The Dilemma of Christian Music (2 Francesca Battistelli Songs)

The other morning I posted a Facebook status...
It was regarding a couple of the Francesca Battistelli songs I heard on the radio.  I was sitting at Chick-Fil-A enjoying my coffee and oatmeal when a couple of her songs came on, one shortly after the other.  Despite my casual disdain for the lyrical material of the songs, which I often used to rouse the more diehard Francesca fans, I decided to listen a little closer to the lyrics in an attempt to ratify what was being said.  I couldn't.  Therefore, I posted a Facebook status that reflected this attitude.  What ensued was a rant.  And while I feel the rant was generally warranted, I wanted to return with something a bit more academic in nature so that my points my be made clear in a logical and scripturally referenced manner.

If I have tagged you in the post to come view my blog it is because you either "liked" the original status or posted a comment.  It also may be that I find it interesting that you see this.

Let me start this by saying that I do not wish to offend those who enjoy Francesca Battistelli.  That is not my intention.  Nor is it my intention in any way to suggest that I know her heart.  However, as a youth minister it is important for me to sift through a lot of the media that my young adults and adolescents are experiencing on a regular basis.  This is accompanied by a certain amount of scrutiny, especially when involving songs that are considered "Christian".  What I believe you will find, if you read this thoroughly to fruition, is not a specific problem with the Battistelli songs and lyrics, but rather a fundamental flaw with the "Christianisms" by which we propagate our theology.  Many times, the intended meaning of a song is lost in what it is actually saying when taken at face value.

Through my experience working with youth (this short time as a youth minister, three years as a professional educator, and more than a decade as a youth leader, teacher, mentor, etc. in church), I began to see how young people conceptualize the things they perceive.  Music, friends, movies, and any other cultural idiom that you could possibly imagine or attempt to categorize all go into the summation of their conceptualized knowledge.  This usually manifests itself through discussion where they apply what they are processing, often being asked to articulate what they think or believe.  Whether we choose to acknowledge it or not, engaging the culture has become one of the more prevalent ways in which we minister to youth, not only in our quest to confront worldly desires or correct bad theology, but also as a platform through which we administer change via effectual teaching and discipleship (influence).  We have an opportunity to use this influence just as much for good as it is being used for evil.  But at the same time, the things we are allowing to slowly creep into our theology may be thwarting us before we even begin.

As a musician, my particular area of emphasis (or preference and interest) is on the music of our culture, particularly that of the Christian community.  I'm not here to police what my students are listening to, although sometimes I wish I could, but I must be aware of it - even when they are not.  Recently, I have seen in my youth and in culture (and maybe you've seen it too) a concept surfacing that suggests "God likes you just the way you are".  At first, I thought this was innocuous.  It is an appealing, simple statement, seemingly innocent, that is meant to denote our self-worth as the image bearers of God.  It is true that God loves us unconditionally.  However, when you look at it closely, taking the saying at face value, you'll notice that it is far from harmless.  The implication of this statement is that God loves us just the way we are, and thus we have no need for change.  We are perfectly fine and acceptable the way we are; in our current state.  It falsely assumes that God is content to have us remain who we are forever.  This is one of the many "Christianisms" being taught to our students that, although meant well, is completely false.  The best of intentions cannot change a lie into truth regardless of what one is trying to convey.

God does not like us how we are.  He love us for what we are.  He loves us in spite of who we are, and He loves us too much to let us stay this way.  Whereas it may be true that we must come to God as we are because we lack the ability to renew, regenerate, or otherwise change ourselves in a manner that is sanctifying, to assume that God "likes us just how are" or that we are "free to be [ourselves]" is to:
1)  Disregard the destructive effect of sin in our lives and throughout creation
2)  Reject the need for change due to sin, whether spiritually, mentally, physically, etc.
3)  Deny the humility required to submit to Jesus and where our self-worth becomes no longer an inward focus, but instead we find our worth as God's image bearers and as we become more like Jesus.
4)  Spur us towards mediocrity, Christian and non-Christian alike, where everything is "just okay" how it is.
There are many implications to this single statement.  If you're prepared to accept this as true, then be prepared for the consequences.  But God will not.  And I am not content to let it be, either.

