemed to be would die so soon of natural causes.

Another person I looked up to for many years was Christian rock musician Larry Norman. He was about three years older than Tim Russert when he died earlier this year. That death wasn't so much of a shock, because Larry had been in ill health for a number of years.

Obviously, one reason why Lincoln looked so old prior to his death was that he'd had a hard and stressful life, and no part of it was harder or more stressful than the years when he served as the president. And of course, medical care back then wasn't what it is now. Generally, people just didn't live quite as long. Lincoln obviously didn't die of natural causes, but it seems unlikely that he would have lived very many more years, even if there had been no John Wilkes Booth.

More and more, I find myself comparing my age to the age of other people at the times of their deaths, perhaps because of my awareness that I'm only about 13 years away from the age of 65, when my father died, and when my maternal grandfather died as well.

When I look back at my life and think about how quickly 12 or 13 years can fly by, it makes me deeply aware of my own mortality. It makes me sadly aware of how little I've really accomplished, in comparison with my goals, and how little time remains in which to make a real difference. Of course, there's no way to know for sure how long my own life span will be. But if one were to assume that I was destined to die at the age of 65, that would mean that I had already lived 80% of my total lifespan.

Then again, nothing is guaranteed to anyone in terms of longevity. I just read an article about a 14-year-old kid in Chicago who was murdered in a foolish dispute involving a bicycle. Compared with that kid, I've been abundantly blessed already with a long life.

Comparing one's life to the lives of others can be a futile enterprise, and somewhat pointless. Every human life is unique, and the circumstances with which each person has to deal are also somewhat unique. People do have free will, but they sometimes fail to achieve their full potential for reasons which are largely beyond their control. I think that God understands that.

Jesus Christ only lived 33 years on this earth (according to most scholars), but he accomplished more during that brief time span than other men can ever hope to accomplish.

The true value of a person's life is something which no man or woman or child can really accurately assess. Only God really knows that value.

In any event, life isn't really a competition with other people (even though that may seem to be the case in the short term), because God doesn't grade on the curve. His standard is nothing less than perfection. We all fall short of God's standards. It's only a question of how much we fall short. Thank God for His mercy and grace. We'll all be judged when we die, but our ultimate focus should not be on ourselves or our accomplishments, except to the degree that those things indicate whether or not we did our best to serve God and to make the most of the time we were given. Ultimately, our focus should be on God.

It would be nice, when I die, to receive the commendations of men. But that may or may not happen. In any event, I know that God knows and sees all, so I'll be happy, when I die, if I can hear the words, "Well done, thou good and faithful servant."

Sola Scriptura versus Calvin Johansson

Many years ago, my family attended Kingsway United Methodist Church in Springfield, Missouri. At the time, the choir director there was a man named Calvin Johansson. He subsequently went on to become a professor in the music department at Evangel University, which is run by the Assemblies of God church.

On virtually every occasion that I can remember, my interactions with Calvin were pleasant. He was always nice to me and the rest of my family. I have no personal animosity whatsoever towards the man.

Nevertheless, it pains me to see that he continues to undermine the work which God is doing in the lives of people who believe, as I do, that popular music styles are compatible with deep Christian devotion and heartfelt worship of the Creator.

What makes the whole thing particularly ironic is that I seem to recall that Calvin was involved at one time in the music program at Evangel Temple Assembly of God in Springfield, Missouri.

For those who aren't familiar with "ET", it was once the unofficial church for the "Jesus freaks" who spent a great deal of their free time at the New Wine Coffeehouse in Springfield during the early seventies. More than any other church in Springfield, Evangel Temple was the church where one was most likely to meet young believers in Christ who enjoyed listening to Christian rock music. I like to think that the pastor of Evangel Temple, David Rees-Thomas, was the Chuck Smith of the Ozarks. Not only did he look a bit like Chuck (with a similarly bald head), but his open embrace of people who dressed like hippies was similar as well.

(For those who don't know, Chuck Smith was the pastor of Calvary Chapel, which was probably the most prominent and successful church during the years known as the Jesus Movement. Chuck visited Evangel Temple once, when I was attending that church, and he delivered a very potent message pertaining to the power of love.)

