Michael Smith, Amy Grant, Carman, Sandi Patti, and more....

Who is NEW JERUSALEM MINISTRIES?

I did not see alot of factual things about the singers or the bands. I seen one persons opinion, and I did see some things taken out of context and used against them. Some bands will tell you themselves the only way they could get a label was through a Christian label company. Look at the band Chevelle. But they tell you that straight up.

I think it is up to the listener. Not all CCM is bad. Not all hymn singers are saved. Not all Country western is right or good or bad. Not all opera is good.

A person just has to use good judgement. And like anything else you check it out first.

Sherrie

 

This would all be funny if people weren't falling for it.

 

I remember when Amy Grant crossed over in her singing and started wearing really tight clothes, dancing, and making very sexual moves in her concerts.

I also remember when Sandi Patti was committing adultery.

If those two things are factual; I would tend to believe the rest of it is too.

Thank you for sharing SheEagle. That study backed up what I have been saying all along.


Sue

 

I don't know about this site posted, but I have heard of New Jerusalem something-or-whatever, so I doubt the motive of the one who began this thread.

For those who have looked at it-- did they include or exclude King David and his harplaying and dancing down to his skivvies when the ark was brought in? and tell how that must have led to his adultery?

 

There's a thread from a long time ago in which I debunked this piece of garbage. I'm too tired to find it now and I'm not inclined to do it again because I've found that those who want to condemn rock music will latch onto just about anything.

 

I am not impressed. This article mixes truth with a
lot of conjecture as well as throwing in names and
ideas which have nothing to do with their subjects.
The whole thing is a very poor excuse for a
convincing writing and, to top it all off, more
gossip, more garbage than anyone needs to think
about. I also do not like the fact that the hooked
Keith Green in with their gossip by quoting him.

We all know about the affairs, but they are in the
past. To bring them up again and again is just
plain wrong. We who do not care for the actions
of some of these people simply do not buy or
listen t theeir music -- simple as that.

And in my opinion, some of these have been
falsely accused, just because the writer doesn't
like a particular type of music.

Simply put, I didn't like it.

But I love you guys. 8o)

 

I look at the singer's lifestyle. If it is unGodly; I don't want to hear his/her music.

JMO
Sue

 

No, SheEagle! I never said that I doubt YOUR
motives! NEVER! And I don't! I think your motives
are as pure as pure. What I doubt is the article-
writer's motives. I think that the article-writer
stretched truth beyond its limit by adding things
in, by conjecture, and by calling things sin which
are not sin (the verbage of some, for example).

When I said that we need to drop the subject, I
intended the fact that it has been gone over time
and again with that proverbial "fine-toothed comb,"
talked about on radio and TV, talked out on radio
talk shows, talked about in churches, written in
papers of all sorts, and I think it is time for such
people to give it a rest. We know all there is to
know, and their articles can add nothing more to
our knowledge of the sins of some mentioned. It
is now just gossip.

Those of us who find what some of them did to be
attrocious speak to them financially -- we simply
do not support them or buy their music. Money
speaks loudly.

No, I don't condone their sins. I just think it is
time to move on away from the subject. It is worn
out. But when such persons try anew to horn their
ways into our lives, we can tell them to "back off;
we remember, and we do not trust you."

I think, though, that some in that article were
definitely treated unfairly, and that is a shame. It
is deliberate gossip, just because the article-
writer does not like a genre of music. Shame. I
believe the article-writer will be judged for that,
and I think judgment for such things should begin
right here.

As far as the occult symbol goes, I was shocked
years ago, when driving up to my children's new
school, that the children were using the sign. When
I expressed my concern, my daughter said, "Oh,
Mom! That is not a devil sign! That is an American
Sign language signal!" I found that most people
there thought the same thing, but they were doing
it wrong -- a simple position of the thumb.

I would hate to fault an innocent person I did not
know and could not talk to for such an error. I
once had a pastor who used to point with his
middle finger. I have also heard wonderful
believers use language that was vulgar, because
they were innocent and did not know it was vulgar.

As far as the design on Carman's album, does
the article-writer think that the artists design their
labels? That is crazy. Artists are hired by the
recordeing company, the design is made, and it is
hardly even passed by the singer. And if the
singer has no idea about any particular ancient
runic font, all the singer is going to see is their
name. I was in the occult for years, and I never
would have noticed the few letters from that font,
because my branch of the occult did not deal with
the font.

SheEagle, I have nothing negative to say to you
about your motives for the article. I simply found
the article itself to be extremely faulty.

