Britney (Bebo Norman)

(To listen, click here)

Britney, I'm sorry for the lies we told.
We took you into our arms, then left you cold.
Britney, I'm sorry for this cruel, cruel world.
We sell the beauty but destroy the girl.
Britney, I'm sorry for your broken heart.
We stood aside and watched you fall apart.
I'm sorry we told you fame would fill you up,
And money moves the man, so drink the cup.

I know love goes around the world. We know.
And you never see it coming back.
You never see it coming back.
I know love goes around the world. We know.
And you never see it coming back.
But I can see it coming back for you.
Yes, coming back for you.

Britney, I'm sorry for the stones we throw.
We tear you down just so we can watch the show.
Britney, I'm sorry for the words we say.
We point the finger as you fall from grace.

I know love goes around the world. We know.
And you never see it coming back.
You never see it coming back.
I know love goes around the world. We know.
And you never see it coming back.
But I can see it coming back for you.

Britney, I do believe that love has come.
Here for the broken, here for the ones like us

I know love goes around the world. We know.
And you never see it coming back.
You never see it coming back.
I know love goes around the world. We know.
And you never see it coming back.
But I can see it coming back for you.

It's coming back for you.

---

The Story Behind the Song (in Bebo Norman's own words)
(taken from CCMagazine.com)

"Britney" is a song about what our culture says and does to young women these days. It's a collective apology for the struggle girls face growing up too fast in today's overly adult-oriented world. The song confesses, "I’m sorry for the lies we told / We took you into our arms, then left you cold / I'm sorry for this cruel, cruel world / We sell the beauty but destroy the girl." It's about the lies we tell them: about fame, and money, and what’s beautiful, and what will give them life. It's an apology for those lies. But more than that, it's an invitation to the truth about a God who is bigger than the pain this world so often leaves them in."

"I was up late. Couldn’t sleep, watching some news channel when yet another story about Britney Spears came on. My first instinct was to scoff and write it off. But then there was this freeze-frame shot of a look on her face of utter and absolute despair and confusion and brokenness—a look that I recognized. And I remember thinking, "This girl is a child of God." Suddenly I saw her story not as something to mock but as a real-life tragedy that is desperate for redemption and hope—a story not so different from any of our stories. Take away all the lights and cameras and it's really just a narrative of a girl so clearly in need of love, so clearly in need of the redeeming love of our God."

"And suddenly all I wanted to do was just apologize, over and over. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. On behalf of this fallen world. On behalf of our consumerism that so consistently devours what it wants and leaves the remnants in the wake of the search for the next fix. On behalf of believers, like myself, who mock and hurl stones rather than scribbling a message in the sand."

"I think that night I saw her through the eyes of Jesus for the first time. I imagined what Jesus would say to me in my darkest hour and realized that those are the words we should speak to this world, to this culture—and even to Britney Spears—in their darkest hour. "I'm sorry. Hope is here."

Hate the Sin, Love the Sinner?

The following is an email I had received:

There's something I don't quite understand in the Bible. It says to "hate the sin" but to "love the sinner," and then in Psalm 5:5 it says about God, "You hate all who do wrong." I don't quite understand what that really means. How can God love us but hate us? And how can we do the same? Am I missing something here? Although I do realize that so many people have turned hate-the-sin-love-the-sinner into a cliché, so that it has lost all meaning, what's the true meaning?

You're right, it is a cliché. But as general principles go it is a fairly good one.

The deal with hatred comes down to the issue of intentions, or what lies at back of a specific act or emotional state (as does everything we are held morally culpable for). And not only for us but for God too, because in one sense he hates but in another sense it is impossible for him to hate, e.g., God is capable of hatred in the sense of "aversion" but not in the sense of "malice."

At back of God's hatred lies his supreme commitment to his own glory and righteousness. In other words, the reason why he hates all who do wrong is because they defy the supremacy and glory of God, and God simply cannot deny himself (2 Tim 2:13); as John Piper said, for God to deny the infinite worth of his own glory "would imply that there is something more valuable outside himself. He would commit idolatry." This is the reason for God's "intense aversion" (hatred) toward sin and sinners—and also the necessity of Christ and his atoning sacrifice. Without Christ our end is inescapable: utter destruction. It is because of Christ—and only because of Christ—that this world has not been destroyed and that anyone is saved at all. In ourselves we can offer God no worthy thing; the ground of the saints' justification is Christ, and only Christ.

The same thing may be said of the saints as well. Our hatred is justified when it takes the form of "aversion" but it is a sin when it takes the form of "malice." The saints never hate for hatred's sake; we hate for God's sake because, like David, we have a Spirit-fueled commitment to the supremacy and glory of our Lord God. As John Calvin said, "A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent." The reason for our "intense aversion" (hatred) toward sin and sinners is because we have a commitment to the supremacy and glory of God that exceeds all else, completely. "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple" (Luke 14:26). For the saints, God comes first in all things and their commitment to him is intense.

We do not hate others because of their race or sexual orientation or because of what they have done to us; all these things are human-centred motives. Our motives are God-centred: "Do I not hate those who hate you, O LORD, and do I not loathe those who rise up against you" (Psa. 139:21). We are to live peaceably and to love others and forgive them, but never at the expense of God's glory; although we are to live peaceably here on earth, we are to avoid friendship with the world wherever it threatens the priority of God in our lives. "You adulterous people, don't you know that friendship with the world is hatred toward God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God" (James 4:4).

