Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

heartstrings

CCM?

Recommended Posts


Notice also the "dumbing down" of the lyrics. It repeats the same pharse over and over. It''s definitely rock and definitely has the backbeat.


A lot of IFBs I've met (of course, probably not all) who are against rock music, don't mind choral, classical, and bluegrass songs that are repetitive and simple in lyric content, yet knock all rock music for having "dumbed down" and repetitive lyrics. This is not a fault of all those who are against rock music, but it is definitely a double standard on the part of those who do claim this. On the other hand, there is plenty of Christian rock music that has very deep and meaningful lyrics, such as those by Sovereign Grace Music (I do have some issues with Sovereign Grace Ministries as an organization, but their music is very rich and deep in both an artistic and theological sense, though the style is not to IFB tastes).

Here's an example. How can you call this shallow, repetitive, or dumbed down? (It has a 3/4 beat, btw)


Edit: If this is too much or considered promoting rock, let me know, and I'll take the link down. Edited by anime4christ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



A lot of IFBs I've met (of course, probably not all) who are against rock music, don't mind choral, classical, and bluegrass songs that are repetitive and simple in lyric content, yet knock all rock music for having "dumbed down" and repetitive lyrics. This is not a fault of all those who are against rock music, but it is definitely a double standard on the part of those who do claim this. On the other hand, there is plenty of Christian rock music that has very deep and meaningful lyrics, such as those by Sovereign Grace Music (I do have some issues with Sovereign Grace Ministries as an organization, but their music is very rich and deep in both an artistic and theological sense, though the style is not to IFB tastes).

Here's an example. How can you call this shallow, repetitive, or dumbed down? (It has a 3/4 beat, btw)


Edit: If this is too much or considered promoting rock, let me know, and I'll take the link down.


I would call that tune, what there is of it, dumbed down. I think it is a continuous drone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are looking for songs that are newer that are not shallowed and dumbed down, this is one of them anime. I thought I would help prove your point. I will let you all look it up if you want to. But I will post the lyrics since they are so good.

Leeland - Via Dolorosa
Lyrics:

He traded his crown for a crown of thorns
He picked up His cross and laid down His sword
He stumbled down the road bruised and beaten for me
Jesus walked the way of grief
Hallelujah!

[Chorus]
On the via dolorosa!
All my sin was carried away!
And the power of hell was broken
As He gave His life away

He knew it was to come from the very start
But his love for the world beat inside His heart
He climbed the road of suffering to the hill of calvary
Where the saints would be redeemed.
Hallelujah!

[Chorus]
On the via dolorosa!
All my sin was carried away!
And the power of hell was broken
As He gave His life away

Jesus fixed His eyes upon the new horizon
Soon he would arise and the world would be forgiven!
Jesus fixed His eyes upon the new horizon
Soon he would arise and the world would be forgiven!

Hallelujah, Jesus rose again!
On the cross He she'd His blood on Calvary
I'm thankful for the journey of my King!

[Chorus]
On the via dolorosa!
All my sin was carried away!
And the power of hell was broken
As He gave His life away
As He gave His life away

He traded his crown for a crown of thorns

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tradition is great and all, but when people start to count tradition as holy without any basis in the Bible, that's wrong. This is the case here. History repeats: http://radicalee.blogspot.com/2008/01/jonathan-edwards-and-contemporary.html

I rest my case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tradition is great and all, but when people start to count tradition as holy without any basis in the Bible, that's wrong. This is the case here. History repeats: http://radicalee.blogspot.com/2008/01/jonathan-edwards-and-contemporary.html

I rest my case.

I don't see anyone here basing their arguments on tradition...so, I'm not sure that "resting your case" on this idea proves or solves anything. Some time ago, amblivion started a thread on music which asked a question about whether we should base our opinions about music on the lives of the composers or artists who perform that music. Here was my two cents. I think parts of my reply to amblivion are pertinent in this discussion:

