Why You Shouldn’t Try to Read Through Your Bible in a Year

Ok, so the title of this is slightly misleading, but more on that in a second…

So, it’s almost the end of February. How is your 2014 Bible reading plan going? If you are doing a straight-through plan, you’re probably around the end of Numbers or in Deuteronomy, right? If you’re doing some kind of mix of Old and New Testament, you’re not as far in the Old, but still plugging along, right?

If you are right where you’re supposed to be in your plan, you can probably skip the rest of this post. Your plan is working for you, at least in terms of simply completing your Bible reading. What about those who succumbed to the difficulty of Leviticus or Numbers? What about those who haven’t been able to find the 10 minutes a day to keep up?

To those people I say this: Don’t try to read through the Bible in a year.

Seriously, don’t do it. I understand the difficulty of these plans. I have completed a year-long reading of the Bible 4 or 5 times, and it has always been very difficult, and I’ve always had periods where it felt like going through the motions and I got very little out of the time.

So this year, I took a different strategy: I’m currently on day 53 in my plan to read the Bible in 90 days from YouVersion. I just finished Isaiah.

90 days. I share this not to boast at all, but to encourage. Whereas in the past I have struggled to keep up with the 3-4 chapters a day required for most year-long plans, I have been routinely ahead in my reading for this plan, which some days requires as much as 15-20 chapters of Scripture.

Why is this? This has surprised me, but here’s my theory:

When I only had 3-4 chapters to read, subconsciously, I think it felt like such a small amount that I never actually changed my schedule or intentionally found time to read. I just fit it in wherever I could throughout the day. If no time magically showed up, I didn’t read.

That is clearly impossible when you have 15-20 chapters to read. The past couple months, I have been constantly on the lookout for extended periods where I could read. I’m reading less of other books as well. Bible reading no longer fits into my day; my day fits into my Bible reading. Additionally, by reading such large portions of Scripture, I have a better grasp on how the parts fit together since I’m reading allusions and references to themes much closer to when I read the preceding passages. I can see much more easily how the whole story fits together. I also find myself reading ahead many days. When you’re already reading for a long period of time, you find yourself wanting to keep going.

Maybe you aren’t a reader, though. Maybe you read very slowly. Maybe just getting through a chapter a day is all you can muster. Maybe you are in a stage of life that is just plain difficult (I can only do this plan because of my incredible and incredibly understanding wife). To those people I say this: don’t feel discouraged. Read what you can. God can work through a single verse.

But I would just encourage you to really think about your day and what you might be able to take out and replace with reading your Bible. Be ambitious. Maybe for you a chapter a day truly is ambitious. Know yourself and choose a portion a day that causes you to make changes to fit it in. When your Scripture reading is so short it feels like nothing, you will likely feel no push to really prioritize it. By aiming high, you force yourself to find the time. You might be surprised what you can find.

Obviously, there are different ways of reading as well. To read such large portions as there are in my 90-day plan, I’m necessarily reading for higher-level observations and big picture learning. Last year, I did a book a month and studied slowly. There’s a place for both. But I would just encourage you to immerse yourself in the Scriptures either way. There is immense benefit regardless of the method you choose. We aren’t “checking-the-box,” we are listening to God speak to us through his Word. Read to hear from your God, not to accomplish yet another task for the day. I promise, you will be blessed by this.

Russell Moore Responds - On Weddings and Conscience: Are Christians Hypocrites?

Russell Moore:

Today Kirsten Powers and Jonathan Merritt wrote an article for the Daily Beast accusing conservative Christians of hypocrisy and unchristian behavior for suggesting that some persons’ consciences won’t allow them to use their creative gifts to help celebrate same-sex weddings. Since I was a key example of this hypocrisy, I’ll respond to that charge. 

At issue is a response I made, reposted this week over at The Gospel Coalition, helping a Christian wedding photographer think through whether he ought to work for a same-sex wedding. In the photographer’s question, he grapples with the question of how his conscience ought to play in this decision not only as it relates to weddings of people who, for all he knows, might be involved in all sorts of unbiblical behavior. Powers and Merritt suggest if he refuses to photograph one “unbiblical wedding,” he ought to “refuse to photograph them all.” 

