I Want to Be a Clone

The critics jump all over this, claiming it "denigrates the church with impunity" as one put it.
But these were legitimate concerns, being that the church in the past did have problems with precisely these things: forcing itself, and making people clones (not of Christ, but of human ideas of what a Christian should be). They were making statements ABOUT the church of a particular time and place; not attacking the universal Body of Christ or its mission or message. But any mention/reference in the songs or interviews of legalism, Phariseeism, excessive rules, and even the somber sound of much of the music, is condemned as an attack on "biblical holiness", or the church itself. There isn't the slightest thought that maybe there is something to what these young Christians are saying; that the past wasn't so biblical and pure. (And legalism is redefined by them as only "adding works to God's grace", or "doing things to gain God's favor", ignoring that it also means a preoccupation with rules, and being so quick to judge other believers on issues like this, not even dealing with the issue of whether or not all the rules are even biblical).

 

I like the "Rainy Day Women #12 & 35" reference at the end.

Who is it?

 

When I saw the title to this post, and saw Mike wrote it, I thought, good Lord would you really do this to us? A clone of Mike?

I think it would be better to clone with Godliness than top be a clone of the world. That's what these verses are about.

 

well, at least in some sense we're all to be the same:

Rom 15:6 That ye may with one mind [and] one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

2Cr 13:11 Finally, brethren, farewell. Be perfect, be of good comfort, be of one mind, live in peace; and the God of love and peace shall be with you.

Phl 1:27 Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ: that whether I come and see you, or else be absent, I may hear of your affairs, that ye stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel;

Phl 2:2 Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, [being] of one accord, of one mind.

1Pe 3:8 Finally, [be ye] all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, [be] pitiful, [be] courteous:

----

of course, then we have verses like:

Rom 14:1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, [but] not to doubtful disputations.
Rom 14:2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
Rom 14:3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.
Rom 14:4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.
Rom 14:5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day [alike]. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

---

so, when are we to submit to one another so that we can have "one mind"? when are we to stand alone, "fully persuaded in our own mind"?

 

What is the purpose of a song like this? My statement was what I got out of it. So, do you have to explain this song, so I'll get it? Common problem to someone trying to state what they think and have it come across as the message intended.

 

Olive,

It's the cavil of a wanton soul who isn't interested in submitting to ecclesiastical authority or teaching. He wants to do what's right in his own eyes and live the way he wants to and call it a "personal conviction."

 

Maybe you can clarify what it is we don't "get" without a snide remark, and without assuming we've read it sometime over the past year and a half of your posts. You are also coming across as one who loves to degrade those that point out things we would love to have you at least consider which are told to you for a benefit, not out of antagonism.

 

You didn't really quit replying to my questions, did you Mike? Come on, be a sport

 

Love that song!

I've thought of it many times throughout my time here on BaptistBoard.

I'm a Steve Taylor fan from way back in the mid-80s.

 

Because "ecclesiastical authority" had deviated greatly, teaching hatred of others, rigidity, ridiculous unbiblical rules such as no beards and mustaches, etc. and Arminian and Calvinist alike, a Pelagian understanding of sin and righteousness.
It's ironic that the same fundamentalists who continually railed against the "ecclesiastical authority" of Rome would themselves become oppressive and domineering and then appeal to "ecclesiastical authority" when their 'subjects' began revolting against their system.
Another such double standard was criticizing these kids for being "anti-establishment" when the fundamentalists themselves were the biggest critics of "the establishment" when it "threw God out of society" and otherwise diminished the influence of the church.

 

Whaddya know, yet another not so thinly veiled accustaion of sin leveled once again by our "friendly moderator". You certainly have established yourself as a moral and intellectual authority here.

I wonder if you ever honestly take a look at any of the contradictions you present us with on a regular basis. Here's one that applies well to this thread. When I asked the question What is my sin?, your initial reaction indicated that I was honest in my convictions even though mistaken.

To be exact, your words were: "This has nothing to do with judging him personally. I believe Travelsong when he says he thinks there is no right or wrong in music. He is therefore acting sincerely when he listens to rock."

One would assume from this statement that I indeed do not know what my sin is, and therefore my question is not at all leading or divisive. But of course, true to form, you switch tactics when it suits your purposes and you finally resort to changing your position entirely.By the end of the thread you turned right back into the same old finger pointing legalist that you are with this statement:"In fact, that kind of thinking (the kind that says something must be explicitly forbidden before it can be judged as fleshly) indicates not one who is concerned with God's perfect will, but one who is concerned more with his own will. It is much like the kid in my sixth-grade class who, when the teacher said "Stop talking," whispered, "She didn't say anything about laughing!" Of course I thought that was funny and we both were sent to the principal's office. Guess how much weight that little quip carried with the principal.The truth is, we knew what the teacher really meant.

So ultimately people on our side of the argument aren't honest about our convictions are we? We're all just running around exploiting technicalities as an excuse to live our lives the way we want to right? Steve Taylor isn't honest, his is a wanton soul.That about the sum of things?

I never asked anyone to show that rock and roll is exlpicitly forbidden in The Bible. In fact, I made the case that there are numerous sinful acts which aren't specifically mentioned in Scripture, but that we can and do indeed apply Scriptural priciples to demonstrate their immorality (pornography, abortion, smoking crack etc. etc.).

I have known plenty of professing Christians in my life who were indistinguishable from the world outside of church. I have even approached some of them about it. But you know what? I never once hid behind vague general statements of condmenation like "You are living in the flesh". It was their actions that revealed their sin.It was their words and deeds that demonstrated they were living in the flesh.I am not such a coward (and more importantly I care enough for a brother or sister living in sin) that I won't address their specific sins when I rebuke them. I wonder why it is that you fail to care enough for your brothers and sisters in Christ that you refuse to demonstrate just what sin they are engaging in by enjoying CCM?

[ March 15, 2003, 05:52 PM: Message edited by: Travelsong ]

 

So, Travel, what type of clone are you?