is this use of "Christian love songs" valid?

[nodak]

The strangest debates sometimes come up in Bible studies, and here is a new one to me:

Some say they deliberately choose the "Jesus is my boyfriend" songs so that unbelievers can participate enthusiastically. That if they sing the old hymns (or new hymns, for that matter) or gospel songs that are full of theology, or conversion put to music, or calls to be born again, the unbelievers will feel like they cannot fully participate.

The thought is that you get them in church, maybe even get them to join. Get them to start cleaning up their lives. Get them "fully invested" whatever that means, and then hope that some way some how they will be born again.

Root idea is that unbelievers can somehow drift into salvation rather than actually come to a definite time of salvation.

What think ye?

 

[just-want-peace]

The strangest debates sometimes come up in Bible studies, and here is a new one to me:

Some say they deliberately choose the "Jesus is my boyfriend" songs so that unbelievers can participate enthusiastically. That if they sing the old hymns (or new hymns, for that matter) or gospel songs that are full of theology, or conversion put to music, or calls to be born again, the unbelievers will feel like they cannot fully participate.

The thought is that you get them in church, maybe even get them to join. Get them to start cleaning up their lives. Get them "fully invested" whatever that means, and then hope that some way some how they will be born again.

Root idea is that unbelievers can somehow drift into salvation rather than actually come to a definite time of salvation.

What think ye?

Balderdash!!!!!! Bovine excrement!!! Crap!!!!!!:tongue3:

Can you just imagine the reaction of a group of Hell's Angel types to this??
Sure, there may be a small - SMALL - percentage that would react positively, but then those would not be interested in this truth anyway!
This thinking says the ends justify the means - very liberal sounding.
If they can't come up with a better solution than this, would be best to pass on the singing and stay with proven scripture.

 

[evenifigoalone]

I don't think that's how it works...
I actually have nothing against those types of songs. I think they're just as correct and powerful for worship.
But unbelievers are not going to be drawn in by worship because they don't know God.

The situation I can see the song drawing an unbeliever in--THEORETICALLY--is they know and like the song and seeing it used in relation to God makes them curious. The songs reflect that God is a personal God and one who you directly have a relationship with--they may not have realized that before. Most unbelievers seem to view God in a very impersonal and far off way.

 

[annsni]

Our songs are to glorify God. Period. It's not for the congregation's edification although the congregation can have their hearts and minds brought nearer to God through worship. It's just that is not the purpose for what we sing.

 

[nodak]

annsni--I'm going to gently challenge you with something:

For many of us old time (whatever our age)Baptists the church service is most definitely not for "worship" offered to God--that is pure paganism. It is not a time to draw close and "experience" God--that is pure Pentecostalism. It is a time for the proclamation of the gospel, in song, prayer, teaching, and preaching.

Period.

 

[sag38]

Nodak, I would suggest it is all three. There is worship. There is experience. And, there is proclamation, and not strictly the gospel, but the proclamation of the entire council of God's word.

How can you call worship, "paganism" and a desire to experience the presence of God, "pure Pentecostalism?" You have a very limited and un-Biblical view of what a church service is all about.