Perhaps this gives you a better understanding of why I apply additional scrutiny (and sometimes a great deal of criticism) when it comes to Christian music.  It's already difficult enough engaging the culture when mainstream media and secular music are consistently encouraging things that are contrary to the nature of God that I am teaching my students.  I don't need the additional baggage of those who claim to be Christian propagating poor or inaccurate theology in the spirit of "sounds good" Christian doctrine.  Sure, the "you're cool just how you are" message combined with a rockin' sound and backed with a catchy melody line and killer vocals will sell CD's.   But will it sell our kids on Christ?  These artists need to stop for a second and consider what they are saying with their lyrics, and not just what they mean.  Particularly in the spectrum of Battistelli songs, it is great music, but it is poor theology.  That makes it a tough fit.  And although some students may take away a good message from this (as it was brought to my attention that particularly females relate to the idea of "society's need for perfection"), it does not excuse the more obvious literal meaning of the song.

Regardless of what many artists intend to say, they often come up short in their analogies.  There are a few out there that present very real and poignant examples of biblical concepts that uphold the theology of the bible that we're working so hard to teach.  That's why many of us rejoice when we hear solid worship and music that we can even share with our "old hymn buddies" as a standard for what Christian music is (supposed to be) all about (opinion statement).  And the ones that are benign I typically do not address.  I realize that it's nearly impossible to adequately represent theology within a song.  One simply does not have the time and space needed to make a point in most cases.  However, it is different when it is very wrong or misses the point entirely.  It is one thing to be less than thorough.  Being inaccurate is a different problem.

Enter Francesca Battistelli and two of her more popular songs:  Free to Be Me and I'm Letting Go.  I'd like to do an analysis on the words of these songs.  yes, I realize that most normal people would not waste their time and energy to do this, but since I feel very passionately about this and am not really a normal person, I'll save everyone else the trouble.  ;-)
However, also keep in mind that what is at face value is often what people take from these songs, and that value certainly speaks into our psyches, whether consciously or subconsciously.  And as momma always said, "Crap in, crap out".  Many will argue that there are backstories that make this song relevant, or that a person's individual experience will shape the song into something else entirely.  I would suggest to those that believe I'm being overly analytical that, by attempting to incorporate the reasons behind writing the song, it's "back story", influence, etc. as a means by which the song acquires meaning, they are being as equally analytical.  Once again, the problem is that I may look at this song in a different light after understanding all the motivation behind it, but the words still remain unchanged and say what they say regardless of the subsequent additional understanding that may be gained.  Most people are unaware of the backstories and have only the song itself.  So, all poop jokes now aside... for now..., here's what methinks.

Free to Be Me
For sake of time, I'll focus on the chorus.

Lyrics:  'Cause I got a couple dents in my fender.  Got a couple rips in my jeans.
Theological Equivalent
Whether willfully or unknowingly, there is a comparison made here to sin as being "dents in a fender" and "rips in jeans" when, in actuality, sin is much worse.  And we have a great deal more wrong with us than this (Rom. 3:23).  In a society that already struggles with the gravity of what sin is, the idea that we are further minimizing its effects is devastating to the message of acknowledgement and repentance.
Dents in a fender, while cosmetically unappealing to those of us who enjoy our vehicles (and don't ask me because I had my fender tied on with snare string for the better part of two years lol), do not affect the performance of the machine.  I'm sure die hard car guys will disagree with me, but my experts say that it'll run just about as well without it.  Rips in jeans are not only socially acceptable, but actually encouraged as a form of style.  How's that for an analogy for what sin has become?
Neither of these are ample illustrations of what we truly have wrong with us, and thus fall short of adequately conveying what sin is and what it has done.  This would not be a terrible illustration by itself, as it could be argued as representing "society's standard of perfection", except that it is combined with the need to "stand on Jesus' shoulders" (found at the end of the chorus) in order to deal with such feelings of inadequacy.  The end statement more deliberately establishes this illustration as sin.  Jesus is not concerned with the preservation of our "self".

