MMF - Christian rock is not evil

I like CCM music. I am not sure which song you are referring to by Carman but I do have problems with the theological content of many of his songs. Such as "Holy Ghost Hop" and "Stomp". I like many of his songs but even CCM magazine has been a critic of his often weak and questionable theology in many of his songs.

 

just some insight...

Notice what it is all coming down to after all of that fighting over Christian rock?

We are starting to look at the induvidual artists and each of their songs.

Just as we can not simply judge an induvidual by its denomination we cannot judge a song by its genre.

UNP, Adam

 

Amen, Adam

 

Go back and look how Carman portrays Jesus as a gang leader who is crucified on a pole and then stabbed with a knife. His lifeless body is then thrown into a rubbish heap which blazes with light. Read the lyrics of "Revival in the land," and "Resurrection Rap." If Carman portrayed Mohammed and Allah in this type of way, with this type of reverence (irreverence), he would be immediately tried under the blasphemy laws of Pakistan (if living there), be found guilty, and handed the death sentence. Why are Christians so blinded?
DHK

[ November 07, 2001: Message edited by: DHK ]

 

DHK,

I don't like Carman's music or some the doctrinal stands that he takes but when he does a song like this ine or "The Champion", he's really not doing anything less than what Jesus did when He told parables.

 

< Why are Christians so blinded? >

If you discover the answer, blind man, let us know. In the meantime, the things I do and say would be capital offenses in Pakistan. And definitely the things said by Paul, Peter, and the rest of those guys would be condemned by the Islamic filth there. Brilliant argument.

 

When you look at music, according to the Bible, it is to have only one purpose, to edify God. It is not to edify the flesh. I have seen him in concert and it was not very edifying of God, more showy.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Smoke_Eater:
DHK,

I don't like Carman's music or some the doctrinal stands that he takes but when he does a song like this ine or "The Champion", he's really not doing anything less than what Jesus did when He told parables.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't understand this statement.

Are you saying 1) that storytelling was the most popular form of performance arts in 1st century Palestine, and that therefore Jesus was merely using the convention of the day, or 2) that Jesus sang and danced the parables to jazzy music?

Both would be wrong.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by James123:
When you look at music, according to the Bible, it is to have only one purpose, to edify God. It is not to edify the flesh.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then why is man made stronger with music? Or made faster, or more controlled? Or emotional?

In Rick Wakeman's Gone but Not Forgotten, you can't help but be brought in on his absolutely harmonic tones. Or King Crimson's One Time where when listening to it, you can't help but feel your body being transported onto a heavenly sonic plain.

But what louder music? Louder music provides adreniline for man. A medicine of survival. I know before any of my races, I listen to Sirius by Alan Parsons followed by Sabotage by the Beastie Boys. That is of course after listening to Def Leppards Do you Wanna Get Rocked. It envigorates the soul. It heightens your awareness.

Are all these reactions a tool of satan or just part of God's design in man?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by redwhitenblue:
I seen Carman in concert seveal times and it's always been a very godly concert and very edifying. DHK, I know I'm defending him hard here and there really is no need to but I don't believe there is anything wrong with the way he portrays Jesus at all, I think it's great in fact because he can help even gang members grasp the concept of what Jesus really did for them on the cross and the sacrifice he made.

I really like the creativity he uses and the originality.

karen<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do we judge music on the basis of its creativity and originality? Are these the criteria for good godly music? Do we drag the gospel down to the level of a sinful culture, or do we try and bring the person out of a sinful culture and elevate him to the level of the glorious gospel? Using this line of reason would you, in taking the gospel to some pedophiles hooked on pornography portray Christ and his disciples in the nude, much as Hustler Magazine would dare attempt to do? Do we put the gospel into gutter-language, portray it as filth, blasphmening the name of the Lord? Or, do we present the glorious gospel of Christ in all of its power and simplicity, as Paul did, with the purpose in mind of bringing the individual out of their sinful culture? "Come out from among them and be ye separate saith the Lord, and I will receive you."