I still remember feeling particularly blessed when Larry Norman visited Evangel Temple and performed in the remodeled barn where they met for worship services, prior to building the sanctuary which they now occupy. In fact, "ET" was my primary church throughout most of my high school years. That was a direct result of having been introduced to the church by a shaggy-haired "Jesus freak" named David Thomas, who was one of my closest friends even though he was quite a few years older than I was.

I also recall that Evangel University hosted concerts by some of the earliest contemporary Christian musicians, such as Chuck Girard (for whom I was the opening act at Evangel in 1977) and Andrae Crouch & The Disciples. Andrae really rocked the house when he performed at Evangel! It was one of the best Christian concerts I'd ever attended. I also remember attending an excellent concert at Evangel, back in the 80's, featuring DC Talk and DeGarmo and Key. Come to think of it, Evangel is also where I heard Christian rock musician Randy Matthews in concert.

The idea that one of Evangel University's primary music professors has chosen to spend so much of his time attacking a style of music which has often been featured in various events sponsored by his own university just doesn't compute for me.

From the very first, the use of rock music in the church was controversial. Some Christians claimed that such music was "of the devil". A lot of very hostile words were written by those who opposed rock music in all of its manifestations. Interestingly, very few of the Christian rock musicians who were attacked by their brothers and sisters in Christ responded in kind. In terms of the fruits of the Spirit, my observation was that the people who believed that rock music was morally neutral were far more Christ-like in their behavior than the ones who sought to discredit their music.

I read the anti-rock arguments and the claims about various things such as "backward masking", and I have to be honest: I thought that most of those arguments were irrational and scripturally unsound.

Don't misunderstand me. I would be the first to admit that Satan has frequently used rock music throughout the years. But then again, Satan has also used books on many occasions throughout the years in order to promote evil doctrines, beliefs and practices. Does that mean that books are inherently evil? Of course not. Marshall McLuhan notwithstanding, the medium is not the message. Whether one is talking about books or a particular musical style or the cinema (which many Christians have also opposed), the medium is precisely that: A conduit which can be molded to serve many different purposes, depending on the user's intent.

Yes, each medium has its own unique qualities, but most of those qualities are flexible enough to accommodate a wide variety of worldviews and agendas, for good or evil.

Winkey Pratney, Pastor Rees-Thomas's brother-in-law, once came to Evangel Temple. I got into a discussion with Winkey, and it turned out that he was adamantly against rock music at that time. He said it was "angry sounding" music, and therefore, it couldn't possibly be godly.

I admired Winkey's devotion to the Lord, but I thought (and still think) that the argument was lame, for several reasons.

First, rock music doesn't all sound alike. Some rock music does indeed sound angry to some people, but even in such cases, it could be argued that what sounds "angry" to one person might sound "jubilant and victorious" to another.

Second, anyone who has ever bothered to listen to rock music knows that it spans a wide variety of emotions. The Beatles song "Yesterday" does not by any stretch of the imagination sound "angry". (Sad, yes. But not angry.) Nor does "Nights in White Satin" by the Moody Blues or "Dust In The Wind" by Kansas. I could go on and on in order to demonstrate that such a characterization was ridiculously simplistic.

Third, anger is sometimes an appropriate emotion for a Christian. In fact, I would argue that any person who does not get angry when reading for the first time about a great injustice such as slavery or the Holocaust or legalized abortion is a person whose conscience has been anaesthetized or severely damaged. The Bible tells us to "be angry and sin not". Jesus was angry when he saw what the moneychangers had done to the Temple. So it's simply false to imply that anger is an inherently ungodly emotion. It's the context of the anger which determines whether or not it's an ungodly emotion. It's the lyrics (and the life of the singer) which give context to a song.

There may well be cases in which rock music is used inappropriately, but even then, it doesn't follow that rock music itself is evil.

Interestingly, I've read some things about Winkey Pratney, in recent years, to suggest that he wasn't completely rigid insofar as his opposition to rock music is concerned. Among other things, Winkie was close friends with Keith Green, who was considered by most people to have been a rock musician, notwithstanding one recent article (in Rolling Stone) in which an unbeliever derisively and ignorantly described Green as a "country musician".

If Calvin Johansson dislikes rock music, that's his prerogative. Every person has aesthetic preferences and aesthetic dislikes. People are entitled to their preferences and dislikes. What disturbs me is when people take their own subjective personal opinions and equate those opinions with the Word of God, in a manner which strongly implies that those who disagree with them are guilty of rebellion against the Lord.