Lyrics:  Try to fit the pieces together, but perfection is my enemy.
Theological Impossibility
We aren't meant to put the pieces together.  We can't.  I appreciate the struggle to put the pieces together. I believe we've all done it at one point or another, even after we know Christ, because sometimes we just don't get it.  Those lyrics aren't terribly troubling until combined with "perfection is my enemy".  Without perfection, the pieces will never go together.  It is the perfection of God that is a summary attribute which encompasses all of His character.  And it is the perfection of Christ that allows Him to serve as the propitiation (substitute) as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.  If perfection is our enemy, then we've got a very serious problem because the God we serve is the embodiment of perfection.  The statement (once again, at face value) cites perfection as the reason we cannot put the pieces together.  Sin keeps us from putting the pieces together.  It is actually perfection's antithesis that is to blame, which means you absolutely cannot get farther from the truth than what this says.
It has been suggested that the song is meant to address people's (or society's) expectations of us.  And whereas I would agree that the expectations of others, and even our expectations for ourselves, are burdensome and keep us from God's plan for us when left out of perspective, the inherent blame of this song has ben shifted from expectations to perfection.  It may be that we are meant to take away from this the futility of adhering to the expectations of anyone other than God, but that is never made clear in the song.  As a matter of fact, there's no mention of anything remotely like this anywhere in the song.

Lyrics: On my own I'm so clumsy.
Theology
Okay, so this may be the only part of chorus that I'm okay with.  I agree.  Me, too.  Seems like she's finally getting it.  However, it is a glimmer of hope before she drops the bomb...

Lyrics:  But on Your shoulders I can see I'm free to be me.
Theological Inaccuracy
Let's go ahead and get the obvious out of the way.  Is the text really talking about Jesus?  Or God?  We don't actually know.  "You" and "Your" are capitalized as most scholars do when denoting a personal pronoun for God in English writing (and done so on the official site), but the song doesn't actually mention Jesus or God anywhere.  However, because she claims to be a Christian artist and play Christian music, often traveling in Christian circles, being played on Christian radio stations and performing at Christian concerts, I believe it's safe to assume that the song is about Jesus.  She also makes use of Paul-esque analogies regarding the "war that's already been waged".

Before I get into the ramifications of "standing on Jesus' shoulders" so you can be who you are, let's address what the outcome would be if this isn't talking about Jesus.  If it is not talking about God or Jesus, then it is referring to another unnamed person.  We have discussed that "being free to be [ourselves]" is not a biblical concept.  Therefore, if this person is conveying, encouraging, supporting, or otherwise propagating this idea, they are either not a Christian or very misguided one at best.

Regardless of what we may have considered the song to mean up until the end of the chorus, the final statement is the summation of the entire song.  It is what the song is about and that to which all verses allude. Unfortunately, it is also the most theologically inaccurate part of the song.  We are not free to be ourselves.  Christ did not come and die so that we can shed the expectations of society in order that we may be who we are.  We are sinful creatures by nature and in deed.  We are cursed by sin, separated from God.  Jesus came and died for us, not so that we could enter another realm of self-realization, but so that we can know God through a relationship with Christ.  In essence, who we are becomes who we were as we shed our old ways and our old life and begin to focus on reflecting God's image.


Overall Theme


A lot of musicians will suggest that the overall theme of the song is what is really important, and not necessarily the words in the chorus (or at the end of the chorus), despite how the song may "appear" to build to such a summation.  However, this would be against the very nature of a song in which the chorus is built structurally and through repetition as the focal point of the song.  Therefore, no matter how much one may seek to marginalize the chorus (and its meaning), the listener cannot.
For that reason, I'll address the verses.  You are welcome to click the link and view them for yourself as I am not listing them here.