The subject of music is indeed a touchy and complex one, because it is viewed by many as subjective. I personally would not address the issue in the same way you're going about it (lives of the composers/performers), simply because all men are sinful, and even sinful men can produce beautiful art (Mozart, Lizst, Wagner, etc.). Without going into great detail, I'll just say that I always approach the issue from the cultural/historical perspective, as well as the personal perspective. Everyone agrees that no art (music included) is created in a vacuum. It is a reflection of the culture which created it, and it (not just the lyrics, but the raw art itself) expresses the spirit of the culture which gave birth to it. On a more personal level, music (just like literature or any other art form) does affect the morals of an individual. Either the art stirs the passions (called the "belly" in ancient times, and the "flesh" in the Bible), or inspires the affections (called the "chest" in ancient times, and the "mind/heart" in the Bible). Even Plato himself (a pagan) observed that listening to the right kind of music can make you into the right kind of person, and that listening to the wrong kind of music can tend to make you into the wrong kind of person. (I don't agree completely with his wording, of course, but am just noting that art/music and morals have long been associated. Only very recently have Christians veered away from such an association.)

Also on the personal level, we have to realize that music is a human expression that is related to, and really just a step beyond, normal, everyday spoken communication, in much the same way that poetry is a step beyond prose. For example, the melody of a song, sung with the voice, is an extention of our speaking voice. It rises and falls just as the spoken voice rises and falls; singing is a "step beyond" speaking, more focused and orgnanized, yet communicating in the same way. The rhythm of a song is an extention of the body movements that punctuate everyday speech and add meaning to what we're saying. The elements of the music itself, then, communicate a message, even without lyrics. Anyone can see this just by humming excerpts of, say, "Anything You Can Do, I Can Do Better" (from Annie, Get Your Gun) contrasted with "All I Ask of You" (Phantom of the Opera). So, if the music we're listening to is really an extention of the performer's speech and body language, what can we gather from the musical sounds we're hearing? Is the message glorifying to God? Or is it sensual, chaotic, fleshly, and passionate? You don't have to be a musicologist to answer these questions. You just have to be human.

In short, my objection to "rock music" has less to do with the composers/artists/performers and with the lyrics than it has to do with the music itself: its appeal to the "belly/appetites/passions," its birth (decadent American popular culture/counterculture), and its message. Edited by Annie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In short, my objection to "rock music" has less to do with the composers/artists/performers and with the lyrics than it has to do with the music itself: its appeal to the "belly/appetites/passions," its birth (decadent American popular culture/counterculture), and its message.


I agree with you, but passion, desire, rebellion can also be subdivided into good and bad. There is a healthy desire for God that we should have. We should have passion for God and the gospel. And in a godless culture like we live in, true Christianity is rebellious and counter-cultural. It's not about being a rebel or not, it's about what you're rebelling against. Jesus was very counter-cultural in the culture He lived in and was looked upon as a rebel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



I agree with you, but passion, desire, rebellion can also be subdivided into good and bad. There is a healthy desire for God that we should have. We should have passion for God and the gospel. And in a godless culture like we live in, true Christianity is rebellious and counter-cultural. It's not about being a rebel or not, it's about what you're rebelling against. Jesus was very counter-cultural in the culture He lived in and was looked upon as a rebel.

Historians, philosophers, authors, composers, etc. have throughout time (until, seemingly, post 1850) distiguished between "affections" (ordinate zeal, etc.) and "passions" (lust, appetite, base desires, etc.). That is the context of my remarks. I disagree that "rebellion" can be good. It is a fleshly response, a passion totally void of any working of grace. When we go against Satan, we are not "rebelling."

More later...gotta get supper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Historians, philosophers, authors, composers, etc. have throughout time (until, seemingly, post 1850) distiguished between "affections" (ordinate zeal, etc.) and "passions" (lust, appetite, base desires, etc.). That is the context of my remarks. I disagree that "rebellion" can be good. It is a fleshly response, a passion totally void of any working of grace. When we go against Satan, we are not "rebelling."

More later...gotta get supper.