Taking the Lord's name in vain is not something to be taken lightly. When a person says, "Thus saith the Lord," that person had better be extremely confident that he or she is actually speaking the words of the Lord. In my opinion, the test of whether or not a prophecy is legitimate is whether or not the alleged prophecy has a solid scriptural foundation.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of hip hop music. It's partly because of the fact that so much secular hip hop music glorifies moral values which are antithetical to Christianity, but it's also because I just find the music to be so incredibly dull.

Sure, hip hop sometimes has an energetic beat, but the beat is usually the result of digital looping, not the result of a real drummer playing rhythms which derive at least some of their interest from the small variations which make music interesting. Moreover, the lack of anything even remotely interesting or creative in terms of melodies or chord progressions makes me want to tell the creators of such recordings that there's more to good music than rhythm.

It has nothing to do with race. I am a huge fan of jazz, which to me is the exact opposite of hip hop, inasmuch as jazz (particularly bebop) features sophisticated melodies (and melodic improvisations) and complex chord progressions. In other words, jazz usually offers something challenging and meaty for a person's mind to grab hold of.

But just because hip hop isn't my personal cup of tea, does that entitle me to say that hip hop is unfit for use within a Christian context? In my opinion, the answer is a resounding "no"! There are quite a few Christian hip hop groups and artists. Some may be better than others musically, and some may be better than others when it comes to lyrics and lifestyles which are consistent with the Christian faith, but that could be said of Christian musicians playing in virtually any style of music.

I think that we Christians get into real trouble when we begin to equate our own subjective opinions with God's eternal truths. A lot of so-called "fundamentalists" seem to be incapable of sticking to the fundamentals. Instead, they want to make up new rules as they go along, even though those rules can't be found anywhere in the scriptures.

"Thou shalt not dance", for example, is a scripture I cannot recall reading anywhere in the Bible. In fact, the scriptures which do refer to dancing invariably do so in such a way as to suggest that the Lord sees dancing as a good thing! Yet, for many fundamentalists, dancing is absolutely forbidden. That makes no sense at all to me.

Yes, there is a way to dance which is extremely carnal, to the point that I have difficulty understanding how any Christian could participate in such dancing. But it is not dance itself that is evil! Any good thing can be perverted and distorted in such a way as to dishonor God.

It's been almost four decades since Larry Norman recorded "Why Should The Devil Have All The Good Music?". Isn't it time for Christians to stop sniping at each other about "issues" that ultimately don't amount to a hill of beans? The world outside the church looks at us and laughs, sometimes for good reason. Let's focus on winning the lost to Christ, and not on promoting our divisive little pet theories which have little or no foundation in the scriptures.

In Need of a Good Coffeehouse

In the early 1970's, Christian coffeehouses became extremely common throughout the country, as a way to communicate the gospel of Christ with street people and others who would never set foot inside the doors of a traditional church. This was at the beginning of the era in church history known as the Jesus Movement. That term entered the consciousness of mainstream America when Look magazine published an extensive cover story on the phenomenon in 1970.

People who belonged to and identified with the Jesus Movement were Christians who embraced certain cultural elements characteristic of the hippie movement (such as the rock music, the clothing and hair styles, and in a few cases, the communal lifestyles), while rejecting elements (such as the use of illegal drugs) which were deemed incompatible with their Christian beliefs. In a sense, they were more revolutionary than the hippies, since they took a radical stand which embraced neither progress nor tradition for their own sakes. Instead, they believed in a third way, based on the idea the people had a moral responsibility to exercise discernment. Different groups experimented with this idea with varying degrees of success. In a few cases (such as the well-known group The Children of God), unbiblical and cultish characteristics arose among certain groups, but that was the exception, not the rule. Often, the people who were at the center of the Jesus Movement went on to become spiritual leaders in their local churches.

The members of the Jesus Movement were sometimes known as "Jesus people" or "Jesus freaks". The latter term was sometimes used derisively by non-Christians (just as the term "Christian" was used derisively during the first century). It was embraced, nevertheless, by those who understood its potent appeal to the outcasts of conventional society.

