Wow Shaun, that was a lot to take in.  I went back and read all 4 parts of the Christianity Today article since I figure your part 4 post is intended to tie in to the 4 parts of the article.

Everything that has been discussed here on your blog is generally discussed in the articles except for the exceptions to the norm (like Brant). I know you tried to get the writer (Mark Geil) to address that point, and I’m guessing he didn’t address it for a reason.

Instead, he didn’t exactly address your point in part 4 (your best point by the way) about how radio embracing iPods and creating iTunes downloads has a place.  “Amen” has been listened to 34 times on my iPod in the last 6 months and played 0 times on the radio.  Great example.  It’s probably my favorite song overall on “White Flag” and I read everything you wrote about your inspiration for the song and who said it (David) and it really has major theological truths and is a prayer for mercy.

I do think Bob Thornton’s comment in the article about “Awesome God” and Rich Mullins was also right on in part 4 in that I would probably take a break from my iPod and tune in to radio if I would actually hear new “breaking songs” that would expose me to something I haven’t heard before.  Instead, I’m never surprised by radio which is very unfortunate.

Your thoughts on paradox remind me of a comment from Bono that I once read.  He said art should portray tension between good and evil.  I think about that every time I contemplate a work of art now—be it a song, a novel, a painting, or whatever.  If Bono said it, it must be true, right?

I may be a little hard on KSBJ (my local station) at times, but that is more because I want less repetition of songs and want to hear more songs from artists that get little to no airplay.  But I will not fault them for sugar-coating.  They work to be family-friendly but, as you say, they do not come across lop-sided.

The positive-only phenomenon is, unfortunately, not unique to Christian radio.  I know too many average Joe Christian’s who feel the same way as the guy who challenged you on David not writing anything negative.

Um, I would just like to quickly say that even though living in the States affords us certain comforts, there IS stress. After all, the house, the car, or the education (in my case) is still not fully ours in most cases.  There is still death and disease.  There are still unsaved loved ones.  There are bills to pay and the struggle to pay them so we can keep that roof over our heads and that car running.  We still worry whether or not we are doing best by our children, and we hope our job is still there tomorrow.
The rich and the poor both have problems.  BUT I get your point that we don’t just need to hear the positive. And we are definitely not worse off than any other group in history.

Good thoughts here. It’s easy to become cynical and disdainful of anything involving Christian radio, but it’s encouraging to hear that some radio stations encourage honesty and paradoxy, as you said. I think the “Life is Hard Though” may be a bit tough on your average radio listener. I think we’re fully capable of making ourselves as entirely miserable, despite having all our material needs met, as someone in poverty and squalor. However, I think that theology with rose-colored glasses is not only dishonest, but it is detrimental to your faith to not acknowledge the power of sin, and our continuous, desperate need for God to deliver us.

Yea, my point isn’t that we don’t HAVE stress but that we aren’t more stressed than the recipients of Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount or Moses’ ten commandments or Paul’s letters.  They sucked it up, swallowed the uncomfortable with the comforting and survived.  I think we can handle it too.

First, thanks fer saying I’m smart.  I didn’t use the word “phylactory”, though, which is kinda important.  I actually couldn’t remember what it was until you elucidated.

It remains about context.  Fact is, critics of Christian radio for not being “negative and discouraging” enough know all about context, too, and live by it.  You get a brief conversation with a neighbor, do you work in God’s wrath?

Try a sandwich board, maybe, and wear it around, pronouncing God’s impending judgment.  I don’t think it’s cool, because it ignores context—some things should take place in relational contexts.

Radio is not a relationship.  It’s not, like it or not, the flesh-and-blood church.  This is why I advise people not to make radio or TV their church.  It doesn’t work, because it’s not real relationship. 

Sure, it’s “part” of the church, but this does not obligate radio to include every aspect of human experience God in its broadcast.  Do you like church marquis signs, by the road, that try to include the entire message?  I don’t.  Context.

And radio is used in bits and bites, in the midst of busy days.  It’s like the sign.  Sorry.  It’s limited.  Context matters.

(You’d almost think, “Uplifting and Encouraging!” stations would get props for honesty.  “This is all we are!”—like a book at Barnes and Noble.  A book of encouragement is not a bad thing, I’m sorry.)

God used reminders for different reasons, but the important thing is that He recognizes even His people—brought out by miracle—could forget.  People now can forget.  That’s all.

John the Baptist lost faith in prison.  He got a reminder from Jesus.  The blind can see, the sick are healed.  Good news that the Kingdom is here. 