As a matter of fact, they say, to do anything else is to be “seen as a hypocrite” and to “heap shame on the gospel.” More specifically, they point to my advice that the photographer doesn’t have a moral obligation to ferret out the circumstances behind every wedding he shoots. I am telling him, they say, to do something “wrong” as long as he doesn’t investigate the background. “Apparently, ignorance is bliss.” 

This sort of sarcastic response could just as easily apply to the biblical text at the root of our conversation: the Apostle Paul’s teaching on the conscience in the context of the marketplace in Corinth. Paul tells the believers there that they have no obligation to investigate whether the meat set before them was sacrificed to idols. If something’s put before you, Paul says, eat it to the glory of God, no questions asked. 

But, the Spirit says through the Apostle, if the food is advertised as sacrificed to idols, abstain from it for the sake of the consciences around you (1 Cor. 8:7-9). I suppose the first-century Daily Beast could have sarcastically dismissed this with “ignorance is bliss.” 

The article quotes me telling the photographer that he need not investigate the background of every wedding he performs, but they do not quote the next sentence: “But when there is an obvious deviation from the biblical reality, sacrifice the business for the conscience, your own and those of the ones in your orbit who would be confused.” 

Here’s why this matters. The photographer has, in most cases, no ability or authority to find out the sorts of things a pastor or church elders would about a marrying couple. Most evangelical Christians, this one included, believe there are circumstances in which it is biblically moral for a divorced person to remarry. And all Christians—regardless of what we think about a church’s responsibility—think that marriages between otherwise qualified unbelieving men and women are good things, grounded in a creation ordinance... 

...Now, again, we might debate the best ways to see to it that consciences are protected by law and in the courts. But acting as though those concerned about such things are the reincarnation of Jim Crow is unworthy of this discussion. Moreover, the implications for conscience protection are broad and long-lasting. This isn’t just a tit-for-tat Internet discussion. The lives and livelihoods of real people are on the line, all because they won’t render unto Caesar (or to Mammon) that which they believe belongs to God.

Music Video of the Week: Beautiful Eulogy

Beautiful Eulogy - "Symbols and Signs"



Direct Link for RSS.

Brian Williams Raps "Rapper's Delight" on Jimmy Fallon

My wife and I have been watching the first week of the new Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon and it's been really good. We've never been Tonight Show people, but Fallon seriously cracks me up. Here's a bit they put together of Brian Williams rapping the song "Rapper's Delight." Hilarious.

Donald Miller, Brian McLaren, and Rob Bell 10 Years Later

Kevin Miller:

It now takes real discipline to recall how bright that moment felt 10 years ago. 

In 2003, the book Blue Like Jazz, by little-known author Donald Miller, appeared in the sky like a blazing comet. Hundreds of thousands of evangelicals shared a moment: Finally, someone's saying what I've been thinking, giving voice to my frustrations and longings about faith, God, and the church. No wonder Paste magazine named Blue Like Jazz one of the "20 Best Books of the Decade." 

Shortly after reading Jazz, I attended a pastors' conference, where a breakout session with Brian McLaren had to be moved to the largest room available, and still people leaned against the walls, sat on the floor, and sardined outside the door, hoping to catch a few words from the voice behind A New Kind of Christian and More Ready Than You Realize. McLaren was quickly crowned "One of the 25 Most Influential Evangelicals in America" by Time. 

And from where I live outside Chicago, vans were regularly packing in people to drive to Mars Hill Bible Church in Grandville, Michigan, to hear the young phenom Rob Bell, whose Nooma videos had gone viral. Before long, Bell was named one of "The 50 Most Influential Christians in America." 

You could feel hope lifting, see the horizon lighting with a rosy dawn for the evangelical movement. And it was being led by a triumvirate of fresh artists: Brian, Rob, and Don. 

That was so 2003. 

Now, a single decade later, a pattern emerges... 

...True, Brian, Rob, and Don, being creative souls who long for beauty and truth, flew too close to the sun. But evangelicalism fitted them with wings of wax. True, Brian, Rob, and Don, being creative souls who long for beauty and truth, flew too close to the sun. But evangelicalism fitted them with wings of wax. 

As a movement, we treasure the individual getting right with God, the religious born-again experience, the innovative way to do mission. Sounds good, but when individual trumps communal, experience trumps received teaching, and innovation trumps the Great Tradition, you get exactly what we've all just lived through. It can go no other way... 

