There are a few things that get my goat – gay apologists (who try to prove that the bible does not condenm homosexuality as sin), evolutionary patronizers (who treat those who doubt evolution as ignorant), and self-righteous heresy hunters (like CRS, for example) who tear down everything from Billy Graham to Christian Rock in their unbridled zeal for biblical purity. Don’t get me wrong, I probably agree with half of their stuff, but the other half is just narrow bigotry and fear-mongering (oh yeah, I dislike that too, hence my dislike for slippery slope arguments and liberal panic over the "scary fundamentalist Christians and Christian Right," and the "Christian dominionists.")
One site that I like to read, but which recently annoyed me in the heresy-hunting category, is Slice of Laodicea. In the name of doctrinal purity, they routinely attack the likes of Billy Graham, Rick Warren, Joel Osteen (OK, maybe *he* deserves some scrutiny), the Emergent Church, and now, certain Christian Rock bands.
They strongly moderate their comments, and last time I posted, they decided not to approve my comment, which was strong, but not caustic. So I just posted the following comment on their site, and saved it here just in case they decide that it doesn’t fall into the "he loves us" category for approval.
They claim they can have both their rock, which was birthed in rebellion, and their God.
I don’t comment much here because in the past, the moderator has decided not to approve my posts. Hard to have a discussion with someone who only posts favorable responses.
But you are definitely "old school" in your attitudes, meaning you have a disdain for youth culture, whether or not you have kids. And while I agree that today’s youth culture is filled with sex, disrespect for authority, and consumerism, your comment about rock being "birthed in rebellion" is one of those back-woods Baptist canards – you might as well say that it has "jungle rhythms from Africa" to complete your unbiblical and uneducated attack on rock.
Do you attend one of those culturally irrelevant churches where they will only read the KJV and, more importantly, only sing hymns from 200 years ago accompanied by a piano or organ? Such churches usually haven’t had a move of God since that time, else they might have more contemporary music, including rock and roll worship. But it sounds like you could not even conceive of such.
Admittedly, I know nothing of zombiegutz, but I enjoy, for example, the hard music band Pillar. When I saw them last year, they gave a powerful and articulate altar call.
While you are right to be concerned about some bands, and the secularizing of church ministry, you have to focus on content, not form. Rock is just a tool, like any form of music, and it can be used for good. Your comment about being birthed in rebellion may be true, but it is truly irrelevant. All music, in one sense or another, is born in rebellion. Have you never read about the revivals of the past? Even Martin Luther put Christian lyrics to drinking songs. Don’t be an alarmist that throws out the baby w/ the bathwater.
Seeker,
I *love* it. Here you are, objecting to those who object to Christian music. Once again, we see that you believe that your opinions are somehow righter than every other Christian.
Don't you see yourself in those people? Don't you recognize that what they're doing is what you do? Constantly? What makes those people so annoying to you is what makes you so annoying to me: wailing about that which you'd be better off ignoring.
Wow, looks like you're against quite a bit youself. ;-) I might caution you though to think twice before judging another's motives…
I can tell you right now, when you start of with "Hard to have a discussion with someone who only posts favorable responses", you set a tone of sarcasm that doesn't necessarily keep your comment from getting posted, but it makes it an uphill battle for it take place.
The Gospel is relevant to every culture. When the truth is preached and understood – that we are all sinners, and that sin keeps us out of heaven, suddenly there is nothing more relevant in the world than a Savior. Youth are smart enough to understand that too, and they don't need the Gospel to be "culturally repackaged" in a trendy way to make it more appealing for them. That would be a mistrust in the Gospel's own built-in appeal and relevance.
I like Jim, because he’s telling Seeker to shove it. However, where I disagree with Jim is about scripture’s cultural relevance. I think we can all agree that the Bible, written two-thousand years ago by total morons, no longer applies to a world where people actually know something. Can’t we? Anybody? (The Bible is still relevant as a doorstop however. So there’s that.)
I can tell you right now, when you start of with "Hard to have a discussion with someone who only posts favorable responses", you set a tone of sarcasm
I didn't mean it as sarcasm, but as my actual impression of your site, and disappointment at my previous attempts to contribute on your site. It seems to me that the majority of comments on your site are favorable, and you highly screen what goes up there. While that is your right, it still disappoints me that you don't seem to invite actual discussion, but what almost amounts to sycophantic huzzahs.
But perhaps I am wrong. I will read more.
Wow, looks like you're against quite a bit youself. ;-) I might caution you though to think twice before judging another's motives…
True that. It is not crime to be against things. However, I think you are overly narrow in your condemnation of modern music, as well as your comdenmnation of Rick Warren et al. The thing I am knee-jerking against in your recent post is the often backwards thinking anti-modernism that writes books about the evils of rock and roll while peddling an 1800's style music as if that's culturally relevant.
Sure the gospel message is relevant. And sure, maybe zombiegutz is really part of a trend away from the gospel in the name of relevance. But it is very unclear from your article about your position on modern music in general, and I took your allusion to rock being "born of rebellion" that you are against rock music on principle, which means you are attacking those who are out in the mission field where you can not and will not go, thinking you are doing us all a favor.
Seeker, it looks to me as if your personal morality is at odds with Jim's. You and Aaron have argued that personal morality amounts to nothing without the moral authority of God behind it. So where does God stand on this issue? With Jim or you? What is the universal objective morality on this issue? Unless of course it's just your sense of personal morality involved here, in which case, according to You and Aaron, "if morality is up for grabs and there is no moral code that transcends us as individuals we cannot call slavery, Holocaust, (Christian Rock Bands) etc. wrong..