I don't think completely quenching all "passions" that are not "affections" is what Christianity is about. That sounds more like Eastern philosophy (which I practiced at one point). Christianity is about directing our passions correctly. God gave them to us for a reason. We must learn to satisfy our desires in God, not eradicate them. The problem here is inserting man's philosophy into Christianity. You will always get something wrong that way. (Yes, we all do it including myself and I also have some things wrong because of that.) I'm getting a suspicion that we are going in circles and have slightly different definitions of the terms we are using. And this again is the problem you get when referring to culture and philosophy to define theology. We will not get anywhere in this discussion if we refer to culture, philosophy, authors, composers, etc. as our authority. Our sole authority is the Bible and I will only accept an argument from the Bible as authoritative on this subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



I don't think completely quenching all "passions" that are not "affections" is what Christianity is about. That sounds more like Eastern philosophy (which I practiced at one point). Christianity is about directing our passions correctly. God gave them to us for a reason. We must learn to satisfy our desires in God, not eradicate them. The problem here is inserting man's philosophy into Christianity. You will always get something wrong that way. (Yes, we all do it including myself and I also have some things wrong because of that.) I'm getting a suspicion that we are going in circles and have slightly different definitions of the terms we are using. And this again is the problem you get when referring to culture and philosophy to define theology. We will not get anywhere in this discussion if we refer to culture, philosophy, authors, composers, etc. as our authority. Our sole authority is the Bible and I will only accept an argument from the Bible as authoritative on this subject.

The Bible actually refers to the "belly" in the same way that philosophers of the time did...to mean "passions." Romans 16:18: For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly..." Phil. 3:9: "whose god is their belly."

You are correct; terminology is important in a discussion like this. Can we agree on the term "lust" (where I was using "passion") as a term which describes inordinate desires? Do you believe there is such a thing as inordinate desires...desires that do not originate and/or terminate with a pursuit of holiness/God? If so, what would you call those desires? We don't have to call them passions, although it seems a pretty appropriate word for them.

I don't believe I was "inserting man's philosophy into Christianity." I was merely using the terms that have been commonly used throughout history to describe what the Bible calls "lust," the "flesh," the "belly," etc. IOW, desires that are inordinate. Another example of this usage is found in John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress in the scene at the Interpreter's house where Pilgrim sees two boys: Patience (who patiently waits for the King's gifts) and Passion (who excitedly grabs all of the toys that are placed in front of the boys, and does not wait for the King's gifts). The usage is very, very common throughout church history and common vocabulary. Only recently (in a very decadent culture) has "passion" come to have a positive connotation in common usage. I was saying that the expression of humans (such as music) can reflect and promote and communicate inordinate desires (lusts, passions, etc.), or it can reflect and promote and communicate ordinate and holy desires. A study of the culture from which a certain expression sprang is very helpful--even key--in evaluating what exactly that expression is intended to convey.

I think it is absolutely necessary to quench passions (lusts, flesh, belly, etc.) in order to live a Spirit-filled life. We are told to mortify our members, to deny ungodly lusts which war against the soul, to walk not after the flesh, etc., etc. This isn't Eastern philosophy; it's Scripture. I'm not talking about asceticism; I'm talking about encouraging ordinate desires ("affections") and mortifying inordinate desires ("passions"). Do you disagree with this? Do you disagree that human expression (speaking, writing, singing/playing, etc.) has the ability to encourage inordinate desires (passions) or ordinate desires ("affections")? If so, why? Edited by Annie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



I agree with you, but passion, desire, rebellion can also be subdivided into good and bad. There is a healthy desire for God that we should have. We should have passion for God and the gospel. And in a godless culture like we live in, true Christianity is rebellious and counter-cultural. It's not about being a rebel or not, it's about what you're rebelling against. Jesus was very counter-cultural in the culture He lived in and was looked upon as a rebel.

Any kind of Christianity which uses the same modes of expression as the culture against which it is "rebelling" isn't very convincing as "rebellious." ;) Nowhere are Christians commanded to "rebel" against culture, anyway. You keep asking us for Scripture; care to post any that says we're to "rebel" against anything at all? Precise terminology is, as you say, important. We are told to "love not the world...lust of flesh, eyes, pride of life," but rebel? Don't see that concept in Scripture at all. Edited by Annie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Annie, I agree with much of what you say except perhaps the idea that all "rock" is sensual, and this I say because there is no solid definition as to what is and isn't rock. Most would certainly agree something that sounds like AC/DC is rock, yet I've heard some declare that Southern Gospel is rock, even when referring to older Southern Gospel. There are many arguments as to whether pop music is rock or not (recently I came across an old article about the debate whether the group ABBA should be allowed into the rock 'n roll hall of fame because many said their music was pop, not rock). I've even heard songs that, to me anyway, had a classical sound to them, yet some folks said it was rock! Such affects songs with a country, bluegrass and other sounds as well. Just what is and isn't rock?