...It turns out that we evangelicals need a loftier ecclesiology, where the words of St. Cyprian sound natural to our ears: "He can no longer have God for his Father who has not the Church for his mother; . . . he who gathers elsewhere than in the Church scatters the Church of Christ." 

Are we willing to grow in our love for Holy Church? To accept her teachings, her worship, her cultural rejection? Will we embrace not just the Head but the Body, and love not just the Groom but the Bride?

Andrew Walker Responds to Kirsten Powers on Gay "Jim Crow Laws"

Andrew Walker responds to this article from Kirsten Powers. From First Things:

The problem Stanley and Powers overlook, though, is that objections to lending one’s creative talents for practices the Bible condemns is about obedience to Jesus. We “can’t leave Jesus out of it” in how we live out the fullness of our Christian faith. Moreover, because Jesus affirms the creational structure of marriage (Matthew 19:4-6), for Christians, weddings aren’t just a service, but a profoundly significant symbol for the Christ-Church union (Ephesians 5). Getting marriage right means also getting wedding ceremonies right. 

Religious liberty exists in the first place to allow someone to discharge what he or she perceives as a duty. As Cardinal Newman famously said, “conscience has rights because it has duties.” 

The instances of cake bakers, florists, and wedding photographers being asked to lend their services to same-sex unions seems harmless enough. But they have a duty to obey what their conscience tells them is true. But also consider: If Christians can be compelled to lend a craft to something their conscience objects to, what can’t they be compelled to participate in? We’re talking about precedent; and the cases before us are bellwether test cases about whether private actors can be forcibly mandated to go against their conscience. 

It’s truly a disappointment when religious liberty is reduced to bigotry. The looming conflict over sexual freedom and religious liberty is an uncertain future, one that tends to look more foreboding for the future of Evangelical public engagement.

Read the whole thing.

Charles Spurgeon on the Age of the Earth (Sort of...)

In reading this post where the author laments the new story in Time magazine, The Science of Stupid: Galileo is Rolling Over in His Grave, I noted where it outlines some of the theological greats of the past who would not fall under the Young-Earth, Literal-6-Day-Creationism view. In particular, it caught my attention when he said that Charles Spurgeon, that great Baptist preacher, held to Old-Earth, Gap Theory, and believed in animal death prior to the Fall.

He gets that from point III of this sermon:

Then, thirdly, this election is ETERNAL. "God hath from the beginning chosen you unto eternal life." Can any man tell me when the beginning was? Years ago we thought the beginning of this world was when Adam came upon it; but we have discovered that thousands of years before that God was preparing chaotic matter to make it a fit abode for man, putting races of creatures upon it, who might die and leave behind the marks of his handiwork and marvellous skill, before he tried his hand on man. But that was not the beginning, for revelation points us to a period long ere this world was fashioned, to the days when the morning stars were begotten; when, like drops of dew, from the fingers of the morning, stars and constellations fell trickling from the hand of God; when, by his own lips, he launched forth ponderous orbs; when with his own hand he sent comets, like thunderbolts, wandering through the sky, to find one day their proper sphere. We go back to years gone by, when worlds were made and systems fashioned, but we have not even approached the beginning yet. Until we go to the time when all the universe slept in the mind of God as yet unborn, until we enter the eternity where God the Creator lived alone, everything sleeping within him, all creation resting in his mighty gigantic thought, we have not guessed the beginning. We may go back, back, back, ages upon ages. We may go back, if we might use such strange words, whole eternities, and yet never arrive at the beginning. Our wing might be tired, our imagination would die away; could it outstrip the lightnings flashing in majesty, power, and rapidity, it would soon weary itself ere it could get to the beginning. (Emphasis added)

Music Video of the Week: Ben Rector

Ben Rector - "Beautiful"

"My Beautiful Woman": Powerful Pro-Life Message

HT: Denny Burk

Why Seminaries Can't (and Shouldn't) Qualify You for Ministry

Hershael York:

“I do not have the authority to expel you, so I’m asking you, please withdraw and leave the seminary.” I realized the weight of my words and fully appreciated their potential effect. Only after several lengthy attempts to correct him, learning that he was not plugged into any local church, and then subsequently conferring with the dean did I let them fall so profoundly and heavily on his stunned ears. The young man had preached several sermons in my preaching practicum, each one more disturbing and irresponsible than the last. 

