What is music?

For days now I have been observing this back-and-forth between Travelsong and DHK. My heart has also been grieved. Instead of spirited debate(such as occurs between Aaron and Travel), there has been the use of caustic attack.

I had hoped that Dr. Bob would step in an urge DHK to back off. Unfortunately, the opposite occurred. Dr. Bob defended DHK. The rhetoric has continued to this day.

Here are some observations:

DHK...why do you appear to be so angry? Yes, I know the Bible says to be angry and sin not, and you have appeared to cross that line. Do you have some underlying unresolved conflict in your life that is spewing out in your interactions with your fellow man? Do you hope to circumvent the book of James where we are told that the wrath of man does not work the righteousness of God? I just don't get what you hope to accomplish.

Travel...do you think it is time to walk away for the sake of your own testimony? Will you get pushed to the line and cross it and display a similar anger that that DHK appears to be manifesting? When is enough enough?

Guys...either knock it off or return to civility. This is a lousy testimony to anyone who happens to be unsaved. This is an offense to me and many of my fellow Christians on the board. No, we are not a bunch of self-righteous hypocrites. We have plenty of faults, too.

We just know that faithful are the wounds of a friend, but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.

I've been called to task for my foolishness on this board. I don't have a record of pristine behavior on this board. Far from it. I am just asking you men to consider your ways and seek the Holy Spirit as to the Biblical response, action, and attitude. If I were acting like this I would want to be challenged to knock it off for the sake of the testimony of Christ.

Dr. Bob....when one of your moderators is wrong he is wrong. Regain the respect of the members of this board by doing the right thing and rebuking the offending parties in the spirit of meekness.

May God be glorified.

[ September 13, 2005, 12:58 PM: Message edited by: Daniel ]

 

I'm merely frustrated. You can see that my post count is rather small for the length of time I've been registered here. My time is valuable to me. I come to this site to fellowship and debate, not to find sin in those I disagree with, so naturally I seek to stamp this kind of nonsense out and get the dialogue progressing in a positive manner.

Your point is well taken. I believe I have established my case, and barring further provocation I'll leave it at that.

 

Be wise, my brother in any future response. You have an opportunity to show what Christlikeness looks like to all of us who travel the pages of this board.

 

When debate about an issue arises, the CCM crowd gets emotionally involved, and sometimes downright angry becasue their toes get stepped on when spirtual truth is presented.
Lets start over and see what happens.

Biblical Teaching:
According to 2Cor.6:14-17 it is wrong to have association with the wicked. The Bible says to make no alliances with them, "to come out from among them and be se separte saith the Lord." Those are not my words. They are God's. He also says in the same chapter: "Be not unequally yoked together with unbelievers, for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness."
Having put forth that Biblical truth, I asked these simple questions which put me under fire:

Is it right therefore to sing "Christian music" sung by Elvis Presley, a drug addict?
Is it right, therefore, to sing "Christian music," sung by Marsha Stevens, a Lesbian?
Would it be right to sing Christian music by Michael Jackson (if he had any), being a sexual pervert?
Is it right to sing "Christian Music" by that rapper we were discussing, though the song was imitating a song based on someone's rear end and sex?

Some of you incredibly said yes, the association doesn't matter. That is where Dr. Bob stepped in, saying that if you think it is ok to associate your music with a Lesbian you will have two people jumping down your throats.

Association is important.
The person that sings the message is important.
Why? He represents the message; he is the ambassador for the king.
Yet, you still disagree. This where Travelsong and others are all upset about. This is where it started. Why all the uncivil accusations, when you seem to actually agree with people who are so ungodly??
DHK

 

I'm not in the CCM crowd. I own a total of about 15 albums which could be considered CCM. I believe most of it is nothing more than mindless oppurtunistic marketing. I do not think CCM is appropriate for worship in church. Of course I've stated all of this before many times.

These are all good questions but they don't address the nature of music which is what the current discussion is centered on. Drug addiction and sexual immorality are actions of the heart. They are not music.

