Take This Christian Music Test

OK...another course here:

So, if a song does not specifically mention God...is it evil? Gee whiz, do we all get shuffled off to the pit for singing "London Bridge" or "Happy Birthday?"

So what if an artist sings a song on an album that celebrates love...and does not make it sexual, degrading, or wrong...but instead extols the virtue of a healthy, proper love relationship...a clean "love song?" (remember, "Song of Solomon" is in your Bible).

If I have a CD, with ten songs, and one or two is a clean "love song," is that not acceptable?

According to your reasoning, no.

I think you're simply a bit frustrated. You started this thread, excited about a website which backed up your preferences. You ran into people who know their music history, music theory, theology, Hebrew, Greek, current events, and logic.

In short, you've run into some folks whose ministries God is blessing immensely, using the very forms of music you don't like(along with traditional and ancient musical forms). These same people have done their homework, and have answers for your valid questions, and rebuttals for your less substantive arguments. These folks certainly don't hate you, and we don't hate the music that you approve.

But as for me...my position is informed, my conscience is clear, and my ministry is sound.

 

And many hymns are sung to tunes that were played as worldy folks songs, etc. How is that any different?

LINK

 

I was in a Christian book store up in Anchorage, and a fellow came in and got all huffy because there were more translations than just the KJV, and he said something to the effect, "I thought you only sold real Bibles here". Opinions aren't the same as facts.

Why do you assume that those who disagree with you and see the lies and distortions have not read the links? Many of these urban myths on that site have been around since I was a kid, and many of these people are obviously satanic. But, just because these few are why do you assume that all are?

The same holds true for CCM. Even though it’s not my cup of tea, why judge it all based on a few bad apples? Otherwise, we need to toss out all the hymnals, based on the filthy hymns album.

If an argument is just, there is no need to stoop to fabrication; just present the truth!

Or they have simply made a misstep, as we all do.

That sounds like the same argument made in a video series by some nutcase named Frank Garlock. He even cited "scientific" studies stating that rhythm is bad for the body. (The quotation marks are there because I checked his reference, and it leaves a bit to be desired.)

 

Frenchy...

You did good on putting scriptures to your words. Next time, let the scriptures speak for themselves, instead of adding to the scriptural quotes.

Now, once again...AV1611 has been discredited in this thread. Using it to "prove" your points is worthless. They lie, distort, and sprinkle a bit of truth in a bunch of garbage.

I find it interesting that you prove my point for me...who is the first person quoted in your second article? Plato. Are you sure you want your opinion to be informed by a pagan Greek philosopher?

Chew on this...450 years ago, these were our "worship rules:"

(I) That psalms of tribulation be sung with a low voice and in long measure :

(II) That psalms of Thanksgiving be sung with an indifferent voice, neither too loud nor too slow :

(III) That psalms of rejoicing be sung with a loud voice, and in a swift and jocund measure.

Harmony was discouraged. Instruments of all kinds were discouraged. One of the hated pieces of the time? The tune "OLD ONE HUNDRED." You might know it better if you were to sing it...the Doxology.
One Source

Imagine...one of our most scripturally-sound and best-loved hymns...loathed because of it's musical form (not Psalm-metered) and style (harmony, which was "sinful" in the 16th century).

In fact, one of our early Baptist Churches, FBC Newport, RI, disallowed ALL singing for its first one hundred years.

You see, Frenchy, legalism is not new. These issues have cropped up before, and they were settled. This particular controversy will be dead in 50 years. We'll all reminisce about the "Good old Gaither songs," "God of Wonders" will be in our canon of hymnody, and many will rail against whatever genre of music arrives in 2056.

 

Yeah Frenchy...those are not science sites, but the same sites you listed before. The first one has this little jewel:

So much for their credibility. Cook an egg? Get real here. And it is from that paragon of virtue himself, Bob Larson. Read more about him at http://www.ondoctrine.com/10larson.htm

 

BTW Frenchy, I am still waiting on that evidence that listening to CCM will make me have promiscuous sex and take drugs. I don't mean in a link to your only 2 wacky sites either.

 

Hey...I haven't heard the "egg" lie since I went to a "backmasking seminar" in 8th grade. I remember them playing a Captain & Tenille album backwards...according to them, it said, "Drugs are Jesus try them" (you know, Tenille sounds goofy backwards too!)

I never heard that like they said I should (though at the time I took it for face value)...it wasn't later until I wondered: If you can't decipher the sentence structure forward, what kind of cranial behemoth must you be to get it backwards?

 

Well, well, well.....

Eight pages to get the idea that SOME folks think:

Artists who use the word Christian to describe their music shouldn't attempt to make money off their product. Hmmmm..... God says what?

