Seeing the handwriting on the wall.

Two years ago I published a post about a CCM entertainer’s comments that he gave to a Roman Catholic organization in which the entertainer, David Crowder, admitted:

“Much of the Catholic traditions and writings have been influential in my formation of faith and to be quite contradictory of what was stated earlier, I’ve found much inspiration there.”

Of course, my pointing this out went over like a lead balloon with many professing Christians. Daring to bring to light (or even make mention of) the biblically antithetical theology, leanings, and/or admitted influences of any of their beloved entertainers will always incur the wrath of the American evangelical. (That same post also spoke of David Crowder’s ties to contemplatives too, but for some reason that has never been much of a point of contention with Crowder’s defenders.)

I received numerous responses of defense for Crowder from tons of professing Christians telling me how stupid I was for pointing out Crowder’s obvious Roman Catholic leanings. In the estimation of his defenders, I was just jumping to conclusions, making mountains out of mole hills, and seeing things that were simply not there.

But was I?

(I still wonder how Crowder defenders would have reacted if he had said “Much of the Mormon traditions and writings have been influential in my formation of faith . . .“.) 

Apparently I have to venture outside the whitewashed, happy, clappy realm of Americanized Christianity to find someone else who can add 2 plus 2 and come up with 4. 

Marc, a Roman Catholic who blogs at Bad Catholic, is one of those out there who also read Crowder’s interview and saw the same handwriting on the wall. On his latest post praising David Crowder, Marc writes what’s so obvious as the noon-day sun to him (and me) but seems to escape the comprehension of so many professing Christians:

“So, remember that time I invited David Crowder to become Catholic? Yeah, that might have been redundant. . . .  I’m happy as can be, and praying for Mr. Crowder, hoping he comes into full communion soon, though it seems his heart is already there.”

Although Marc and I will disagree on many (many) things regarding theology, we can at least both agree on what we’re seeing coming from the “evangelical” entertainer, David Crowder.

Marc also wrote an open letter (an open invitation) to David Crowder to invite hm to finally “enter into full communion with the Holy Catholic Church.”

Because of Crowder’s most recent album, Marc has said that he finds himself “in one of the most incredible moments of my music-loving, Christ-worshipping, Roman Catholic existence” and that “To the Christian, this is awesome. To the Catholic, well, this is freaking fantastic.”

Here is an excerpt from Marc’s article regarding Crowder’s latest album, an album that has at least one Roman Catholic all abuzz:

“So when your album started with a man walking into a Church, and the voice of a priest saying ‘Grant them eternal rest, Lord, and let perpetual light shine on them…’ (in Latin!) I fairly well freaked out. That prayer is not merely a memory of the dead, it is a prayer for the dead, that they might be granted to enter into Heaven.”

Here is Marc’s invitation to “evangelical” entertainer, David Crowder: 

“Though I’m sure you’ve been invited before — and if not, I take this opportunity to apologize for it — I’d like to invite you to enter into full communion with the Holy Catholic Church. You’ve been in my prayers and the prayers of my friends for some time now. We heard when you said that many ‘of the Catholic traditions and writings have been influential in [your] formation of faith,’ and about your love for St. Francis when you granted LifeTeen an interview, and we got pretty pumped.”

So, I guess I wasn’t alone with what I concluded in that interview David Crowder gave to LifeTeen; even Marc and some of his Roman Catholic friends understood it and have not only been praying for Crowder, but were “pretty pumped” by what Crowder said. It’s the cultural Christians who have their fingers in their ears and their eyes slammed shut refusing to examine whether or not the CCM emperor is wearing clothes.

I also find it ironic that the very first comment Marc received on his open invitation to David Crowder came from a Roman Catholic who claims to have actually worked with David Crowder and his band, and knows them on a personal level. This commenter scolded Marc, informing him that he’s not giving David Crowder enough credit for his Romainst leanings:

“I’m a Catholic who’s worked with the Crowder band up until their recent retirement. I was standing there when they walked off stage for the last time in Atlanta two weeks ago, and I know all the guys on a personal level. . . . [Y]ou have absolutely no idea what Dave does or does not know about the Catholic faith. Without that knowledge, I’m finding it hard to understand why you chose to write a manifesto about our faith as if you were telling him things he doesn’t already know. It sounds to me you’ve made an awful lot of assumptions here. Dave has a very healthy knowledge of the Catholic faith. He knows much more than you and others are giving him credit for. When the idea of this album came up, Dave sought out Catholic musician Matt Maher and asked for his input and in depth perspective regarding the Catholic funeral liturgy.”

I’ll conclude with a short video posted on Marc’s blog of David Crowder talking about his latest album, “Give Us Rest or (A Requiem Mass in C [The Happiest of All Keys]),” a video in which the first commenter on Marc’s post wrote:

“Did David Crowder, the renowned Protestant musician, just use the words ‘Liturgy’ ‘Latin’ ‘Mass’ and ‘Eucharist’ in that video??! I’m failing to see how this could lead anywhere other than into the welcoming arms of Holy Mother Church.”