DHK

[ November 08, 2001: Message edited by: DHK ]

 

&lt; Why are Christians so blinded? &gt;
If you discover the answer, blind man, let us know. In the meantime, the things I do and say would be capital offenses in Pakistan. And definitely the things said by Paul, Peter, and the rest of those guys would be condemned by the Islamic filth there. Brilliant argument.

The answer, Rockfort, is found in what the Bible says: “The blind lead the blind, and they both fall into the pit.” The pit is worldliness, which apparently you have quite a bit of. To refer to any group of people, whether by nation, religion, ethnic origin, or however classified, as “filth,” is wrong. You need to apologize. If you don’t, that only shows to this board, and to all that read it, the level of your own spirituality. The Apostles DID go to such nations. Granted, Islam did not exist then. But the Jewish nation itself was just as hard on those that converted to Christianity. Consider what Saul was doing before he got saved. The Romans were very cruel to the Christians. Read up on the history of Nero and the following emperors. Every one of the Apostles were martyred for their faith, save one, and he was exiled. They carried the gospel far and wide—to the known reaches of the world at that time. Thomas went to India, of which Pakistan was a part of at that time. There he was martyred. Yes, if you stand up for your faith, and say what you ought to say openly in a land like Pakistan you may be condemned. That wasn’t the point I was making. The point was one of reverence. Not too long ago a movie came out depicting Jesus Christ in a very irreverent way. The biggest opposition to that movie came from the Muslims. Christian ought to be ashamed of themselves! Muslims have a respect, not only for their god, their prophet, but for all the prophets. Christ is one of their prophets, and they were upset to see one of their prophets denigrated in such a fashion. But our weak-kneed, spineless, apathetic Christians, who care more about the world than they do about their Saviour, did nothing!
What a shame!
DHK

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DHK:
Using this line of reason would you, in taking the gospel to some pedophiles hooked on pornography portray Christ and his disciples in the nude, much as Hustler Magazine would dare attempt to do? Do we put the gospel into gutter-language, portray it as filth, blasphmening the name of the Lord? Or, do we present the glorious gospel of Christ in all of its power and simplicity, as Paul did, with the purpose in mind of bringing the individual out of their sinful culture? "Come out from among them and be ye separate saith the Lord, and I will receive you."

DHK

[ November 08, 2001: Message edited by: DHK ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thought the gospel was supposed to be shared. Sometimes, don't you need to translate the bible into a language so it can be understood? The bible doesn't need to be portrayed as something beautiful. The bible is holy. Nothing you do to portray the bible can make it any better than it already is.

So are you better off to share the bible in a language that people can appreciate and then grow to love your Lord or are you willing to try a vain attempt at trying to keep a certain view of the Holy Book that can not be changed in the first place. Your effort is to make the book holy. It is already holy. It doesn't need you for that.

Aren't you better off to take the bible down into the sewer and bring out five people on the way back up rather than walking the streets and ignoring those in the sewer? The bible will always be holy no matter how it is portrayed. However, how many people are saved by the bible is strictly up to how you are willing to help save eternal lives. You are viewing the Bible as an idol, a mortal sin. The Bible is a tool to set souls free from satan. It can be used anyway that is necessary to meet that goal.

 

“I thought the gospel was supposed to be shared. Sometimes, don't you need to translate the bible into a language so it can be understood? “
--I share the gospel, not only in my language but also in Urdu and Punjabi when I have opportunity to go to Pakistan and preach the gospel there. Yes, we share the gospel; preach the gospel; translate the gospel—all so that it can be understood.