For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn. Is it for the oxen that God careth, or saith he it assuredly for our sake? Yea, for our sake it was written: because he that ploweth ought to plow in hope, and he that thresheth, [to thresh] in hope of partaking. I Cor 9:9-10


That if Christian music might be played on a secular station that God can't possibly be pleased.....but God says:

Mr 2:15 And it came to pass, that he was sitting at meat in his house, and many publicans and sinners sat down with Jesus and his disciples: for there were many, and they followed him.
Mr 2:16 And the scribes of the Pharisees, when they saw that he was eating with the sinners and publicans, said unto his disciples, [How is it] that he eateth and drinketh with publicans and sinners?
Mr 2:17 And when Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of a physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.


And lastly, if the lyrics don't specifically mention God, then they can't possibly point people in His direction......but God says:

Ro 1:20 For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, [even] his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse:


Have I missed anything? If I have, I'm sure God has something to say about that as well.

Folks, let's not limit our Creator to our opinions and preferences. Let's not presume we know the heart of someone because they are in the public eye. And if we have a problem with a product, let's substantiate it with more than innuendo and legalism. My opinion, I'm sticking with what God says and what He leads me to do based on my own life experiences. But I'm not about to tell the another person that they can/can't do/enjoy/not do ANYTHING not spelled out in God's word, just because I feel like I should/should not do such.

 

Yes, and the pagan Celts played pennywhistles. So they are also evil.

Frenchy, I don't want to believe urban legend and fabrications. You are losing the information battle here. I've posted reputable sites, and you counter with AV1611.org.

Your best post? Your scripture list. Even if I disagree...I feel that I have more common ground with someone who is genuinely trying to have a scriptural viewpoint (as I believe you are). My issue is that you have used those scriptures to speak to a subject to which scripture is silent.

I would much rather deal in that realm than put out the brushfires of a slanderous website that engages in libelous content, discredited science, and logical fallacies.

You just mentioned something as an aside that I deem VERY important...one of your concerns is because of your role as a mother.

What I'm about to say may surprise you. IF your child came to me and said, "Mom's going all legalistic on this music and won't let me listen to CCM," I would respond, after giving relational tips and ideas for better communication, that ultimately parents have the say, and they must obey.

I might come to you later to discuss it (privately, without your kid's knowing I did), but if you held your ground, then I would support you.

Now...I might not change my entire program for my 150+ kids based on this...but I WOULD find ways for your child to serve and minister in other ways. At the same time, in smaller settings, (SS, family group, etc.) I would let the facilitator/group leader know and adjustments would be made.

I have done this twice in my six years here.

There. Common ground. We both care about the kid. Amazing huh? (edit: not amazing that we care...but amazing that commmon ground can be found. gotta work on my wording)

 

Actually, menageriekeeper does not violate the exegetical rule of context here. Methinks you're mistaken on this point.

 

This may be the dumbest thing I've ever seen (and that's saying a lot for av1611.org).

Not once do they try to explain what's wrong with the artist or song. They just try to condemn the Christian artist by associating them with a mainstream artist whom they have nothing to do with.

In many cases, the "test" gets it's facts wrong in implying that the Christian band covered the mainstream band.

In the case of "God Gave Rock and Roll to You", "Jesus is Just Alright", "Nobody's Fault but Mine", it's simply a case of each band covering an already popular song, independently of one another. There is nothing wrong with that.

Rather than simply saying that a song is bad or an artist is bad because of something another, unrelated artist did, explain what is wrong with that song or artist.

In the case of "Big Yellow Taxi", they resprt to flat out dihonesty by claiming that the lyrics are "New Age". But in the lyrics they cite, clearly, there's nothing "New Age" about it.

We've debated and debunked these idiots' arguments many times in the music forums.

Now Playing:Taj Mahal - "Senior Blues"

 

Frenchy's scripture quotes:
Music That Pleases The Lord (My responses in italics)

1Cor 5:13, says, "It came to pass as the trumpets and singers were as one, to make one sound to be heard in PRAISING and THANKING the Lord. When they lifted up their voices with the trumpets and instruments of music PRAISING the Lord for he is good."

Also most of Psalms; Psalms 81:1, Psalms 95:1, Nu 21:17, 2 Cron 20:22, Ezr 3:11, Mark 14:26, Acts 16:25, Rev 5:9 and so many more.

No mention of genre. Worship music should be God-centered. Fine. One question...what scripture did you mean when you put "1 Cor. 5:13"? That's not what it says. I think you made a typo.


Again 1 Cor 14:33, "for God is not the author of confusion, but of peace as in all the churches of the saints" Rock and rap and punk music do not promote peace.
Gal 5:22-23 "The fruit of the spirit is love, joy, PEACE, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and SELF CONTROL"

1 Cor 14 has to do with tongues and interpretation. This is out of context. The "fruits" passage? Absolutely. I teach all of our worship leaders...it ain't about YOU. Good lesson for a hymn-meister or cutting edge rocker.

Phil 4:8, "And the PEACE of God which passes all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds throguh Jesus Christ. Finally bretheren whatever is true, honest, just, pure, lovely, of good report, if there be any virtue and praise, THINK ON THESE THINGS"
Absolutely! And this passage proves that a song set to a good rhythm is evil...how?

Much more to post, but gotta run...back later.