Actually, what was said is that the person singing does not make the music sinful. There is an important distinction here. While it is certainly a poor testimony to endorse the music of a lesbian who claims to be a Christian, we must be clear that our objection is to her lifestyle and the message she is sending. I've never heard Marsha Stevens but it is entirely possible that the music she sings is appropriate for Christian worship. In that case the only reason you would object to it is because of her grievous sin.

It would serve the best interests of everyone involved in these debates for you to understand exactly what is being said.

 

Since this topic is now paralleling the closed one:

Still, all of this "worth" ascribed to us is not of our own works, to the point we can look down with contempt at others who have not gained this "worthiness" through Christ. If we were to be judged by our works, we would still be unworthy, and the ones guilty of "false piety". (Do we believe we are saved -and thus "worthy" just because we are not drug addicts, gay or sexual perverts? And then, how many of us do actually fall into those things)

Now with that said, it is still true that associations are important, especially when there are weaker brethren who would be offended. (S no, DHK; I am not saying that what everyone is doing is right, and there is no need for any discernment).

People on both sides get angry because this is such an emotional issue. It is unfair to try to use the other side's anger to try to prove "they are just wrong and can't handle the truth". (Especially when you're reacting with just as much anger). The anger on both sides comes because there is no easy resolution when both sides see things so differently, and then begin reacting both defensively, and then often offensively. Often both sides have some elements of truth, and use those while ignoring counterpoints.

And as I mentioned also, much of the preaching in the Churches that shun these styles has traditinally been angry, or at least the message--the big bad world is out to get us, and these Christian compromisers are betraying us. (And no Churches I know of are using rock and especially rap as replacements for worship music).

 

The phrase "unequally yoked" is one of those phrases that the meaning is totally manipulated. Yoked, is figurative speech, implying going down the same path or being coupled with. Jesus tells us to be "yoked" to Him in Matthew 11, and He will give us rest. That being said, unequally yoked only applies when you are spiritually coupled with someone (going down the same path). I do not see how this applies to friendships, business, and especially listening to CCM, a CCM lesbian artist, or some secular music. I will take it a step further and say it only applies to marriage, as the man and wife "become one flesh". Listening to CCM or secular music has about as much to do with being unequally yoked as two men liking the sport of football. Nada.

 

I hope you aren't implying I'm illiterate. My point in saying he is slick is that he has a million and one ways of twisting around a debate and him being a moderator, there is nothing you can do about it. Thus, I said he is slick. But hey...I tried to warn ya...don't argue with the moderators. I will keep my silence now.

 

I know what is being said.
"Marsha Stevens has beautiful music, I just listened to it."
I agree. It is beautiful music. She came out of a fundamenal background, and most of her music tends to be on the traditional side.

Sickening! No music wtitten and sung by a lesbian is ever fit for worship. How do you associate yourself with lesbians and the lesbian movement. How can you have a clear conscience before God and man and say what you just said. A grievious lifestyle, an abhorrent lifestyle which is an abomination before God, cannot be the vehicle through which Godly music is sung, or even associted with. It is like saying that it is ok to sing.
Here is a better link than the one previously posted on Marsha Stevens:

http://logosresourcepages.org/OurTimes/stevens.htm

Go to it and learn a little about her.
I remember her first song when it came out: "For those tears I died." It talked about her vision meeting Jesus down by the riverside.

The song's a "beautiful song" as far as nice song's go. It may stir up your emotions. But the message is shallow. As the critique of it mentions, there is no real message in it. You say it (her music) may be appropriate for worship. Would you really support BALM ministies (Born Again Lesbian Music?) I hope not. Yet that is exactly what you would be doing by singing what you think what would be "approptiate music." That is just downright sickening, ungodly, unbiblical.
I hope now that you can see my point.
DHK

 

I find it ironic that you accuse me of sin, balk when I call you on it and then proceed to call me emotional.

You started out on the right foot by attempting a fresh stab at the debate and putting our unpleasant conflict behind us, but I see it only took you one post before reverting back to your old ways.