The verses address a plan.
In verse one there is acknowledgement of God's plan and what He has done to facilitate such a relationship.  The conclusion is that God has great plans for her.  I cannot argue that God has plans for us.  However, I will say that many people take Jeremiah 29:11 as a promise made specifically to all of God's people.  I would recommend that they read the rest of the chapter, particularly the very beginning where it actually says to whom this is written (and to whom such promises are given).  God was faithful and has already fulfilled those promises.  I mean, by that same standard or evaluation does that mean that we will have our named changed to Abraham and be the father of many nations (Genesis 17:5; ref Romans 4:17).  At least that is included in both the old and new testaments.
I would further suggest that we look at our evaluation of Great Plans or Prosper.  Too often the plans we believe God has for us are centered around our view of good and great.  Thus, if God's plans for us aren't up to our standard then God must not be keeping His word.  With that in mind, I'd like to look at the ministry of Jesus' disciples.  All of them but one died a martyrs death; were  killed for their faith.  John was the only one who was not murdered, and it wasn't for lack of trying as they attempted to boil him alive.  Where's the plan to prosper them now?  I would challenge that the covenant made to God's followers (and to those who believe in Jesus) is not prosperity of this life, but rather the intention for good that results from bearing God's image and the promise of eternal life.  In no way is God's promise for our ultimate good (salvation, grace, heaven, kingdom, etc.) equated with earthly prosperity.  Once again, I am not doubting God's plan for us as individuals.  And it may be that He indeed will bless us with prosperity (which I would argue most often comes with the gift of giving).  However, if your view of God's successful plan in your life always ends with "earthly peace, prosperity, and health", then you're in for quite a ride.
Verse two, in contrast, suggests that she has the plan figured out, and that she doubts this plan because things aren't always easy.  Verse three continues the manifestation of insecurity based on the diminished self-worth originating in verse two, but here's where it take a wrong turn.  The biblical application for a life of diminutive self-worth should be the shedding of self.  The bible often addresses the concept of "denying" or "dying to" oneself (Mark 8:34-35; 10:38; Gal. 5:24; Col. 3:3-7; Rom. 6:2-4, 11-14; 7:4-6; 8:12-13; John 12:24; etc.).  Nowhere will you find a biblical representation of the preservation of self as a means to establish worth or value.  It is not who we are of ourselves that gives us worth.  In fact, the bible is very clear about our state of worthlessness because of our sin (Isaiah 64:6) It is what we are as God's creation and His intended purpose for us that establishes value.  In fact, what you'll find is that who we are is most often constantly at odds with what God wants us to be (Rom. 7:13-25).  I'm quite positive that Jesus has already won the war waged for our destiny, but the spiritual warfare surrounding our sin is still ever present.  The fight can only begin by forfeiting our self.
Finally, we're introduced to the last line of the last verse.  God looks at her heart and says, in essence, that she already has all He seeks.  I feel as though I know what she's trying to say.  It seems that she's alluding to the fact that we may come to Christ as we are.  In point of fact, we must.  There is no other way to come.  Trying to make yourself "worthy" of coming or "acceptable" is impossible apart from Christ.  But as hard as I try, nothing leading up to this point can support that idea.  It begs the question What does God seek?.  I thought this was a fantastic question!  You can google it, too, if you want.  You'll be amazed at everything everyone says God wants.  And while I'm sure there are a number of things God seeks, what you'll find the most doctrinally relevant is that God seeks to glorify Himself.  In everything He does, He gets glory(Isa. 48:11).  We are to give Him the glory for what He has done (Psalm 29:2; 19:1).  And everything we do should be to the glory of God (I Cor. 10:31; I Peter 4:7-11; Deut. 6:5).  This begs (at least) one more question.  Is what's being presented here bring God the glory?
I would say no.  I would say that this song, through verse and story, presents a message of self-glorification that uses Jesus as a means to do so.  It suggests that seeking to be oneself is as easy as standing on the shoulders of Jesus, and that freedom in Christ is somehow equivalent with freedom to be oneself.  That is antithetical to biblical teaching.  It supports an ideology that Christ is added to somehow enhance who we are instead of the relinquishment of ourselves to Him so that He may change us, recreating what He wishes in order to save us and make us holy (Titus 3:5; 2 Cor. 5:17-19).

I'm Letting Go

This song is very interesting coming from the same artist.  In Free to Be Me, the writer seeks to embrace who she is, attesting that Jesus is the way in which we do this (as though He'll free us from all bad but allow us to keep who we are).  Now it seems that, according to the chorus, she has decided to "let go" of her dreams, control, destiny, and plan.  She has gone from "standing on Jesus' shoulders" to being "held" by Him.

Let me start off by saying that this song will be (comparatively) much shorter than my evaluation of Free to Be Me, mostly because the theology is not quite as egregious.  Letting go is what is intended for Christians - to let go of ourselves and our plans and purposes in order to allow God to do a good work in us and put us on the course He wishes, one that ultimately ends in what is best for us.