The decor at Christian coffeehouses was often typical of what one might find in a hippie hangout, with blacklight posters, crudely constructed furniture (such as recycled telephone cable spools), drippy candles and so forth. Music (which was usually live) was usually in a folk-rock style, dominated by acoustic guitars, but Christian rock bands occasionally made an appearance as well. Sometimes, traditional gospel music groups would also perform, but they had limited appeal to the demographic group which dominated in such coffeehouses. Those who attended such coffeehouses were primarily students in high school and college. They were the generation which supported the first musical performers (such as Larry Norman, the Children of The Day, Love Song, Randy Stonehill, Barry McGuire, Nancy Honeytree and others) who were the pioneers in what eventually became known as contemporary Christian music.

Members of the Jesus Movement had to deal with resistance, both from ultraconservative Christians who regarded the music and attire as inherently un-Christian, and also from members of the secular counterculture, who felt justified in excluding Christian rock music on the grounds that it was "inauthentic", since they defined "authentic" rock music as music which thumbed its nose at traditional beliefs such as Christianity. To be a "Jesus freak" was to understand firsthand what it meant to be persecuted (or, at the very least, ridiculed) for one's beliefs.

Christian coffeehouses were sometimes the focal point of evangelistic activities which would spread out into the surrounding streets and neighborhoods, with Christians periodically coming and going throughout the night, in-between excursions during which they would approach strangers on the street, engage them in conversations about the Lord, and hand them gospel tracts (which were miniature printed sermons designed to appeal to the unsaved). Often, an encounter on the street would lead the Christian to invite the unsaved person back to the coffeehouse, and many people accepted Christ as Savior as a result of such personal attention.

When properly conceived and administered, Christian coffeehouses served other purposes, too. They served as meeting places for like-minded Christians throughout the cities and towns in which they were located. Baptists, Assemblies of God, Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans and many other Christians found common ground, as well as opportunities to exchange ideas about their doctrinal and political differences in an environment of mutual respect, friendship and Agape love.

Socially, Christian coffeehouses met the needs of numerous Christians. Many friendships were forged, and more than a few marriages resulted from encounters which took place in Christian coffeehouses.

Today, there are still a few good Christian coffeehouses in the country, but there are also large regions of the country where there is a real void in terms of such ministries. In some cases, there are no Christian coffeehouses at all. In other cases, the people who run what they describe as Christian coffeehouses don't really understand what it takes to create a successful coffeehouse ministry. Instead of running ministries which are making a major impact on their communities, they limp along year after lonely year, eventually coming to believe that second-best is the most they can ever hope for. Often, such ministries are little more than an exercise in nostalgia.

---

What are my criteria for a successful Christian coffeehouse ministry?

First, in order to be really successful, a Christian coffeehouse should be supported by numerous churches, as well as other Christian institutions in the area, such as Christian colleges. A coffeehouse which is just an extension of a single local church (or which is just a church in disguise) fails to meet this standard, because other churches tend to see that coffeehouse as "the competition", when they ought to see it as a resource.

Second, a really successful Christian coffeehouse should be in a neutral location, such as a storefront, so as to attract non-Christians who might be averse to the idea of entering a traditional church. For the same reason, the name of the endeavor should be subtle in terms of its references to Christianity. By definition, a coffeehouse with a name which is blatantly Christian will attract very few non-Christians.

Third, a successful Christian coffeehouse must be built on a solid business model so that its continued existence will not be at the constant mercy of the benevolence of others. Even though it may be a non-profit endeavor which accepts donations, a successful coffeehouse ministry needs to have other substantial sources of legitimate income to supplement the money from donations, since the attendance at most Christian coffeehouses can ebb and flow with the seasons (especially in cases where large percentages of those in attendance are college students). Numerous non-profit groups and church groups sell products and/or services in order to supplement the money from donations. These days, there is an amazing variety of legitimate fundraising options from which to choose. For people willing to consider such options, and to clearly communicate their vision and their needs with Christians who are in a position to help, there is no reason to be hamstrung by financial limitations.

Fourth, a successful Christian coffeehouse must be in tune with the times. Things considered "hip" in the early 70's are not necessarily considered to be hip anymore. People's expectations have changed. This is not to say that every aspect of the old coffeehouses should be rejected by someone wishing to start a modern Christian coffeehouse ministry, but it is to say that the coffeehouse should be updated in such a way that it is appealing to people living in this century and this decade.