Finally he crossed the line from unbalanced to untrue and promoted something that I judged to be egregiously wrong, contrary to the gospel, and antithetical to everything Southern Seminary stands for. When he remained resolute in his position and belligerent at my attempts to reprove, I knew that the tragedy of his departure from the truth would be exponentially compounded with a seminary degree. So I asked him to leave, and he did.
While I still grieve that student’s departure from sound doctrine, I have never regretted the severity of my words to him. I could not stop him from preaching error, but it would be far worse if he did it with a degree from Southern.  

My primary concern was not that someone would think he received his doctrine from my colleagues or me—though I certainly found that thought disquieting. My greater anxiety was that some church would mistakenly think him qualified to serve as pastor and would welcome him and embrace his false doctrine, simply because he had a degree from a seminary.  

When it comes to qualification for ministry, ordination should carry much more weight and provide much greater evidence of a man’s readiness for service in the church than any seminary degree.  A seminary alone is not sufficient to qualify anyone for ministry, no matter how faithful the faculty or how hard it tries. A seminary is a rigorous academic program, but that is very different from being a church in which the student can serve and demonstrate his gifts and calling while he is under its teaching, authority, and discipline.

Matt Walsh: Why You Can't Be Against Puppy Murder and Be Pro-Choice

Matt Walsh:

One of the advantages of being pro-life is that I get to be upset about things like this. 

Social media is on fire this week with the story of an Idaho police officer who shot and killed a man’s service dog — during his son’s birthday party, no less. Apparently, the cop showed up at the house after neighbors complained about unleashed dogs roaming about. 

Officer Hassani, by my count, made the decision to execute the pup within 35 seconds of arriving on the scene. He claims the dog “lunged” at him, but no such lunging can be seen on the dashcam video. 

What we do know is this: 

Officer Friendly made no attempt to subdue the dog using non-lethal methods. He just kicked it and then, a few seconds later, put it down. Apologists will quickly note that the owner is at fault for failing to restrain his animals. They’ll also make the rather unnecessary observation that “we weren’t there,” so we can’t “really know what happened.” 

Fine. But cops seem to be gunning down dogs on a whim these days. A few months ago a wolf dog was shot while safely contained in his owner’s fenced backyard. A police officer happened to run through the property in pursuit of an unrelated suspect. The dog reacted like dogs often react when you trespass into its territory, and the police officer responded by firing at it. 

Again, no attempt to use anything less than fatal firepower against the helpless, unfortunate thing. 

These sorts of incidents leave people wondering whether it’s really necessary, proper, or just to give police carte blanche to euthanize our household pets. 

Postal workers tend to encounter their fair share of hostile animals, yet they aren’t authorized to go all Terminator just because Sparky growls at them. 

In any case, the popular outrage over cop-on-dog violence has reached a fevered pitch, which brings us to the point. Wherever you stand on these acts of alleged or actual ”animal cruelty,” one thing is for certain: 

You cannot be upset about the killing of animals if you are not firmly disgusted by the murder of innocent human life. 

Well, you can, but not with any sense of reason or coherence. You cannot, as a sane adult, find animal killing to be morally offensive but abortion to be morally neutral.

Read the rest.

Jarvis Williams on the N-Word and "Uncle Tom"

Jarvis Williams:

I am absolutely puzzled that so many black Americans embrace the term "nigger," given its long, dehumanizing history, as in-group racial slang of endearment. I am equally baffled that many black Americans likewise use the phrase "Uncle Tom" as a derogatory appellation to paint a negative caricature of other black Americans. In Beecher Stowe's novel, both terms seem to have the opposite rhetorical function compared to how both black and white racists use these expressions today in popular culture. Beecher Stowe's novel suggests that Uncle Tom chose to be faithful to Christ and to suffer the horrors of slavery for the sake of honoring Christ, a biblical principle that neither condones the evil institution of slavery nor excludes the Bible's permission to practice civil disobedience. 

To clarify, I am neither suggesting that the phrase "Uncle Tom" is honorable language or appropriate speech, nor am I suggesting that this phrase should be used to describe any black American. American slavery and all other forms of slavery are evil. Those who worked to abolish slavery, to hide slaves "underground," and to help them attain their freedom not only did what was right, they also did what all Christians should have done. My point, however, is that all ethno-racial communities should embrace the Christian identity of Beecher Stowe's character Uncle Tom while rejecting every form of racism directed toward him and rejecting the racist worldview that both forced him and others into a slavery founded on white superiority. 