But it is very important to note that there is no Scriptural warrant for hating individual people. David said that he hates those who hate God and loathes those who rise against God, but notice: here he hates a certain class of people, not select persons, that class of people who hate God. But no individual is being specified. We can never be certain of who falls into that class, but we can certainly hate that class itself, like David, because of our passionate devotion to God.

When it comes to individual people, we have no idea who belongs to the elect of God and who does not. Smith might live in rebellion against God today but we should love him nonetheless, forgive him, and preach the Word to him, because next week he could turn his life over to God and become one of his most passionate followers. All along he was one of God's elect, but not until later did his life of faith begin. Walk down the street and notice the people around you: any one of them could be one of God's elect. We must not hate them as individuals because we do not know who belongs to God. But we must, like David, hate that class of people who defy God and rise against him because we cannot serve two masters. Where our loyalty is concerned, it must fall on the side of God, his supremacy and glory.

The 'Greening' of Christianity Is Not New

In a segment on All Points West (a regular series on CBC Radio One hosted by Jo-Ann Roberts) earlier this afternoon, Roberts and a select guest discussed the appropriation of environmental concerns by many of today's religions which, if memory serves me, she referred to as "the greening of religion" or the growing spiritual dimensions of socio-ecological issues. She set the tone by opening with the example of the "new sins" described last March by Bishop Gianfranco Girotti [PDF] which include such offences as social and economic inequality; these feed off an "unsustainable form of social injustice and is related to environmental issues," Girotti said, "which currently have much relevant interest."

The following is a letter I wrote to All Points West which describes my mild disagreement because, as I indicate, socio-political concerns is actually not a new arena for the Christian faith.

Dear Jo-Ann Roberts,

This afternoon (21/Apr/2008) on All Points West there was a brief discussion on "the greening of religion." I would include more relevant information, like the name of the guest and the points he raised, but I cannot find a podcast for your show, which restricts me to personal memory.

I wanted to provide a brief response on the relationship between the socio-ecological concerns of our day and at least one particular 'institutional religion'—Christianity. There is always room for continuing education and growth on the individual and community scale, but socio-ecological concerns are not unfamiliar to this religion. As covenant children of God, Christians have a willing and sober obligation to be responsible stewards of God's creation wherever it touches our lives; from the beginning we have been given the ethical mandate of superintending God's creation and are therefore responsible in this capacity before God. Although the Christian community is chiefly concerned with spreading the message of Christ and redemption, it also recognizes manifold social responsibilities and that evangelization is ecologically active, "bringing the message and realities of the kingdom of God into the social affairs of human beings and into responsible stewardship of all creation" (Dr. Grant McClung, "Is Jesus' Proclamation Our Proclamation?" Christian Churches Together in the USA, 7/Feb/2007).

This is addressed implicitly in the Lausanne Covenant (1976), one of the most influential documents in modern evangelical Christianity, written and adopted by 2,430 evangelicals at the International Congress on World Evangelization (ICWE) in Lausanne, Switzerland. This conference was called by a committee headed by Billy Graham of the United States and brought together 150 Christian religious leaders from around the world. In one of the sections it reaffirms the "responsible service to the world" faced by Christian ministry, expressing the belief that "evangelism and socio-political involvement are both part of our Christian duty" because both are logical "expressions of our doctrines of God and man, our love for our neighbour and our obedience to Jesus Christ . . . [The gospel and its mission] should be transforming us in the totality of our personal and social responsibilities" (Section V, emphasis mine).

In the Manila Manifesto (1989), the Second ICWE in Manila, Philippines (sometimes called "Lausanne II") elaborated on the Lausanne Covenant, calling explicitly for an integration of words and deeds, including a "continuing commitment to social action" because it is recognized "that the biblical gospel has inescapable social implications." It affirms the belief that authentic evangelization demands "the prophetic denunciation of all that is incompatible with [God's kingdom]. Among the evils we deplore are destructive violence, including institutionalized violence, political corruption, all forms of exploitation of people and of the earth" and so forth (Section IV, emphasis mine).

There is also the Evangelical Environmental Network (EEN), which is a non-profit organization "that seeks to educate, inspire, and mobilize Christians in their effort to care for God's creation, to be faithful stewards of God's provision, and to advocate for actions and policies that honor God and protect the environment" (emphasis mine). The EEN "provides theological and spiritual guidance on Christian responsibility in the light of biblical teaching on the care of creation and the reality of modern environmental degradation." This group expresses the conviction that if "the Bible teaches us that Christ has created the universe, gives it life and sustains it, and has reconciled everything to God, then our actions should participate in Christ's creating, sustaining, and reconciling work."

The examples could be multiplied, especially if consideration is given to Christian social and relief initiatives concerned with food security, emergency management initiatives, economic development, health care, basic education and so forth (e.g. Salvation Army, Samaritan's Purse, World Vision, Adventist Development and Relief Agency, etc).

Although further "greening" of Christian evangelical convictions and efforts are desired and commendable, the existence of such international conferences and initiatives underscores the reality that such "greening" is not a 21st century bandwagon being appropriated by the Christian faith among other religions, but has actually been a growing concern for many decades.