And the Gospel, scandal of scandals, means, “Good News.” To be even more interesting, rather than discussing whether or not Christian radio can be like a positive, uplifting church sign, in busy lives, perhaps we can discuss whether “Good News!” should really be used.

Fact is, it IS good.  Are we selling the news about God’s Kingdom short by just labelling it “good”?  I mean, it’s not “good” for everybody, right?  Can we sum up judgment and wrath with “good”?  Apparently, yes.  We can sum it all up with good, thank God.  But I swear, if it weren’t in the Bible that way, we’d have critics who’d take me on for calling it “good” news.

God is capable of wrath, but He’s not known for that.  He’s known for love.  That’s His identity.  He’s summed up by it repeatedly, scripturally.  Is First John selling us short? 

The Israelites had to keep repeating the Shoah every day, and it called them to a love relationship with God.  Every day.  And no mention of all the other aspects.  Does this mean, “Hear O Israel...” was selling the true message short? It was remarkable because it called people to love God.  The idea of a love relationship with one God was utterly revolutionary.

Yes, Shaun, people are depressed in this culture.  It’s an aspect of affluence.  And our culture should be critiqued for this—we’re lonelier and more depressed than anyone, partially because of the success of capitalism.  But as a communicator, that’s neither here-nor-there for me. 

I taught middle school Sunday School, and I could blast them for being the way they were, or I could say, “Here’s where they are, now how do I communicate to them?” You take people where they are, not where you wish they were.

I appreciate your thoughtful critique.  It goes well beyond the usual, the tantrum, often legalism, couched in hipper-than-thou-ism.  I used to advocate it, so I’m identifying my former motivations.

Yes, we’re called to “handle” the Ten Commandments or the uncomfortable teachings from Paul, etc.  But that’s the CHURCH, and context matters, and the medium matters, and this sort of thing is best handled relationally.  Don’t lay it on Christian radio.

-- or, really, go ahead and ask Christian music radio to grapple with Paul’s tough teachings, if you like.  As long as you do the same thing with the checker at Wal-Mart, and the guy mowing the lawn down the street, when you chat for a few minutes in a distracting atmosphere. 

I get the feeling many critics want Christian radio to do the work of the flesh-and-blood church...while they themselves won’t.  Maybe *because* they won’t?

I’m an idiot.  “Shema”, not “Shoah.”

VERY big difference.  Gulp.  See why I didn’t say “phylactory”?  Soon as I hit “submit” I gasped…

Brant, I haven’t had a chance to read your entire comment here.  I will.  And I will respond of course if it’s necessary.

For now though, I didn’t make up the phylactory thing.  I’m looking for it.  it either happened on my old blog or on yours, in a discussion about radio, in the comments of a post, the word “phylactory” actually was uttered.  I will find that and post it here. because, yea, that’s important I think too.

For now, in the same spirit, without saying “phylactory” brant hansen did write the following…

Should a radio station disciple people?  Can it be enough to ask a radio station to serve simply as a handy, in-your-car reminder, “Oh yeah—it’s all about God.” Seems to me like that’s worth something.  It’s a radio station, for crying out loud.

... We hope these songs take your mind off yourself and remind you that God wants your attention.  Or not.

Read these quote in context here.

Alright, off to look for that phylactory thing…

You can look if you like, that’s cool --but it’s not actually a big deal to me.  I don’t think you’ll find it, but that’s only because I couldn’t even remember what it was.  I’d hate to think I’m getting that forgetful.

I absolutely do remember, repeatedly and in many venues, stressing our effectiveness as a reminder.  I get a stunning number of calls and emails from listeners, long-time and new, to this end.

I can’t search your old blog, and I think that’s where it was.  In the comments.  If you have the ability, would you mind searching it for me.  Just search for “remind” and I’m guessing phylactory shows up in the comments somewhere.  And I’m 99% sure it came from you.  No biggy to me if not to you, the point is the same: Reminding listeners of what?

No, no biggie.  I did say that I, in a sense, consider myself a “bracelet maker”, in the same way that the Israelites were told to wrap reminders around their wrists.

My goal is to remind you (the listener) that God exists, God loves you - and the world --and wants to enter into a covenant relationship with you, He’s seeking your faithfulness of heart, and there’s a Kingdom reality that is far more valuable than what’s distracting you right now.

That may not be well-put, and there are obviously many facets of this, but that’s about it.  I think this limited medium, given where people actually are, and how they use it, is really good for this.