Another point, not all music effects people the same. When I was in the Air Force I had to pull security in a dance club on base (to loud and I only recognized one song the whole night!). While there I noticed that songs with similar beats were not danced to the same and some would have the whole crowd on the floor while others wouldn't.

Some say any use of a drum makes a song rock, I've even heard this used against having an orchestra.

You mentioned Paul Bunyans book and there are some Christians who denounce his work. We are neither in one accord with regards to music or literature!

Perhaps the use of "rebelling" was the wrong term for what he was meaning, but you are correct that rebellion is sin and is considered as the sin of witchcraft according to Scripture. Perhaps he was more meaning we are to be a sort of "counter-culture".

I agree with you that simply looking at a songwriter or singers history isn't a good gauge for whether a song is good or not. As you point out, we are all sinners, and it hardly seems correct to demand far higher standards for them than we do sometimes even for pastors.

Can a song be good put to certain music while not being so good if put to another style of music? Some declare that a modern hymn that some folks put to more upbeat music is no good, even if only accompanied by a piano. Should we avoid Amazing Grace because secular groups have sang the song with their own music style?

It seems we may be trying to force some broad brush strict and rigid rules to music when music is so broad and complex that it can't be so easily fit into one box.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I'll agree on those definitions, Annie. That does make this discussion easier. I was going to reply to the individual points you brought up, but John said pretty much the same thing I wanted to say. Not all rock music produces the same response in its listeners. If you mean that rock music is sensual in that it affects the emotions, then that applies to absolutely all music. If you mean that rock music produces the bad desires or lusts, I'd have to disagree, because actually very little rock music actually does that. Hip-Hop, Dance (even old forms of dance music which isn't derived from rock'n'roll), and pop have a lot more songs which do that than rock does, and even then, not all of those do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems we may be trying to force some broad brush strict and rigid rules to music when music is so broad and complex that it can't be so easily fit into one box.

Do you think I'm doing this? I don't think I've broad-brushed at all, but I'm willing to be corrected on that. What "rigid rules" have I put forth? I believe I've just made some general statements about how music (in general) communicates and has the potential to affect a person positively or negatively. Does anyone disagree with this? Edited by Annie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I'll agree on those definitions, Annie. That does make this discussion easier. I was going to reply to the individual points you brought up, but John said pretty much the same thing I wanted to say. Not all rock music produces the same response in its listeners. If you mean that rock music is sensual in that it affects the emotions, then that applies to absolutely all music. If you mean that rock music produces the bad desires or lusts, I'd have to disagree, because actually very little rock music actually does that. Hip-Hop, Dance (even old forms of dance music which isn't derived from rock'n'roll), and pop have a lot more songs which do that than rock does, and even then, not all of those do that.

Whoa, whoa! Looks like we need to define "rock music." Notice that in the one sentence in which I used this term, I put the term in quotation marks because that's what a lot of people call pop music....or anything with a "rock beat." What is your definition of rock music? I guess the music I am talking about is the music of American popular culture, the music which was created to express the values of that culture, the music that is still being used to communicate the values of that culture and all of its subcultures. This would encompass a variety of genres (hip hop, R & B, rock, pop, metal, alternative, punk rock, ska, soft rock, indie, goth, death metal, gangsta rap, and whatever else).

Ephesians 4:29: Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace to the hearers.

Is this verse just talking about words that come out of our mouths, or are there other forms of communication (writing/typing, singing, drama, etc.)?

The important point is that music does communicate something, independent of the lyrics, much like tone of voice and body language communicate just as much as the actual words that are being said. The form is part of the content. If a husband says, "I love you? :puzzled3: " to his wife, it means something different than, "I love you :icon_rolleyes: " or "I love you :saint2: " or "I love you :wub: "

Can we agree that music is a universal language that communicates apart from any lyrics? This guy from the comic Polish string quartet MozART thinks so. Watch the whole video; it's pretty funny! At 4:37, the caption reads: "Our music, and our jokes can be understood everywhere, since [in] playing music we speak all the languages of the world." The ONLY PEOPLE I've ever heard try to refute the universality of the language of music are Christians who are trying to defend the use of popular music in the church. Why aren't Pachelbel's "Canon in D" and Bach's "Air in G" played at football games? Why is John Philip Sousa's music not used at funerals? Could it be that music itself (devoid of lyrics) communicates certain things?