17 thoughts on “Seeing the handwriting on the wall.

  1. It seems strange to talk about things related to theology when assessing Christian music. Isn’t it enough if it sounds cool, makes me feel good, and makes me excited about some sort of version of Christianity or something? I’m absolutely certain that’s what Paul meant in Colossians 3:16 — we’re supposed to use music to teach one another to feel excited about something or other, right?

  2. michael henry says:

    And so continues the celebrity bandwagon. Whenever a celebrity is questioned regarding (gasp) doctrine, the defenders invariably, with almost 100% certainty, immediately have to resort to ad hominem and arguments defending the man or woman rather than defending from scripture.

  3. iam3rd says:

    Pilgrim, good expose’ on what is wrong with much of so called Contemporary Christian Music. It is time for the Redeemed to begin listening to the lyrics for its orthodoxy content. Just because a lyric mentions Christ, or has a religious reference or undertone, does not make it theologically sound. If that were the case, the Beatles and Bob Dylan would fall into the category of Radio Evangelists. I know of a lot of so called “believers” who think they get all the preaching they need from Christian radio, naively reasoning that they could not be steered wrong by a “Christian Formatted” station. Positive and encouraging is not a requirement of the gospel, but the other guy can use it to sway, distort and deceive. BTW; wisdom is to be exercised through the teaching and admonishing of one another through psalms and hymns. LaLaLaLaLa, doesn’t get there.

  4. JonnyWin says:

    Hm….how in the world does one leave evangelical Christianity to join the catholic church. This boggles my mind.

  5. The Gospel is not confusing though David seems to be. This is why doctrine matters. Why does doctrine matter? The purpose of doctrine is to conform us to the truth, and we conform to the truth by bearing true witness to what God has done and is doing in Christ through the Spirit. We bear true witness by speaking, and embodying, the truth in love. To embody the truth of the gospel is to live in such a way that one’s word and deeds are testimonies to the love and knowledge of God that were made manifest “in Christ.”
    This is what happens when you Trifle with Divine Truth. Spurgeon said it best here: http://a-voice-crying-out.com/2012/02/02/trifling-with-divine-truth/
    Thanks for the post.

  6. Jgehret says:

    Thank you for quoting my comment on Marc’s blog. Regardless of whether you think Dave is converting or not, you have to admit, he’s getting dangerously close to Catholicism. One does not use the word “Liturgy” in any sincere way without showing an openness to becoming Catholic. I’m betting his collaboration with Matt Maher has brought him into contact with Catholic apologists who have slowly been unraveling the mysteries of the Church for him, and the beauty and the sincerety and the holiness of the Catholic Mass is quite alluring. There something heavenly about it, really. I challenge all of you to follow where Crowder seems to be leading. Go to a Catholic Mass, with your Bibles, and have open ears, eyes, and hearts. Listen. The Mass is packed full of Scripture, jammed full of greater symbolism. The whole thing reeks of the Wedding Feast of the Lamb, if you’re willing to percieve it. I dare you. Open your soul to Christ in the Eucharist.

  7. Dear Jgehret,

    Here’s the problem:
    Jesus is sitting at the right hand on His throne. There is ONE incarnation. For Jesus to be in a piece of bread “body, blood, soul, and divinity”, is to say there is millions of incarnations.

    New International Version (©1984)
    “Men of Galilee,” they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.”

    Notice they said “THIS Jesus” would come back the same way they saw him go. The reason why he said This Jesus, is because there are FALSE Jesus’. The angles made it clear that the true Messiah will come back in the same way. He did not say to worship him in bread or put him in a box.
    Jesus left us His Holy Spirit in his physical absence. When the apostles ate the last supper, Jesus ate it with them, a traditional Jewish Seder meal. Do you propose He ate himself?? The meal was a foreshadowing of the sacrifice to come. He had not yet shed His blood. So how do you call the last supper a “sacrifice?” There is no sacrifice without the shedding of blood.

    The RCC makes Jesus helpless and lower than the animals as a piece of bread that molds and rots. Yet scripture says differently:

    because you will not abandon me to the grave, nor will you let your Holy One see decay.

    The RCC then keeps the host in a box to be worshiped, yet scripture contradicts:

    “However, the Most High does not live in houses made by men. As the prophet says:

    The scriptures didn’t copy, they are Acts 7:48 and Psalm 16:10

  8. DavidW says:

    Scripture speaks nowhere of God dwelling in inanimate objects (such as the “host”, “eucharist”, communion wafer). The only place on earth that God (the Holy Spirit) resides is within those who are born again followers of Jesus Christ, those purchased by the blood of Jesus Christ, and bear the fruit of repentance and obedience to His Word. And He, the Holy Spirit is given, not through means of man eating a wafer of bread, but by His own action of being sent from the Father, by Jesus, into His children.