It helps that I believe everyone actually already believes these things, deep down, self-identified Christian, or not.

(I will also admit that there are talented communicators who, understanding the evangelical topography, can quickly and effectively insert Kingdom “challenges” to their listeners that are effective.  But this is high-level stuff, beyond what even most talented preachers can do, because of the medium.)

I agree with all of what you say you reind people of and I htink you and WAY-FM do that well.  That’s why I held you guys up as a paragon of sorts of a positive (as in beneficial) radio station.

Thing is, some radio stations defining positive as happy do not remind their listeners of this and cannot, because with this kingdom stuff comes ideas that demand of us, that are sacrificial, that make us uncomfortable.  That is my beef with happy radio, not beneficial radio.

I hope that’s clear.  I was unsure if your comments defending always positive (the happy kind) were due to my being unclear.  Do you understand that I don’t want anyone “blasted” and I don’t seek to require discussion of weighty issues or
“Gods wrath”?  I don’t want anything forced into the conversation. I want the freedom to have a conversation about the kingdom if the need arises - the kingdom that is the Good News of Mark.

Did you get that from my post or did I miscommunicate again?

What you and WAY-FM does is the model I’m suggesting all AC radio aspire to mimicking.

Maybe the phylactory thing was someone telling you and I, or me telling you and I, in the whole bracelet discussion what those bracelets were.  The search continues…

You communicated very clearly.  Much of my response wasn’t merely to your entry, but to the conversants who’ve weighed in here.

I don’t think that it follows:  “What’s in the Bible must be reflected on your radio station.” Yes, there are un-positive elements, in addition to gross elements, incredibly violent elements, disturbing I-still-don’t-understand elements. 

It is the church’s responsibility to seek God in His fullness, and pursue truth in these difficult passages. 

Wondering what you think:  Do you think “Held” is a positive, upbeat song?  Is “Blessed be the Name of the Lord” a positive song?  How about “Praise You in this Storm”?  They’ve gotten thousands of spins on AC stations—they’ve been huge, core hits for them --on the kind of stations that some of your commenters just can’t stand. 

I do get VERY frustrated with some of the air talent on Christian stations.  (I’m kind of in the role of defending everything here, which is a strange thing for me...) But I actually think the music itself isn’t so universally slappy-happy as many claim, even on the AC stations. 

For artists, tweak a word here or there, and that “offensive” song can make the same point and get on the air.  This isn’t scandalous to me, because that’s the way it is with human communication in general.  (Change the emphasis on a syllable, and needless, distracting offense can become a well-received challenge to a friend.)

Wondering what you think:  Do you think “Held” is a positive, upbeat song?  Is “Blessed be the Name of the Lord” a positive song?  How about “Praise You in this Storm”?

Positive as you and I and WAY-FM define it, yes.

Positive as the “happy” stations do, no.

I think it’s a minority of stations that define “positive” as happy.  I could name names but I don’t think that is constructive.  It’s a minority.

Then there are stations that hide behind the positive mantra when it suits them (like when they don’t want to tell a record company their song just sucks) but still play the songs you mentioned above.

While the problem is still with the minority of stations, I want those stations to change.  I just wish Christianity Today had communicated that the problem I have with “positive” isn’t a problem I have with all stations, all AC stations or even all stations using the phrase “positive.”

Brant, you did single me out on one comment you made and although I’m trying not to be bugged by it, I’m, well, bugged.  Forgive me for that if I’m understanding you incorrectly.

You asked if when teaching youth you should “blast” them, as if that’s the equivalent of what I’m asking radio to do, as if that’s what I’D want you to do.  I’m not.  I woulnd’t.  Nor is it accurate to imply that I want radio to talk about God’s wrath.  It’s not that there are certain things I want talked about as much as it is that I want there to be no rule saying those things can’t be talked about.

I’ll say this in my next post (I think) but Peter tells us to be ready to give the answer for the hope we have.  Maybe it’s just how that verse has been taught to me, but this verse makes always positive (when defined as happy) stations seem silly, humorous even. “I’m ready to talk to this friend, God, as long as her problems don’t come up...and you being the only way and all...and death...and what you think about her divorce...and whether she should max out her credit cards like that...and depression, oh God, I don’t want to talk about that depressed time I went through a couple years ago that you got me through.  I’m ready to talk to her about anything, God, but not if she wants to talk about any of that.  God, no.  Other than those subjects I think I’m ready to talk about anything. Yea, I’m ready.”