What does this poem about God communicate? Is there a theological problem with these lyrics that tell us that God is omnipresent? What, if anything, is wrong with this poem? Should we use it in Sunday school to teach our children about God's omnipresence?
God is here, and God is there.
God, you know, is ev'rywhere.
He's up your nose, between your toes.
He dwells within your garden hose.

Form is part of the communication. Form modifies content. In the case of this poem, the form debases the content. Edited by Annie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry about that, I just jumped definitions myself there. Yes, pop, dance, hip-hop, etc. are derived from rock n roll, and I sometimes do lump them together. In the above paragraph though I used the term rock to mean music that is not defined as pop, dance, hip-hop, or other offshoots. I am talking about hard rock, alternative rock, Christian rock, Indie, goth, punk, grunge, etc., and by extension, metal genres. I thought in context of the paragraph I wrote, my usage of the term was evident. I made the distinction in order to highlight the fact that a lot of non-pop rock is not sensual in the sense that it stirs the lusts, while pop/pop-rock is far more prone to doing that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Do you think I'm doing this? I don't think I've broad-brushed at all, but I'm willing to be corrected on that. What "rigid rules" have I put forth? I believe I've just made some general statements about how music (in general) communicates and has the potential to affect a person positively or negatively. Does anyone disagree with this?

Sorry if my post seemed to say that. I used the term "we" rather than "you" because I wasn't directing this specifically toward you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed, music alone can effect folks, but not always in the same way.

I'm reminded of the black American who went on a tour of Africa. He played popular black American music on a huge boombox, expecting the same reaction as he would see in American blacks. What he experienced shocked him. The Africans didn't react the same, didn't respond to the beats in the same manner, and as he put it, until then he thought all blacks had rhythm.

I also think of my experiences in visiting a lot of different churches, including several black churches, and how the congregations reacted so differently to the very same songs played, even if they were played the same. In some churches the people would be up moving around, swaying and dancing with the song, while the same song played the same way in another church would see nothing more than the congregation standing near totally still.

Culture and other factors play a part in how we interpret music. For those who have not seen TV or movies and not had experience with "scary music" in such, their reaction to hearing the music used for that isn't the same reaction when hearing this music as those who grew up hearing that same music used in TV/movies for "scary" effect.

Does playing a guitar and drum to an old hymn ruin the hymn?

Is a biblically sound modern hymn ruined because some decide to add differing music styles to the hymn? What I mean is that biblically sound modern hymn, if played only to the accompaniment of a piano, no longer acceptable because others have played it with different music styles?

To be clear, I'm no advocating for any particular type or style of music. In some ways I may be more selective in what I would personally listen to than some may be. What I wonder is how others can listen to Christian music that either does nothing for me, or even seems to interfere with my well being, yet they are obviously blessed by such music, can sincerely worship with such music, can be edified by such music.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed, music alone can effect folks, but not always in the same way.

I'm reminded of the black American who went on a tour of Africa. He played popular black American music on a huge boombox, expecting the same reaction as he would see in American blacks. What he experienced shocked him. The Africans didn't react the same, didn't respond to the beats in the same manner, and as he put it, until then he thought all blacks had rhythm.

I also think of my experiences in visiting a lot of different churches, including several black churches, and how the congregations reacted so differently to the very same songs played, even if they were played the same. In some churches the people would be up moving around, swaying and dancing with the song, while the same song played the same way in another church would see nothing more than the congregation standing near totally still.

Culture and other factors play a part in how we interpret music. For those who have not seen TV or movies and not had experience with "scary music" in such, their reaction to hearing the music used for that isn't the same reaction when hearing this music as those who grew up hearing that same music used in TV/movies for "scary" effect.

Does playing a guitar and drum to an old hymn ruin the hymn?

Is a biblically sound modern hymn ruined because some decide to add differing music styles to the hymn? What I mean is that biblically sound modern hymn, if played only to the accompaniment of a piano, no longer acceptable because others have played it with different music styles?