Black Americans should stop calling fellow black Americans "Uncle Toms," and they should stop calling each other "niggers" since both expressions are racist hate-speech regardless of who uses them. All ethno-racial communities alike must repent of their sins (including the sins of racism), embrace new identity in Jesus Christ, and be willing to experience any natural ethno-racial ostracism that may come from rejecting the gospel. God sent Jesus to die for the sins of all communities in order to recreate them into a new race known as Christian (John 1:29, 3:16; Eph 2:11-22; 1 Pet 2:9). 

Before he laid the foundation of the universe, God chose to save different ethno-racial groups and to unite them together in Christ by faith. He forgave them for their transgressions and sins by the blood of Christ and sealed them by the Holy Spirit, so that they would hear and believe the gospel of Jesus Christ (Eph 1:3-14). God creates Christians to be new creatures in Christ (2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). 

We must carry the truth of Christian ethno-racial identity in the gospel beyond Black History Month. We must work to make the gospel heard so that it may reign in the hearts of all ethno-racial groups who have ears to hear and hearts to believe. And we must have the courage to live as biblically responsible risk-takers for the gospel of Jesus Christ as we rigorously and intentionally work to demythologize the Uncle Tom myth and N-word.

You really should read the whole article. Much to consider here.

The Best Response I've Seen To Donald Miller's Apathy Towards Church

Mike Cosper:

This week, on his Storyline blog, Donald Miller announced that he doesn't attend church these days. Almost immediately, folks began to respond, citing the many Biblical, cultural, and historical reasons why Miller's post is problematic. Miller responded to these today, but his response doesn't add much to the conversation; he simply doubles down. I don't want to pile on to these criticisms, but instead wanted to come alongside them with a couple of additional observations.  

First off, it's no small irony that Miller, a paragon of the "me" culture of memoir, has essentially said he left church because it didn't work for him. I fear that Miller doesn't have the self-awareness to see how narcissistic and condescending his posts are, and how consumeristic his critiques of church are.  

I wonder, though, if Miller's thoughts don't say as much about our contemporary worship culture as they do about Miller himself. His description of a church gathering is two-dimensional: we listen to a lecture and sing songs that connect us to God. Miller says he stopped attending because he doesn't learn from lectures and doesn't feel like he connects to God through singing.  

This description of the gathered church is anemic and shabby, but it's also the description that many American evangelicals would use to describe Sunday mornings. Rather than a robust engagement with God's people, God's word, and God's Spirit through interactions with one another, songs, prayers, scripture readings, and the Lord's Supper, we think of Sundays as merely preaching and music. Rather than an immersive, formational environment shaped by the physical architecture of space and the spiritual architecture of a Gospel-shaped liturgy, Sunday Morning is a platform driven spectacle, led by mega-celebrities at mega-churches and would-be-celebrities and smaller churches. Rather than a challenging and diverse diet of milk and meat, celebration and lament, confession and assurance, we're fed a pump-up-the-jams hype fest that culminates in a "You can do it!" sermon and a marketing pitch for membership. It's an environment that feels hostile to doubt and suffering, unless your goal is to overwhelm them both with enthusiasm. 

I realize I'm guilty of caricature here, as there are many, many churches that break this mold. But I think it's fair to say this much: in the past, corporate worship was seen as an immersive formational experience, wherein the church calendar and liturgy slowly shapes Christians to live Kingdom-oriented lives in a fallen world; today, the gathering (shaped by revivalist sentiments and revolutionized by new technology) is meant to be a catalytic, emotional experience. We aim to be spectacular, rather than regular. We aim for instant gratification rather than slow, steady change. 

I'm actually very thankful that Miller wrote his posts. Not because I agree with him. In fact, I believe he is gravely mistaken and putting himself in serious danger by severing ties with a local body of believers in a church setting. However, he has exposed the kind of thinking of many people that might not have physically abandoned the church, but have withdrawn nonetheless. The discussion taking place in response to his posts are (mostly) healthy and needed correctives are being outlined. This is good for the Church.

Al Mohler on the Worldview Clash in the Nye/Ham Debate

Al Mohler:

The ark is not the real problem; autonomous human reason is. Bill Nye is a true believer in human reason and the ability of modern science to deliver us. Humanity is just “one germ away” from extinction, he said. But science provides him with the joy of discovery and understanding. 