See how silly that sounds?  Of course God isn’t telling me when I speak to my neighbor to declare His wrath on her sins.  But I should be ready and willing to go wherever the conversation goes...to use your analogy.  Shouldn’t I?  And if God’s wrath, for whatever reason, comes up (say, asking, as a neighbor of mine actually did, whether I agreed with Pat Robertson’s statements about hurricanes punishing gays) I don’t have to use language that carried cultural baggage.  I can use words besides “wrath” which is, I think, part of what you’re suggesting writers do.

If I were in radio, making the choices, I’d test.  To decide what songs got tested I’d listen to them and ask 1)Is this true?  and then 2)Is this spiritually beneficial to my listeners? 3)Is this message already unnecessarily dominant in my playlist or lacking in it?  Songs that pass those three questions would get played on the radio - a minimum of 400 spins.  Then I’d test the songs that sounded best on air, that got phone calls, that bore some kind of “fruit” and any that I just really liked for whatever reason.  I’d test those to answer the final question: What does my listener like?

I would not ask ever: Is this going to make my listeners feel good.  And if I knew a song was true and beneficial I wouldn’t not test it or not play it because I feared it would make a listener uncomfortable or unhappy.

That’s what I’m suggesting.  That’s what, as a listener, it seems WAY-FM and many many more stations are doing to be “positive.” Make sense?

In short, I’m not pro-blast.  I’m pro being ready and not limiting the potential scope of the God conversation before it even takes place.  Such limitations, I think, can even keep the conversation from beginning.

My apologies for the poor writing.  When I wrote “blast” I had my middle schoolers in mind, not you.  I know you wouldn’t blast them, either, or anyone else.  I’d apologize for being snarky, but I wasn’t being snarky.  Just not a good writer, apparently.

I think when you say “positive” is used sometimes as an excuse not to play a song—I don’t doubt that for a second.

Ironically, another hit Casting Crowns song, “If We are the Body” DOES blanket-blast the church, to the point that I’ve wanted to say, “Speak for yourself, buddy,” thinking of all the people in America and around the world who *are* the hands of feet of Jesus.

Brant, thanks for the back and forth with Shaun that flooded my e-mail last night.  I was too busy watching the NCAA tourney to jump in.  As for using the “not positive” excuse to not play a song, I hadn’t thought of that. 

It’s actually offensive to me as a major music collector that not exposing people to more variety is actually purposeful instead of accidental. I’m a Casting Crowns and Matt Redman fan for the same reason I’m a Shaun Groves fan.  They don’t sugar-coat the gospel.  Basically if Shaun’s next CD “breaks out” and sells 500,000 copies like Aaron Shust, then radio will be forced to play it instead of using the “not positive” excuse.  I’m not just defending Shaun but all artists like him who I support.

Brant, do you agree that the rich get richer in Christian radio instead of emerging artists getting their fair chance to be heard?  How many times have you heard Danny Oertli, Warren Barfield or Andrew Peterson on the radio in the past year?  They are 3 of my favorite Christian artists who most people don’t know.  In contrast, how many times have you heard Chris Tomlin, Newboys and Natalie Grant?

Definitely agree.  Some artists get lots of radio play, others (like, say, oh...me) get exactly zero. 

We play Casting Crowns all the time, and I doubt even they would say they’re thousands of spins better than Andrew Peterson.

What’s a “fair chance” on the radio for all Christian artists?  Is it just a concern for signed singer-songwriter types, like you mention?  What about singers at your church, brilliant 60 year-old guitar players down the street, unsigned bands...?
Do the Newsboys or Natalie Grant “sugar-coat the gospel”?  Honest questions about what you think.

Actually, I am a Newboys fan, particularly “It is You”.  As for the new CD, it doesn’t deserve the amount of airplay it gets.  “Wherever We Go” is way overplayed.  I can’t enjoy the song anymore.  It is a good message and talks about being “hands and feet” but played too often, I’m no longer hearing that message, just “that’s where the party’s at”. 

To Shaun’s point, that’s a happy song.  It’s also positive using your same definitions so it deserves to be played, just not 6 times per day.  As for Natalie Grant, I’ll hold off with my comments other than she’s overplayed at the expense of singer-songwriter types.  Yes, that’s primarily my concern because they have a message that people should hear.  For example, “God Wrote A Song” by Danny Oertli http://dannyoertli.com/ is happy, positive, based on Zephaniah 3:17 (popular verse these days) and it’s never played on the radio.  His new CD comes out in April and I’d love to hear it on the radio instead of one of the 6 times “Wherever We Go” is played.