For example, a single drip coffeemaker might have sufficed in the early days, but people are now accustomed to fancy coffee from places such as Starbucks, Julius Meinl, Caribou Coffee and Seattles' Best Coffee. Expecting to draw huge crowds consisting of a healthy percentage on non-Christians, with little more than drip coffee, lemonade and a few storebought cookies, is irrational.

Fifth, the music at a modern coffeehouse should be eclectic. It should cater to people with a variety of stylistic preferences, including soft and hard rock, folk, jazz, new age, electronic music, country, bluegrass, Latin, R&B, soul music, blues, hip-hop and even classical. (NOTE: By "new age", I mean music, usually instrumental, which fits that description stylistically. The term "new age" can also refer to a set of specific religious beliefs which are contrary to the teachings of Christianity. Obviously, music promoting such beliefs would be inappropriate in the context of a Christian ministry!) Other types of performance art and related events (such as Christian "poetry slams", dramatic presentations, and more) should also be considered.

While I'm on the subject of music, let me say that there need to be some minimal standards in terms of the talent. If a place gets a reputation for featuring substandard acts, that can greatly dilute its effectiveness, especially in a large city where unbelievers have their choice of hundreds of professional music acts on any given night. This is not to negate the value a Christian coffeehouse can have in terms of giving stage experience to musicians who are just starting out. There is a time and place for such performances, and the time and place is "Open Mic Night". (Many secular nightclubs devote one night a week to such an event.) People who attend "open mic" events do so with the expectation that high quality is not guaranteed. "Open Mic Night" can also serve as an audition, for musicians and other performers who don't yet have good demo recordings and/or videos.

Sixth on my list (but first in terms of its importance), the underlying motive must be a passion and a deep love for lost souls. A coffeehouse which is not regularly bringing in "new blood" by means of evangelism will ultimately fail, regardless of whether or not it continues to exist as an entity. That passion for evangelism must be built on a solid rock consisting of scriptural teaching, fervent prayer, and intelligent planning.

---

Is the Christian coffeehouse a relic of the past? The answer, in my opinion, is a resounding NO! Yes, the implementation should be revised in order to keep up with the times, but Christian coffeehouses once met certain needs which, even today, are difficult to meet in any other way. In my opinion, it's a crying shame that many of those who started the original Christian coffeehouses lost the vision or just plain gave up.

I want to start a new Christian coffeehouse, preferably in a location (such as downtown Chicago) which is desperately in need of such a place. However, I would not want the ministry to be limited to the coffeehouse. Rather, that would be just one aspect of an extremely ambitious ministry which would have the larger goal of helping to reverse the moral decay so prevalent in modern popular culture.

Such a ministry would tentatively go by the name of the Christian Artists' Resource Center. The ministry would focus on all of the arts, not just one or two art forms. The ministry would include a coffeehouse, a bookstore, a multitrack recording studio, numerous soundproof music practice rooms and rehearsal spaces, a radio station (focusing primarily on satellite radio, "podcasts" and digital broadcasting), a record company, a concert hall, an art gallery, an art "colony" (with residential facilities for those wishing to access the numerous material and spiritual resources of the organization), an international web-based artists' community (including e-commerce capabilities for members), a graphic design studio, a book publishing company, a movie studio, a Christian botanical garden with sculpture and topiary (a/k/a God's Glorious Gospel Garden), and much, much more.

The objective of such an organization would be to eliminate the impediments which currently result in the relegation of faith-based art to a fringe subculture which has minimal impact on mainstream society. In short, I want to initiate what I like to call a "righteous renaissance". In addition to the very worthwhile goal of winning individual souls to Christ, I want to play a role in transforming society for the better. I am not naive. I know that there will always be an element of society (especially in the "last days") which will rebel against God. Nevertheless, using that as an excuse for a failure to do everything one can do to create a better world is unacceptable.

I plan to create additional blog posts in the near future in order to more fully communicate my vision, hopefully in such a way as to elicit participation and support from other Christians who recognize the validity of that vision. Such support will be essential (since my own personal resources are currently very limited) in order for any of these ideas to get off the ground.

Stay tuned! Good things are sure to follow.