Donatists and Rascal Flatts

The Donatist Controversy was a church crisis during and after the reign of the Emperor Diocletian (302-305AD). The controversy centered around priests and bishops who renounced their faith under the persecution of Diocletian and how to re-admit penitent priests back into the church. One of the central issues was whether on not the baptisms performed by these priests were valid since they became apostate. Should people who received baptism from one of these priests be re-baptized? Is the efficacy of the baptism dependent upon the faith of the one who administers it?
The Donatists answered these questions by saying the baptisms were not valid because they were invalid due to the faultiness of the priest's faith. The majority of the church said the baptisms were valid because the faithfulness of Christ gurantees the efficicacy.
I give this history lesson because of a song I heard on Christian radio the other day. It was "God Bless the Broken Road." This song was originally performed by the Nitty Gritty Dirt Band and made hugely popular by Rascal Flatts. The song was re-recorded by a Christian artist and has received wide air-time on Christian radio. The original and the "Christian" versions of the song are the same. Yet the superior recording (done by the non-Christian band) is not played while the other version (performed by the Christian band) is. What makes one acceptable for Christian radio and the other one not? Do we tie the efficacy of a song to the faith of the one performing it? What if a popular Christian recording artist abandoned the faith? Is the spiritual connection you may have had through that person's music now invalid?
I think we can take a lesson from the Donatists controversy and recognize that art is not good because it is "Christian." There are Christians who make good art, but let's be honest, there are lots of non-Christians who make better art (and while we're being honest, there are lots of Christians who make terrible art...don't get me started about the front half of every Christian bookstore. Retailers: Please note, "bad art + bible verse = Christian art" is not a valid equation). The value of art is not tied to the faith of the artist. We should be wise in understanding art. We should understand the message that the work of art (be it song, painting, sculpture, film, etc.) is communicating. That message and the aesthetic of the work must be evaluated and judged against the rule of Scripture, but don't make the life of the artist the point of measurement. There isn't a one of us who hasn't been radically affected by the presence and power of sin.

Which is Clearer?

I've come across two different interviews of famous (or sorta famous) people who are attempting to articulate their understanding of the Gospel. One of the interviewees is well-known pastor. The other is the lead singer of one of the most popular rock bands of all time (and probably the only person whose picture actually does appear in the dictionary under the definition of "cool."). Who do you think more clearly articulates the essence of the Gospel of Jesus Christ?

Interview #1
"I often put it this way: If there is a God, some sort of Divine Being, Mind, Spirit, and all of this is not just some random chance thing, and history has some sort of movement to it, and you have a connection with Whatever—that is awesome. Hard and awesome and creative and challenging and provoking.

And there is this group of people who say that whoever that being is came up among us and took on flesh and blood—Andrew Sullivan talks about this immense occasion the world could not bear. So a church would be this odd blend of swagger—an open tomb, come on—and humility and mystery. The Resurrection accounts are jumbled and don't really line up with each other—I really relate to that. Yet something momentous has burst forth in the middle of history. You just have to have faith, and you get caught up in something."

Interview #2

"But I love the idea of the Sacrificial Lamb. I love the idea that God says: Look, you cretins, there are certain results to the way we are, to selfishness, and there’s a mortality as part of your very sinful nature, and, let’s face it, you’re not living a very good life, are you? There are consequences to actions. The point of the death of Christ is that Christ took on the sins of the world, so that what we put out did not come back to us, and that our sinful nature does not reap the obvious death. That’s the point. It should keep us humbled … It’s not our own good works that get us through the gates of heaven."

You can click here for the full Interview #1 and here for Interview #2 and to find out who is who.