To be clear, I'm no advocating for any particular type or style of music. In some ways I may be more selective in what I would personally listen to than some may be. What I wonder is how others can listen to Christian music that either does nothing for me, or even seems to interfere with my well being, yet they are obviously blessed by such music, can sincerely worship with such music, can be edified by such music.

John, what you have said here reflects a postmodern view of music; it can mean different things to different people; there is no objective standard of beauty or corruption; we are all individuals, and what is true for me is not true for someone else. I personally think it's a lot of poppycock (no offense to you, John...I've heard this argument from several Christians--and, interestingly, ONLY Christians when it comes to music).

I think it's important to note that outward reaction has very little to do with what I am talking about, and that is corrupt communication. Case in point: I was TOTALLY into all the 80's pop/rock bands and performers as a teenager. But, because my personality is more introverted, I never "jammed" or "got down" visibly. I'd have the radio playing "Girls just wanna have fun" and "Just say you love me for the rest of your life" and be singing along with my whole heart, embracing the message of the music, but the people pulled up next to me at the traffic light would never know by my body language how much I was enjoying those songs, or how they were affecting my attitude, spirit, worldview, etc. Outward reaction is not an accurate indicator of inward responses to music, and it certainly doesn't show the complete effect that music is having on someone. And, what is more important, communication can still be corrupt even if it doesn't have the exact same effect on every person. To say otherwise is to throw your lot in with postmodernism.

What all of us should be striving to do is to identify what communication is corrupt, and avoid it. We should educate ourselves, not just make excuses that "we don't know." Just like we would not choose to listen to people blaspheming God's name for entertainment, we should not want to be entertained by any other kind of communication that is corrupt. Like you, I'm not targeting any particular style or instrument; I'm merely advocating that Christians stop being post-modernists.

You also asked a couple of questions about hymns. Let me ask you a question: do you think that form has the ability to debase content? The words to "Amazing Grace" can be sung to the tune of "Gilligan's Island." Should we do that? What about the poem about God's omnipresence that I posted earlier? Does the form debase the content? What about this "Bible In Limerick Verse", even as a paraphrase? Here's a sample: the Lord's Prayer:

Just pray to the Father. Give praise.
His Kingdom will come. Yes it stays!
Ask daily for bread
Forgive wrongs and be led
To make up with each other. It pays!

What do you think? Does putting Scripture in limerick form, a form that is known for its lightness and frivolity, communicate the weight, the significance, the importance, the seriousness, the holiness of truth? Or does putting serious matter in limerick form debase the content? (Just so this doesn't turn into a "textual issue," I'll say that the man who published this Bible is not claiming that it is the "real thing," the actual "Word of God," or an actual translation but a paraphrase designed to get people interested in reading the "real thing.") Edited by Annie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, the music must not distract from the words, nor dominate them. It's it's too noisy, I leave.

On the subject of rock, I prefer the swinging tune "Toplady" for Rock of Ages. It could be a bit livelier than as played here. I note the emphasis on the 4/4 beat is an 1 & 3 as advocated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to get off subject, but this young lady, writer of the folk song below, was instrumental in propagating the early CCM movement. She also performed vocals on some of the "Maranatha!" praise albums such as I posted above. In 1979 she divorced her husband and announced that she was a lesbian. If you notice where she says "when I was thinking about becoming a Christain..." Anyone can decide to "become" a christian...but you have to come to a place of repentence and faith, you must be indwelled with the Holy Ghost to be truly born again. How can someone truly have Jesus in their heart and continue in a Lesbian lifestyle? Her name is Marsha Stevens and she performs CCM for gay audiences to this day.



Edited by heartstrings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


John, what you have said here reflects a postmodern view of music; it can mean different things to different people; there is no objective standard of beauty or corruption; we are all individuals, and what is true for me is not true for someone else. I personally think it's a lot of poppycock (no offense to you, John...I've heard this argument from several Christians--and, interestingly, ONLY Christians when it comes to music).