 

I personally find sites such as this, "dirt sites" kind of like the tabloids, always trying to find even one little fault or piece of dirt on singers they personally don't approve of to make a lame point. It's not fully possible to "know" a singers lifestyle unless you live with them or at least see them often, otherwise you are leaning on the opinions and hear say which is nothing but gossip. Plus, I don't doubt for a moment that these singers have faults and sin in thier lives, they aren't perfect just like we aren't, if we are looking for a clean record to gain qualification to serve God ...well you'll never be able to serve.

Singers have been misquoted so many times and people use what they say against them to so called "prove a point" about their personal opinions of music...sorry folks that won't hold up.

karen

ps. Sherri...thank you for your imput

 

If you don't have a bias, wouldn't a better idea be to post a pro CCM article to go with it?

Then you should know that the writer isn't telling the truth when he says that Michael English didn't repent for his adultery.

He repented very publically and even gave back the Dove Awards he had just won. It was a very big deal when it happened.

You should also know that English didn't start out opening for Foeigner, as the article says, he started out singing in Southern Gospel groups.

Even if he had, the article says that this is "proof" that he was unrepentant about his affair.

That doesn't make sense. How can doing something before you sin show that you're unrepentant of that sin you haven't even committed yet?

It also classifies him and First Call as "rock" artists.

Nothing could be further from the truth. (Nor are Carman and Sandi Patti or "Patty", as she now prefers, "rock").

English was a Michael Bolton clone and First Call was a cheap ripoff of The Manhattan Transfer. Neither of which are rock.

I think the guy's inability to understand genres in itself takes away from his credibility.

I agree. I lived in Nashville in the Belmont area and my brother lives there now. We can both tell you a lot of juicy insider stuff.

The problem is, not matter how impeccable the source, it's still just rumor if they can't back it up. This writer doesn't back his facts up.

I also think it's desperation on the part of the article to try to condemn Amy Grant as a "Gospel singer", when she hasn't been a gospel artist for more than ten years, now.

Likewise, it's really scraping the bottom of the barrel to make his case when he brings up Stryper, who disbanded more than ten years ago.

As for Michael W. Smith, he does talk about God quite a bit in his shows and a good chunk of time during the show is devoted to worship.

Furthermore, Smith gave an alter call and showed video clips of Billy Graham presenting the Gospel.

The writer condemns Smith's album, "I'll Lead You Home" for not mentioning Jesus, never bothering to acknowedge all of the hymns which are considered classics in the churchs which don't mention Jesus. The lyrics on the album are more than clear to the audience Smith is singing to, as well as anyone over he age of eight.

I know this to be true because my pastor and I and several others from our church were among the volunteers who counseled the kids who came forward. Clearly the writer is lying when he says that Smith Doesn't mention God. Even if Smith didn't say a word, all but a couple of his songs are about God.

I would also point the writer to Smith's current tour, which is greatly scaled down and contains nearly all worship music.

The writer condemns Smith's use of backward writing and the "Runic alphabet", never bothering to explain how he knows that these things were done with the sinister intent he implies or how he knows that they're not just coincidence.

Injecting humor into the article, the writer explains that the only people who know abot the "Runic alphabet" are those involved in the occult, begging the question, how does he know about it, then?

The writer condemns mith's album, "Change Your World" for not mentioning Jesus but never bothers to mention that it's not a Gospel album.

The article takes a reviewer's thoughts and applies them to the people attending the show to make it look as though they're "worshipping" MWS. The people in the crowd never said that MWS was "the greatest, bar none", that was a reviewer's words and, gven the context, I think it's safe to say that he was speaking of musical preference.

He then goes on to attack the members of DC Talk because a third party compared the fan enthusiasm at their shows with the Beatles. This is just plain deceptive.

He also goes on to condemn their use of the song, "Jesus is Just Alright (With Me)" for it's use of the word "alright".

What he fails to mention is, at the tme this song was written, "alright" was a slange word used to mean good. Given the context the word is used in, the song is clearly praising Jesus, not belittling Him, as the writer would have you believe.

He also mentions Kevin Smith's being expelled from Liberty U for drinking. That's not exactly news. Smith has talked about his struggles with alcohol quite a bit and has even included poems about his dependency on Christ to overcome his dependency on alcohol in his books.

Incidentally, I thought it was really disingenuous of the writer to condemn Amy Grant because of her husband's history of drug abuse, as though she were somehow responsible for that.

I also thought it was dishonest of the writer to bring up Gary Chapman's history of drug abuse without mentioning that he's been more tha forthcoming about it or that anyone who's seen him kive knows that that's a powerful part of his testimony.

The writer tries to condemn Point of Grace by associating them with 70's R&B group, Earth Wind & Fire. This is blatantly dihonest.

