I don't know much about Samantha Clark except for accidental discoveries on ISI, but she asks a question you must contend with.

How closely connected are pop culture and the things of salvation? I am not ready to say that Christians have no stake or legitimate interest in pop culture. As human beings, we are all naturally a part of and keepers of culture, low and high. But perhaps what is missing in the current form of evangelical engagement is an inability to see different levels of culture and to identify the increasingly complex obligations of higher forms of art, music, and literature. To parse out these different levels would require an understanding of two concepts that are not common among our modern American self-understanding: the need for hierarchy and the appreciation of artistic mediation.

I fear Ms. Clark hasn't considered the half of it.

You must resolve for yourselves what legitimate connection there is between pop culture and the life of the spirit—not just salvation. Fundagelicals have excused their philistinism by supposing it was essential to evangelism. The fact of the matter is that evangelism is neither the first nor the ultimate obligation we have. Some of us don't think pop culture has anything to do with salvation, that pop culture lacks the power to convey any enduring reality, and that pop culture as Gospel Tract is the smallest known fig leaf ever discovered in the plant kingdom.

St. Paul wanted to know about the power of Christ's resurrection, the fellowship of his suffering and about how one might be made compatible with his crucifixion.

We have groped long enough to find a way to capture these things in the daily ditty, and the only thing the church has learned is that these essentials are not even communicable between contiguous generations. How this is consistent with the sentiments expressed in the Apocalypse is beyond human knowing.

So, what will you tell your little one? What stake does the church have in pop culture?