I think it's important to note that outward reaction has very little to do with what I am talking about, and that is corrupt communication. Case in point: I was TOTALLY into all the 80's pop/rock bands and performers as a teenager. But, because my personality is more introverted, I never "jammed" or "got down" visibly. I'd have the radio playing "Girls just wanna have fun" and "Just say you love me for the rest of your life" and be singing along with my whole heart, embracing the message of the music, but the people pulled up next to me at the traffic light would never know by my body language how much I was enjoying those songs, or how they were affecting my attitude, spirit, worldview, etc. Outward reaction is not an accurate indicator of inward responses to music, and it certainly doesn't show the complete effect that music is having on someone. And, what is more important, communication can still be corrupt even if it doesn't have the exact same effect on every person. To say otherwise is to throw your lot in with postmodernism.

What all of us should be striving to do is to identify what communication is corrupt, and avoid it. We should educate ourselves, not just make excuses that "we don't know." Just like we would not choose to listen to people blaspheming God's name for entertainment, we should not want to be entertained by any other kind of communication that is corrupt. Like you, I'm not targeting any particular style or instrument; I'm merely advocating that Christians stop being post-modernists.

You also asked a couple of questions about hymns. Let me ask you a question: do you think that form has the ability to debase content? The words to "Amazing Grace" can be sung to the tune of "Gilligan's Island." Should we do that? What about the poem about God's omnipresence that I posted earlier? Does the form debase the content? What about this "Bible In Limerick Verse", even as a paraphrase? Here's a sample: the Lord's Prayer:

Just pray to the Father. Give praise.
His Kingdom will come. Yes it stays!
Ask daily for bread
Forgive wrongs and be led
To make up with each other. It pays!

What do you think? Does putting Scripture in limerick form, a form that is known for its lightness and frivolity, communicate the weight, the significance, the importance, the seriousness, the holiness of truth? Or does putting serious matter in limerick form debase the content? (Just so this doesn't turn into a "textual issue," I'll say that the man who published this Bible is not claiming that it is the "real thing," the actual "Word of God," or an actual translation but a paraphrase designed to get people interested in reading the "real thing.")

What I referenced with regards to the black American in Africa was secular, although I've heard of missionaries who have spoke of how different people groups react differently to different musical styles too.

No doubt any song with lyrics is carrying a message that must be evaluated. The question is, how do various instramentals effect, or not effect, some or all people?

Absolutely I believe the music played to any song can make a difference, but that's not the question I was asking. Some have declared that a biblically sound modern hymn is not valid for use by "true Christians" because some churches and groups play the modern hymn with what they see as unacceptable music. Should the fact that others use different music styles with a song make that song off limits for us? I've heard Amazing Grace played to many different musical styles, including heavy metal, does this mean that song is no longer good for us?

I'm not saying that a biblically sound song should be accepted no matter what music style accompanies it (I would reject many such variations myself), but I don't think we should declare a biblically sound song to be "evil" or "off limits" just because others choose to play it to objectionable instrumentation. If the church down the road plays Amazing Grace with their rock band, should we no longer play Amazing Grace with our piano or organ in order to "separate" ourselves from them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to get off subject, but this young lady, writer of the folk song below, was instrumental in propagating the early CCM movement. She also performed vocals on some of the "Maranatha!" praise albums such as I posted above. In 1979 she divorced her husband and announced that she was a lesbian. If you notice where she says "when I was thinking about becoming a Christain..." Anyone can decide to "become" a christian...but you have to come to a place of repentence and faith, you must be indwelled with the Holy Ghost to be truly born again. How can someone truly have Jesus in their heart and continue in a Lesbian lifestyle? Her name is Marsha Stevens and she performs CCM for gay audiences to this day.





I don't know much at all about this woman, but a person could be saved and have a besetting homosexual sin. There are saved Christians who are caught up in any number of sins, including various sexual sins.

In this case, doesn't this particular woman think that homosexuality isn't sin? (It's possible I'm thinking of someone else) If such is the case, then she's either in denial or has hardened her heart on the issue to the point she is blinded to the truth. I've known Christians in this category with regards to living a promiscuous unmarried sexual lifestyle; most often believing (with no biblical support) that having sex with someone you "love" isn't a sin even if you are not married.

The above sort of situation is vastly different from the Christian who acknowledges homosexuality is a sin, is actively fighting that sin in their lives, but has in the past given into the temptation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...