“Aren't you better off to take the bible down into the sewer and bring out five people on the way back up rather than walking the streets and ignoring those in the sewer?”
I take the gospel into the farthest reaches of the world, into some of the worst conditions of the world, including those whose lives are stuck in poverty and living “off the street,” and “by the sewer.” The glorious gospel doesn’t change. Not when I preach it at least. When Carmen sings about it, it changes. That’s where this discussion originated. We don’t need a paganized sewerized, filthy gospel. We need the glorious gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ brought down to those that are in need.
In light of my previous post mentioning pornography, just what were you suggesting?
DHK

 

Hey Dr. Bob,
A new thread, same topic, and already you need to give a couple 2 minute penalties for roughing,

I am not a big fan of Carman, I really don't know much about his theology, or his presentation, other than having heard a couple songs.

I tend to agree with Adam, You can't make blanket statements about any musician based on Carman, or Stryper, or Bill Gaither or any other member of a genre.

You have to evaluate music for what it is, not for who wrote it, or where it was first sung, or what record company produced the first recording. In most cases, the music written in the distant past cannot be judged using the character or theology of the writer, so we have to simply evaluate it based on the merits of the song itself. Modern music should be treated no differently. Unfortunately, the stigma of CCM has become so great in many circles that it has become a legalistic issue.

Before you jump on me for mislabeling legalism hear me out. The logical progression goes something like this.

Salvation is by faith alone
True Christians show forth good fruit & live holy lives
(fill in the blank) can't possibly be Holy
If you do (fill in the blank), and are unrepentant, I would have to question genuine salvation.

We are right back to using Man's judgement to decide if someone looks saved or not, and music is one area I think that gets lumped right in there. We look at someones life, and use the statement "Well I can't see their heart, but..." to "prove" we aren't legalists, but all the while, really are in our outlook on the lives of others viewed through a man-centered foggy lens called "Holy Living"

The Bible says a lot of things that can be clearly equated with Holy living. Not listening to Bill Gaither is not one of them!


There are practical considerations, but very few hard boudaries when it comes to musical selection IMHO So if I want to jam for Jesus, why shouldn't I

 

My daughter likes very, very hard "christian" music. The problem I have with the music she likes (POD-for one) is that the music absolutely lacks humility. The young men are screaming in an angry voice, even though they may be "singing" about how gracious the lord has been to them. If I stood on the corner with a guitar and began to sing Amazing Grace in a civilized, and loving tone, I may draw people into listening to the message, and at the very least, encourage christian passers-by. But if I sang in the tone my daughter so much admires, I would most definetly repel people. I think as people we have different tastes, and we all want our entertainment to fall within our preferences.
The problem is, our actions must be purposeful. Entertainment solely for the sake of entertainment is folly. Folly is one of the selfish sins, and is weakening the body of Christ.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jimgosciniak:
My daughter likes very, very hard "christian" music. The problem I have with the music she likes (POD-for one) is that the music absolutely lacks humility. The young men are screaming in an angry voice, even though they may be "singing" about how gracious the lord has been to them. If I stood on the corner with a guitar and began to sing Amazing Grace in a civilized, and loving tone, I may draw people into listening to the message, and at the very least, encourage christian passers-by. But if I sang in the tone my daughter so much admires, I would most definetly repel people. I think as people we have different tastes, and we all want our entertainment to fall within our preferences.
The problem is, our actions must be purposeful. Entertainment solely for the sake of entertainment is folly. Folly is one of the selfish sins, and is weakening the body of Christ.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But the people it would repel are already "with the lord". Meanwhile your daughter could be lost. So why is it so bad? Besides, anger is a natural emotion. Without anger there can be no justice. Without anger, there can be no love.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DHK:
[QB]We don’t need a paganized sewerized, filthy gospel. We need the glorious gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ brought down to those that are in need.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The gospels are glorious on their own measure. You are trying to act as god, but you can't. You can burn the bible, but it still remains holy. You want to project the majesty of the book. Others want to project the majesty of the word.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In light of my previous post mentioning pornography, just what were you suggesting?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Huh? I didn't make any mention on pornography. Would be a bit tough to promote the word of god through pornography.