    “And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you.” Jn.14:16-17

    “And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.” Jn.20:22

    “Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith?” Gal.3:2

    “You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.” Rom.8:9

    “Whoever keeps His commandments abides in God, and God in him. And by this we know that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us.” 1Jn.3:24

  9. Jgehret says:

    Let’s look at the Bible to see the Eucharist. Let’s start in Genesis 14:18 with Melchizedek, the priest-king of Salem (peace). Salem was also the area that later became Jerusalem. Many see him as a foreshadowing of Christ. In Gen. 14:18, it reads “Melchizedek, King of Salem, brought out bread and wine. He was a priest of God Most High.” Bread and wine were used at the Last Supper by Christ, also King and Priest. Moving on, we go to Exodus to the first Passover. Unleavened bread was part of the passover meal, as well as the flesh of the Lamb and the blood smeared over the door. At Mount Sinai, the covenant with the people of Israel was sealed with blood (Ex 24:8) Moving on to the prescription of the Harvest in Leviticus (23:12-13) in which bread and wine were offered with the sacrifice of a lamb. In the Tabernacle and later the temple, there resided the “Bread of the Presence” (1 Kings 7:48) (1 Sam 21:6). God DID dwell in the midst of the Israelite people in the Ark and later in the Temple. (Both inanimate) Also, look at the Todah sacrifice of ancient Israel, a sacrifice of Thanksgiving. Ancient jews held that after the Messiah came, all sacrifices except for the Todah would cease. The word “Eucharist” means “Thanksgiving.” Let’s look at the Last Supper now. The Last Supper was a passover meal, the true passover meal. Where were the unleavened bread and wine? “This is my body, which will be given up for you; do this in memory of me. This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you” Luke 22:19-20. We have the bread and wine, and Jesus, the True Lamb of God. But the Passover mandated that the people eat the flesh of the Lamb. Thus, the Bread Wine became the Flesh and Blood, not by man, but by God. “This IS my Body” “This IS my Blood” not a symbol, but Truth. We Catholics worship Jesus Christ in the Eucharist.

  10. Let’s start with the priesthood. There is none. No ‘Christian priesthood’ in the new testament. Even now no Jewish priesthood (basically) because there is no temple. There is only the ‘priesthood of all believers’ not a seclusive Roman Catholic priesthood.
    Jesus had not shed His blood at the last supper. The Last Supper was not a sacrifice, but a foreshadowing.You make the passover meal into a cannibal fest. If all believers have God in them, the Holy Spirit, why do they need MORE God by eating flesh like a cannibal? The Holy Spirit in all His power resides in us as David explained so well. Our bread is the Word. The scripture says “Taste and see the goodness of the Lord”, this of course does not mean to eat God, Kurt. His word is our nourishment and we feed on Him, the Word. “Men shall not live on bread alone but every WORD out of the mouth of God.”
    You, Kurt, will follow your pope into the one world religion being formed as we speak. With Rome calling for world govt., a world bank and global taxes with international climate change laws, she is riding the beast of world govt. I hope you can see this and what it means.
    In Him,
    Sue

    http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1104173.htm

    http://www.voanews.com/english/news/europe/Pope-Presides-Over-Interfaith-Call-For-Peace–132709063.html

    http://www.dici.org/en/news/assisi-1986-2011-reform-in-continuity/

  11. DavidW says:

    Jgehret:

    I don’t see any biblical warrant for the assertion that God dwelt in the Ark, or in the Temple. He came down and met with man (the high priest of the Old Covenant) at those locations. But that is not the same as dwelling there. On the contrary, He specifically says He does not dwell in such places. See Is.66:1; Acts 7:48; Acts 17:24.

    Regarding the Last Supper, there are insurmountable problems with taking “This is my body, this is my blood” as the bread becoming Jesus’ literal body, and the wine becoming Jesus’ literal blood. As Sue pointed out above, Jesus’ sacrifice had not yet taken place, and thus His saving blood had not yet been shed. Also, Jesus was also literally eating that bread Himself, which, if the bread had become His literal body, would make Him a cannibal, which is against His own word as well. Rather, the sense of the verse is better understood when we consider the use of metaphorical examples given elsewhere in Scripture. For example:

    “So the three mighty men broke through the camp of the Philistines, and drew water from the well of Bethlehem which was by the gate, and took it and brought it to David. Nevertheless he would not drink it, but poured it out to the LORD; and he said, “Be it far from me, O LORD, that I should do this. Shall I drink the blood of the men who went in jeopardy of their lives?” Therefore he would not drink it. These things the three mighty men did.”(II Sam. 23:16-17).

    Was the water the literal blood of men? No, it was a metaphorical reference.

    Similarly, Jesus is called “the Door”, “the Rock”, “The Vine”, etc. Is He then a literal door, a rock, or a plant? No, it is metaphorical.

    More understanding is given in John 6:35:

    “Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.”

    He mentions nothing of actually eating or drinking His literal body or blood. Clearly coming to Him is satisfying (spiritual) hunger. And believing in Him satisfying (spiritual) thirst.

    Hope that helps.

  12. Amen, David. Remember Jesus dipped the bread in the bowl when speaking of Judas. Was he then dipping his own flesh in bitter herbs and eating it? The thought is revolting.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s