There is no connection between the two, other than that Point Of Grace covered EW&F's "Sing a Song" and the writer never explains why that should be objectionable.

He also claims that they've sung "Crazy Train" (by the way, in the article, he falsely claims that Ozzy Osbourne is a Satanist. Not true.) and Do Ya' Think I'm Sexy".

I've only seen them a couple of times, so I can't say what they did in other shows, but they didn't do these any of the times I've seen them and the songs don't appear on any of their albums.

Given the style of music that these girls do and the tendency of the writer to exagerate and, frankly, lie, I have to assume that this isn't true.

Yes and no. First of all, with the exception of Point of Grace, none of these people are "ministers".

Second, inasfar as Swaggart and Bakker being restored? Yes. But there's still the issue of their doctrine to deal with.

What occult symbols?

The only evidence he gave was a picture of some fans. Why blame the band for what the fans do?

Besides, how does he know that they mean it as a "Satanic salute"?

In Texas, it's the sign of a popular football team. It's also how a catcher signals two outs to the outfielders. Are Mike Lieberthal and Gary Carter now Satanists? C'mon.

We should also hold the writer of this article to that same standard. He fails miserably.

I wouldn't say anything goes, but I do believe we need to examine the music on it's own merits.

Yes. The article doesn't demonstrate that any of these people are "wolves". If I didn't know better, I'd think it was written by the folks at landoverbaptist.com.

[ March 02, 2003, 04:52 PM: Message edited by: Mike McK ]

 

With regard to using such symbols, I think we need
to be careful -- both the critics and the ones being
criticized.

When I listen to music, I rarely watch the
performers' videos. In fact, it has been years since
I have seen one, so I have nothing I can say about
them. However, there is thin line between showing
such signs in order to get the story across and
using them in such a way that the conscience
should be pricked. I also believe that each person
has (should have!!) a line they will not cross, and
your line is different from mine.

For example, I have no books in my house about
the occult. No books by satanists, no books by
psychologists, no books by believers that are
about it. None. As a result, some people think I
have gone way overboard in my stand and that I
have chosen ignorance. Well, 8o) , that is fine. I
have a line that I will not cross, and my line is no
books about the occult, no movies, no statues, no
amulets, no art which have anything to do with the
occult. (If you had been where I have been, you
would have likely made the same choice.

However, it is not my place to condemn people for
having, for example, books in their homes written
for and by believers in order to educate
themselves. They should have the books; I should
not.

When Carman wanted to depict satanism in his
video, in order to make the message come across,
I would imagine he did use some things people
would not normally use. Carman is more likely
to do this out of ignorance than out of knowledge.
People may not like him, but that gives them no
right to condemn him as a satanist, as knowingly
leading children astray, etc.

Many people who are ignorant of the occult ways
but horrified by them and desireous of teaching
others really don't know how to handle them well.
I have seen some tracts in churches which had
no business being there. While they were against
the occult, I, as one experienced in the occult,
could see that the tracts were more damaging than
good, because they were likely to cause curiosity
than to push someone away from the occult.
Should I condemn the church? No. But I did advise
them. Did they take my advice? No. 8o)

One last thing. Many people do no realize that the
Star of David is also used in the occult. However,
it is not used as a free star: it is encircled when
used as an occult sign. A lot of people at my
synagogue do not know that, so I have
occasionally mentioned it. I would never condemn
someone for wearing one, until I learned their
motive. I would instruct them, though.

 

The sad thing about this web site is most of it is probably true. Thousands, maybe millions of God's people are deceived by many so-called gospel singers and preachers, but on the other hand, there are many singers and preachers who really love the Lord.

 

But that is the problem, Eph: it is not true. It is a
genuine mix of lies and truth -- a tool satan often
uses.

 

EPH, sadly but truthly these site people need to get day jobs instead of rooting around for things that don't exsist and are meaningless to our lives. If something is wrong with a particular singer and God doesn't want you to listen to it then God himself should convict you, not gossip on some soap site.

Just keep that in mind when you read these sites, and always know there are two sides to every story and the web site only provides one side not to mention a second hand knowlege of that side.

Karen

 

Not being all that familiar with Michael W. Smith's current stuff, I stumbled across this accidentally.

The article mentions two of his albums that don't mention Jesus (one of them being a minstream album and the other still bearing Christian themes) but is anyone here aware that Smith's last two albums were two complete albums of worship material?

A little disingenuous that the writer of the essay fails to mention that.

 

I saw MWS at Creation last year, and almost his entire set was worship songs. But hey, lets not let facts interrupt a good story.