I'm not going to get sucked into another reactionary melee with you. There is nothing in what I said that condones sexual morality. I'm sorry you don't have the rational capacity to discern my very plain argument, but this post will bring an end to our little chat.

 

No, I just meant that his M.O. is plain as day.

 

I disagree with you. I just spent over three months preaching through the sixth chapter of 2Corinthians, exegeting every verse. I think I know what it means. The verses are very clear. A yoke is a harness made out of wood. Many third world countries still use them today. They harness together two animals such as two oxen in order to pull a plow or even a cart behind them. An unequal yoke would be akin to harnessing together a mule and an ox together. It wouldn't work. It would be disaster for the mule, and a great hardship on the ox. So it is when an unsaved businessman hooks up with a saved businessman; a Christian makes close acquaintes with unbelievers as friends, and of course marriage with unbeleivers. There are many applications to this truth, not just one. It specifically applies to religious truth.
That is why Paul uses the phrase:

2 Corinthians 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

He is referring to anything that is spiritually wrong. It is wrong for a Bible believing church to fellowship with a liberal church. But he makes it more personal. He says that you, your body, is the temple of God. In no way should the temple of God, that is you, have fellowship with the temple of idols--unbelievers. God is your father. The devil is their father (John 8:44) What are you doing associating with them. Your association belongs with God's people and with God himself. Unless you are out with deliberate purpose of evanelizing the lost you need to seek out the fellowship of God's people. Break off all other alliances. Then God says I can receive you AS a Father. He may already be your Father, but the spiritual communication is broken by your association with the world. "For whoseover is a friend of the world is the enemy of God." Whose side are you on?
Study the passage more. Find out the real meaning of it.
DHK

 

I rest my case many posts prior.

 

I understand your argument especially because I listen to a lot of secular music but I don't think I could ever bring myself to support a homosexual who professes Christ.

 

I'm not going to get sucked into another reactionary melee with you. There is nothing in what I said that condones sexual morality. I'm sorry you don't have the rational capacity to discern my very plain argument, but this post will bring an end to our little chat. </font>[/QUOTE]You take that which I say far too personal. Would you rather me use the impersonal pronoun "one" instead of the pronoun "you." Everytime I use the word "you" does not necessarily mean you personally unless it specifically directed to your quote. I often use "you" as referring to "you people" in general, or in a generic sense, just as I do in preaching. You take things too personal. Most of that quote is directed to everyone. Only one time did I refer to your quote directly.
DHK

 

It doesn't matter. The fact is that you are slinging accusations of sin around. I have seen nothing here which suggests people are aligning themselves with homosexuals and that sort of thing.

 

If you have read the posts, and see how people agree with Marsha Stevens music, then you see how they align themselves (by their association) with homosexuality, and that is sin. I am not afraid to call sin for what it is, even if others do not like it. It is not a false accusation. It is what the Bible teaches.
"I can see how some music written by Marsha Stevens (a lesbiam) may be appropriate for a worship service."
Wasn't that your quote. It is as best as I can remember--I am quoting from memory, but I definitely remember "appropriate fro a worship service."
No music written by a lesbian is appropriate for a worship service. It promotes homosexuality by its very association. Read the link I provided for you. And you just said: "I am not aligning myself with homosexuals." You are if you are using her music. You have contradicted yourself. I hope that you can see this.
DHK

 

That makes no sense whatsoever. That's like saying that I associate myself with the sins of anyone who sings if I enjoy their song.

Are you saying you can tell the difference between the singing of someone who is saved and someone who is a lesbian? Would you have known Marsha Stevens was a lesbian just by hearing her music?

 

http://logosresourcepages.org/OurTimes/stevens.htm

I, like others, didn't always know that "For Those Tears I Died" was written by a Lesbian, so yes, I listened and even sang it. But like this church testifies, when I found out, I immediately stopped and have never heard the song since. I have seen the lyrics in order to discuss them. But I don't listen to the song, or sing it.

My attitude would be the same toward:
Elvis Presley
Michael Jackson (supposing)
and said rapper

All for the same reasons.