Christian music for example….years ago the closed mined Christians were the ones who would not allow CCM and P&W into their church. Now, coming full circle, many of these narrow minded churches will only allow CCM and P&W into their churches and will have nothing to do with SG.

Narrow-mindedness is a matter of perspective. I for one do not have a worry of our schools teaching about evolution. Our schools on the other hand are so narrow-minded they are fearful of having creationism taught. I guess, from my perspective, that would make the schools narrow-minded.

For years the left has been allowed to propagandize through television, music, and theatre their philsophies to almost the near exclusion of any conservative thinking. If a writer desires to show his political colors with one song, I hardly view them as being narrow-minded. “Under God” by the Booth Brothers was even played on country stations providing some of the cross-genre that everybody so desires.

Whatever your position on this subject is up to you, but to stoop to calling our fans “bufoons”, “close-minded”, or “narrow-focused is simply mean spirited in the worst sense. Perhaps it is the “liberal” that is close-minded in regards to the Gospel.

First, I don’t think that caring about art or seeking to understand it is an elitist characteristic. I’m willing to be corrected, but my concern about the politicization of southern gospel music has more to do with my objection to mixing the gospel with political viewpoints (of any stripe) than it does with a condescending view toward conservatism specifically.

JW mentions the “simplistic manipulation from the right”. When southern gospel music is politicized, it is almost always
from a conservative view, which is understandable. Other genres of music are also subject to being politicized though usually from the left. Again, no surprise. My point, which I stand by and which I think was reasonably coherent despite having been written before my first cup of coffee that morning, is that while manipulation can come from any “side” what I object to is the shallowness of selling out one’s religious art for a temporal purpose.

It’s one thing to write about issues from a Christian worldview and quite another to invoke the name of Christ or scriptural references out of context just to drive home a point that may be more political than spiritual.

The gospel exists in each one of us in a given cultural context and we cannot disassociate ourselves from that in our expressions of faith. My concern is that too often a timeless message that transcends culture, gender and certainly political viewpoints, one that can bring eternal redemption to the human heart, is reduced to a cheap metaphor to accomplish a political goal. That’s not being elitist, that’s simply common sense.

“self-serving buffoonery”

Pots, meet the kettles.

While I don’t care for the sometimes simplistic manipulation from the right, I’m not so sure I want to trade it in for the pseudo elitism I’ve read in the post and some comments here.

“Of course the wrath of God is always more popular, especially if you don’t agree with the one you think should get the wrath… ”

Sounds like it’s pretty popular on your side, too.

Eh, I know I’m not near as eloquent as some here, but my simplistic solution is just to listen to something else if it bothers me that much.

Of course the wrath of God is always more popular, especially if you don’t agree with the one you think should get the wrath…

“I’m beginning to see that there’s a difference between art that trusts beauty’s simple power to point people to God and overt-Christian art that’s consciously propagandistic.”

I’m not sure who the author is, but I like what they’re saying.