There are really only two lines in this song that stand out to me as problematic:
"It feels like I'm falling and that's what it's like to believe" and "This is a giant leap of faith".

The biggest part of learning to "let go" and give everything on Christ is first learning to trust Him.  It presents a dilemma for us because of our experience(s) with sinful people.  Most of us have dealt with those who are not trustworthy and often are forced to confront our own desires to do things that are equally deceptive.  Therefore, as we learn deception, it becomes increasingly harder for us to trust.  We must relearn.
But how does trust occur?  Does God expect us to grade on a curve and just "take His Word" (the bible) for it?  I would suggest that the answer is no.  God has revealed a great deal to us.  Given, there are many things that we do not know, whether because it has not been given for us to know, we can't understand it because of our limitations (mentally and space/time), or because we simply lack the ability to perceive things as God does.  Regardless, whenever we're faced with idea we cannot adequately reason, we always end up on the topic of faith.
Often we speak of faith as though it is the manner in which we simply believe and accept things that cannot be proven or remain unknown.  We often refer to this as a "leap of faith" or "blind faith".  Usually, especially to those people who are more academic in nature, this makes us look stupid.  And while "belief in things unseen" and those things which have yet to be revealed is certainly not stupid, it is neither an unfounded belief.  Faith and belief go hand-in-hand, but they are not synonymous.
In Hebrews 11 we are given a definition of faith.  The words here are assurance/conviction, reality/proof,  substance/evidence, confidence/assurance, etc.  Depending on what translation you are using it could be a number of different words.  Regardless, they all support the idea that faith is well supported facts and not a stab in the dark at something unknown.  In fact, the original Greek (what these words are meant to convey) paints the opposite picture of blind faith.  The words elegchos and hupostasis are the Greek words originally used here.  Elegchos is often used as a legal term and is associated with "enough evidence to convict" (someone of something).  It is well-established fact.  Hupostasis was often used in science.  It was regarded as a result which tested the hypothesis.  It is substance, proven and tested.
Thus, if faith is evidence and substance, then where does this leap of faith originate?

A leap of faith is 1) misinterpreted by many whose presuppositions pervert its intention and 2) a concept created by man to deal with our certain lack of acknowledgement of (or trust in) God.  Faith is the means by which we are able to believe in the things we cannot perceive or understand, taking God at His Word  because His Word is tried, tested and true.  The term "a leap of faith" was meant to convey the additional understanding that is propagated from faith, not blind belief.  People often find themselves coming up short when it comes to evidence for God.  This is especially true of those who refuse to study His Word, in which many of these secrets are revealed and from which understanding and knowledge begins.  I would suggest and spiritual discipline and diligence will often times reveal to us a great deal.  In our foolishness, we begin seeking answers long after they are needed instead of being disciplined in prayer and the study of God's Word.  It's happened to all of us.  Faith is required for any of us to believe in God.  Faith comes from God (and from hearing His Word).

There may be times where our walk with Christ "feels like falling".  However, this is not from evidence and substance, which is faith, but instead from doubt.  I would suggest that belief, truly believing, does not feel like falling at all.  Instead, it feels like "being held", which is introduced in another part of the song.  How does "being held" by God become associated with "falling".  How can you know that He's holding you if you feel like you're falling?  I would consider those polar opposites.

Thank you!
Thank you for taking the time to read all this (assuming that you read all the way to this point and didn't just scroll to the bottom haha).  I realize that much of what I say may fall on deaf ears or seem terribly radical.  However, I certainly am sticking to my guns regarding the words of songs and watching what concepts we pawning off as "Christian".  If good, solid Christian people are being deceived by poor attempts at "sound good" Christian theology, think about what it looks like to weak Christians or unbelievers.

I'd also like to apologize if I hurt anyone's feelings, especially Battistelli fans.  You can continue to be her fans.  From what I hear she's a fantastic person and has a lot of great experiences to share with people.  Her music is amazing; she can really write a melody and has great vocals.  However, the words are not up to par theologically.

I challenge you all to look at what you read, listen to, and that in which you engage yourself daily.  Life is too short to not be aware of how things affect you and begin being disciplined in your life.  Please feel free to contact me with any input, or you can offer it on the Facebook link!