The problem with autonomous human reason is made clear by the Apostle Paul in Romans chapter 1: 

“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things” (Rom 1:18-23 ESV). 

The problem with human reason is that it, along with every other aspect of our humanity, was corrupted by the fall. This is what theologians refer to as the “noetic effects of the fall.” We have not lost the ability to know all things, but we have lost the ability to know them on our own authority and power. We are completely dependent upon divine revelation for the answers to the most important questions of life. Our sin keeps us from seeing what is right before our eyes in nature. We are dependent upon the God who loves us enough to reveal himself to us—and to give us his Word. 

As it turns out, the reality and authority of divine revelation, more than any other issue, was what the debate last night was all about. As the closing statements made very clear, Ken Ham understood that fact, but Bill Nye did not. 

The central issue last night was really not the age of the earth or the claims of modern science. The question was not really about the ark or sediment layers or fossils. It was about the central worldview clash of our times, and of any time: the clash between the worldview of the self-declared “reasonable man” and the worldview of the sinner saved by grace.

Derek Rishmawy: "Sneering Calvinists"

I thought this was quite good. Derek's experiences with the doctrines of grace (Calvinism) are similar to mine and many people I know. This is a helpful exhortation to Calvinists.

I'm issuing a plea of sorts to my Reformed brothers and sisters for patience with, or a "helpful humility" toward, those who don't embrace the distinctives of Reformed theology, Calvinism, and those of us to those who hold it. 

As I said, I've only slowly come around to the Reformed tradition. It's taken years of reading different texts, working through heavy issues in metaphysics, thinking deeply through implications of the Creator/creature distinction, and coming to appreciate the Reformed tradition beyond its soteriology. I was brought into its richer tradition of spirituality through an appreciation of its emphasis on a constellation of biblical doctrines like revelation, union with Christ, providence, the atonement, and the Lord's Supper, which form the proper background for its teaching on election. 

That process didn't happen in a vacuum, though. A couple patient buddies embodied helpful humility toward me as I worked through the issues. They were quick to celebrate the truths we shared together. They argued graciously with me at the right times but never questioned my faith or intelligence. They pointed me to good resources and were willing to read some of the ones to which I pointed them. Essentially they took the time to hear and understand my problems as we discussed. More than that, they honestly tried to extend the free grace that they believed they'd received from God through no merit of their own. 

Please don't hear this article as a call to abandon theological engagement or clear preaching of the truth—even of the distinctives—or some kind of squishy, lowest-common denominator Christianity. It's simply a reminder that, yes, a lot of this stuff is weird and counterintuitive at first, so we should be understanding, especially if we want to be heard. 

Let me put it this way: if you're really a Calvinist and believe you've received knowledge of the truth by the sheer grace of God, which is what a Reformed view of knowledge teaches, then be patient with those who don't see it. God has been (and is currently being) patient with you in some area as well. So stop sneering and ask God to humble you enough to be helpful to those offended at or wrestling with those doctrines you now hold dear.

Carl Trueman on Queen Latifah's Grammy Mass Wedding

From First Things:

Was it satire? I am a big fan of satirical mockery, even satirical mockery of important things such as marriage. Such satire helps expose self-importance and can even help check things such as corrupt or sloppy thinking. But satire is only satire when it comes from a position of weakness or involves self-mockery. Satire from strength is not funny and more akin to propaganda. 

Hollywood, of course, is neither weak in terms of cultural influence nor particularly noted for self-mockery. In fact, all of the evidence (the genuine earnestness of the couples, the tears, the presence of Madonna, the fact it took place on stage at the Grammys) indicated that this was not satire. Instead, it represented a brilliant fusion of two of the great cultural tendencies of our day: the pressing of Hollywood celebrities into positions of cultural authority which gives them powerful influence far beyond their ability to hold a note or to learn a script; and the transformation of the serious and the sacred into the idioms of showbusiness. Queen Latifah appearing in the place of a priest or minister is neither an unexpected nor an isolated phenomenon but of a piece with what has been happening since the invention of the moving picture. And entertainers now do it all: politics, ethics, confession, marriages, cure of souls... 

...Pop music used to be about superficial fun, a bit of escapism in the midst of life. Then it gained messianic aspirations. At the time, it looked ridiculously self-important. It is still superficial fun; but perhaps it does not look quite so ridiculous any more.