By What Standard?

The Super Bowl, Culture, and the Christian Conscience

In recent days, a familiar cycle of controversy has swirled around the Super Bowl halftime show. The focus this time was the performance of Bad Bunny, specifically the song “Safaera.” A piece that does not merely hint at sexual immorality and hedonism but explicitly exalts them.

The content is not subtle either. Instead, it is a celebration of what Scripture plainly calls sin. Yet, as the performance was broadcast into millions of homes, a curious defense emerged. Not just from the secular world, but from some who profess the name of Christ.

As we navigate these cultural moments, we must tread carefully. Scripture never tells us to be shocked when unbelievers act according to their nature. However, we must not suspend discernment. Faith does not trade biblical clarity for cultural ease, nor does it excuse what God condemns simply because it is presented under the guise of popular entertainment.

Culture Is Not Neutral

One of the great mistakes of the modern church is treating culture as if it were morally neutral. Culture is the collective expression of what a people allow, tolerate, celebrate, and condemn. Because of this, culture is always teaching and always discipling. The question is not whether we are being instructed by the world around us, but what we are being taught and by whom.

When a believer claims, “This has nothing to do with theology,” they are inadvertently suggesting that there are “square inches” of creation where God has no concern. But Scripture grants us no such compartments. Whether we eat or drink, whether we watch or applaud, we do all before the face of God. Nothing in human experience is theologically irrelevant.

To be clear: no one is making the claim that every performance is a theological manifesto. To claim otherwise would be a category error. However, every performance is theologically significant. Conflating these two ideas creates a straw man that is easy to dismiss but fails to engage the real concern. And that is, By what standard do we evaluate what we set before our eyes?

The Myth of Neutral Approval

In Romans 1, the Apostle Paul describes a progression of depravity that culminates not just in the practice of wickedness, but in giving “hearty approval” to those who practice it. The sin is not limited to the act or the participant. Paul extends the sin to the celebration itself, which is a moral statement. To claim Christ while applauding or even passively entertaining what He forbids is to live inconsistently with what you say you believe.

The Puritan Stephen Charnock in his work, The Existence and Attributes of God, termed this “practical atheism.” Unlike the theoretical atheist who denies God’s existence with his intellect, the practical atheist denies God’s relevance with his life. It is the subtle, dangerous habit of living as if God is not there, or as if His Word does not bind the conscience once the television is turned on or the stadium lights are dimmed.

Practical atheism is most visible in our compartmentalization. We are tempted to carve our lives into “sacred” and “secular” spheres. We give God the Sunday morning liturgy, the morning prayer, and the formal theological discussion. But we reserve the “secular” sphere for our entertainment, our humor, and our pleasures. In short, we keep the secular sphere for ourselves. By doing so, we essentially tell the Creator that He is welcome in the sanctuary but an intruder in the living room.

When a professing Christian claims a public display of immorality is “not a theological issue,” they have already committed a theological error. They have demoted God from Lord of all things to a mere consultant for “religious” things. If our standard for what is “good” or “acceptable” shifts the moment a beat drops or a celebrity takes the stage, we are not practicing discernment. We are practicing a functional denial of the Sovereignty of God.

As Charnock argued, to ignore God’s eye in our daily choices is a greater insult than to deny His existence entirely. It acknowledges He is there, then proceeds to treat Him as if He doesn’t matter.

Deconstructing the Defense

Several arguments have surfaced to shield these performances from critique. They deserve a logical examination:

The Appeal to Precedent: The claim that “nobody made the Super Bowl a moral issue before” is historically false. From the 2004 “wardrobe malfunction” of Janet Jackson to Madonna in 2012. From Maroon 5 in 2019 to the more recent displays of 2026, believers have consistently raised concerns. Furthermore, longevity does not equal innocence. The fact that something has been common for decades does not make it good.

The “Just Turn It Off” Deflection: While personal disengagement is a necessary step for the individual, it does not eliminate the need for moral evaluation. One can refuse to watch a spectacle and still rightly question whether the public glorification of sin is destructive to a society.

The Mind-Reading Fallacy: Assigning hidden motives to critics is a common tactic used to bypass the actual substance of an argument. In recent years, it has become particularly popular to suggest that anyone who objects to the content of a halftime show must simply harbor a prejudice against the performer’s language, ethnicity, or cultural background.

It is significant to note that for the last several years, the Super Bowl stage has been occupied almost exclusively by performers of color. When a pattern is established where moral critique is always met with accusations of racism or xenophobia, the accusation itself begins to function as a shield for immorality.

We must be clear, Biblical discernment is not a respect of persons. We do not evaluate a lyric based on the skin color of the one singing it, but on the truth or error of what is being said. If a song celebrates hedonism, objectifies women, or mocks the law of God, it is an affront to the Creator regardless of the performer’s heritage.

To suggest that a Christian cannot object to explicit content because the performer belongs to a specific demographic is to demand that we apply different moral standards to different people. Scripture forbids this. To turn a theological concern into a racial one is not a quest for justice. It is a refusal to engage the standard of God’s Word.

Art Is Not a Moral Vacuum

A common defense for explicit performances is the “artistic exemption.” The argument suggests that because a performance is “art,” it exists in a separate category of human experience where the normal rules of morality and holiness do not apply. But in a biblical worldview, this is not the case.

Scripture never treats artistic expression as detached from worship. Art is an overflow of what we love, what we treasure, and what we exalt. It is not a neutral medium, it is a directional one. It either directs the affections toward the beauty of God, or it directs them toward rebellion.

We must reject the “aesthetic heresy.” The idea that a thing can be artistically good while being morally evil. If a piece of art openly celebrates what God calls wicked, its “artistry” does not diminish the concern, it weaponizes it. The beauty of the form (the rhythm, the choreography, the production) serves to make the poison of the content more palatable.

Furthermore, the “common grace” argument is often misused here. While God certainly bestows talent on believers and unbelievers alike, common grace is not a license for the believer to feast on common depravities. Entire communities defend pornography as “art,” yet we instinctively understand that artistic form does not sanctify sinful content. A husband would find no refuge in telling his wife he was simply “appreciating the cinematography” of an illicit film.

If we call something “tasteful” or “harmless” simply because it is well produced, we have traded a biblical standard of beauty for a pagan standard of spectacle. True beauty is the splendor of holiness. Anything that mocks that holiness may be “creative,” but it is not truly beautiful, nor is it neutral.

The Mirage of Truthless Unity

Perhaps the most persistent argument used to quell discernment is the appeal to unity. We are told that “dividing” over a halftime show is petty, or that Christians should prioritize “getting along” over debating cultural aesthetics. However, this appeals to a version of unity that is foreign to scripture.

In his high priestly prayer, Christ prayed that His followers would be one, but he immediately anchored that oneness in reality, “Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth” (John 17:17). A unity achieved by muting moral distinctions or ignoring the clear commands of Scripture is not Christian unity, it is a worldly compromise. It is a “peace, peace” where there is no peace.

When we prioritize a superficial harmony over the holiness of God, we are not practicing love. We are practicing sentimentality. True love “does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth” (1 Corinthians 13:6). Therefore, if a brother or sister calls for silence in the face of celebrated sin, they are not calling for unity. They are calling for a compromise that ultimately harms the body of Christ.

To suggest that pointing out the theological significance of a cultural event is “divisive” is to blame the thermometer for the fever. The division already exists because two different standards are being applied. One group is looking at the cultural consensus for what is acceptable while the other is looking at the Word of God.

Unity without truth is merely a hollow agreement to drift in the same direction. As believers, our call is not to drift together, but to stand together. Even if that standing appears “divisive” to a world (and a church) that has grown comfortable with compromise.

The Duty of the Watchman: Walking Faith and Warning Sin

A final false dichotomy often appears when critics suggest that Christians should simply “walk out their faith” in private and avoid public warning. The implication is that “positive” living is a substitute for “negative” critique. However, Scripture never presents these as mutually exclusive. It commands both.

We are commanded to live godly lives, yes, but we are also commanded to “test all things” (1 Thessalonians 5:21) and to “take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them” (Ephesians 5:11). The quiet life described in the Epistles is not a life of moral silence or cultural indifference. It is a life of disciplined holiness that provides the platform for public truth telling.

Many in our age will applaud “quiet faithfulness” so long as it never names a specific sin. They prefer a Christianity that is seen but not heard. A faith that acts as a decorative ornament rather than a “pillar and buttress of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15). But a love that refuses to warn is not biblical love. Rather, it is cowardice masquerading as humility.

To speak truthfully about cultural sin is not a sign of panic or a culture war obsession. It is a necessary function of the Christian conscience. If we claim to love our neighbors, we cannot remain silent while the culture catechizes them into a celebration of their own destruction. Discernment is an act of mercy. To point back to God’s standard is not an attempt to reclaim the culture through political power, but to honor the King by refusing to call evil good.

The moment we stop warning against error, our walking out the faith becomes a walk of quiet complicity. We cannot surrender the authority of Scripture as our standard for the sake of public peace. If we do, our discernment does not just weaken, it collapses into mere personal preference.

A Needed Clarification

It is important to state that this critique is not fueled by media narratives or partisan talking points. I do not watch the news, nor did I watch this halftime show. My response is shaped by the internal logic of the arguments being made by those who did watch and defend it.

Furthermore, we must be consistent. Organizations like TPUSA are not Christian ministries. Headlining Kid Rock as he sings “Bawitdaba” doesn’t exactly show your commitment to Christ. Wrapping worldliness in political clothing and slapping a Jesus sticker on it does not make it righteous. A spectacle that platforms explicit or immoral content in the name of “patriotism” or “conservatism” or worse “Jesus” is just as problematic as the halftime show itself. Worldliness is worldliness, regardless of the flag it flies.

The Foundational Question

In every cultural flashpoint, one question presses itself upon the conscience: By what standard?

• By what standard do we judge culture?

• By what standard do we define love?

• By what standard do we call something “harmless”?

God’s standard and the culture’s standard are not two circles that overlap. They are often two worlds in collision. The believer does not have the luxury of drifting between them.

The culture will continue to celebrate what God hates. That is to be expected. But the Church must remember that she lives before the face of God. And in His sight, even a halftime show can reveal the true Lord of your heart.