Or those who condemn Christian Rock bands for that matter…
BTW, to my knowledge, SOL did not approve my comment above for display on their site. Either they are slow, or such valid criticisms are not welcome.
I'm not going to respond to all of your points, for the sake of time. But I wanted to correct a couple of things:
It's not my site. I am a contributor there, and do approve some of the comments when I have the time. The owner of the site has created the site as a means of voicing her views related to Christian news. It's not a discussion site, it's not a place where the cults (for example) are invited to come and "engage in conversation" about how Jesus might not actually be God.
But as you know, there is plenty of freedom of speech out there to be had, on your own blogs. Some blogs don't allow any comments. Ingrid happens to be restrictive in a way that does not allow false beliefs to be promoted in her comments section. I suspect that your problem getting things posted however, relates more to your tone and behavior, in past comments that you made. But I have no idea really what the reasons were.
When you say that we are being pharisaical, please be sure that you know what that means. A Pharisee is not someone who speaks out against falsehoods, nor is it someone who defends biblical doctrine, or someone who talks a lot about the bible. Here's a page that talks more about what a Pharisee is and isn't:
http://tinyurl.com/h6nv6
As for music, I really don't know the exact place to draw the line with it. I know it's wrong to judge it based only on lyrics. Is it ok to take the Rolling Stone's song "Let's Spend The Night Together" and change the words to "Let's Spend Eternity Together", and then sing that to God in church? There's more that needs to be done than simply judge the lyrics. I'm not going to tell you where to draw that line. You would do well to obey the bible's admonition to not conform to the world however.
A big lightening storm took out a huge comment I was working on. I will leave the debates on morality (objective vs. subjective) to those threads to save time. Now to the point of the post.
SOL has the right to whatever comment policy they want. It's their blog. I wouldn't, don't do it that way and I think it is conterproductive to spreading the Gospel (disallowing those who disagree to comment), but again it's their decision.
I am curious as to what type of music Jim, Pastor Ken, etc. are supportive of? Should we merely sing hymns or are those off limits as well, since the only type of music actually described in the Bible are the psalms. Do we use only the instruments mentioned in the Bible, if so no pianos or organs?
I read a good bit of what was written there and my biggest complaint is the equating of personal opinion with God's Word. Everything the authors disagreed with was a violation of God's Word. I find that dangerous.
What is frustrating is that many of the complaints were legitimate concerns with the body of Christ, but then it was crowded out with condemnations of the Christian "gods of rock and roll." I get weary of: VBS has become anti-Bible. Centrifuge camps violate Scripture. Christian rock music is against God's Word. Those who listen to CCM must not read or value their Bible. (I can produce quotes by authors to support my paraphrases).
There may be some things wrong with those issues, but I wouldn't know because everything is thrown out. A point of disagreement on the new VBS material is a chance to rail against how wordly it has become. A Christian musician saying something that sounds like a non-Christian or at the very least an immature Christian is reason to condemn everything, even those you have never heard or know anything about. It seems many writers there pick out certain things that are sure to rile up the faithful and rant about the evils of everything connected to that one issue.
I know they claim this is not the case, but it comes across like everything new is evil; I want to go back to the old [better] way. I want to know something they are for, besides the Bible, since that comes across as an insinuation that everyone who disagrees with them must disagree with the Bible.
Both sides of this debate can agree that some things have been (are) being taken to the excess. Doctrine should be protected above personal style or perference. A line must be drawn somewhere. The question is where. It seems very unfruitful and unhelpful to simply condemn without offering any alternatives.
Aaron,
How I wish all Christians applied your reasonable requests to all things. For instance, just because one Christian rock band somewhere does something worldly, that doesn't render all Christian music worthless (the fact that it's boring renders all Christian music worthless…obviously…and to me, that was a joke, so calm down). Or, for example, just because one gay person somewhere does something unseemly, that doesn't mean that gays are dirty and don't deserve to be married.
Thanks for clarifying this fact that decency should carry the day. Also, are we genuinely having a debate about the existence of music? I mean, if you're genuinely trying to convince someone (Jim) that music is acceptable, you've already lost. Because if you don't believe that music is acceptable, you don't have a soul, and arguing with the soulless is a big old waste of time.
Everybody loves music. Railing against it simply boggles the imagination.
Sam, thanks I guess.
As to Jim, I don't think he is saying that music is acceptable. The site he writes at is saying that within the context of Christianity certain types of music is not acceptable. Now, I disagree with the site on this issue (from what I can gather) – vehemently, but I don't think Jim is soulless or that he doesn't like music. He has a different take on what music should be acceptable to Christians. This is a common debate within Christendom, one that should be had.
When you say that we are being pharisaical, please be sure that you know what that means.
Well, I somewhat defined what I meant when I wrote:
The Pharisees were so doctrinally oriented that they missed what the spirit of God was doing in their day, and I fear that your aparrent rejection of the Emergent movement, as well as Rick Warren's work, are similar, just like the anti-pentecostal movement missed what God was doing there and in the Charismatic revivals. How do you assure, in your zeal for doctrinal purity, that you aren't being overly stringent and missing the acts of God?
God loves to reveal the heart by offending the mind, which includes offending those who think they have it all pinned down, doctrinally speaking.
Sure, doctrine is important. But I think you stray into criticizing the form (rock music and purpose-driven language) rather than the content (lyrics or doctrine). While you do mainly address doctrine, I think you also venture into attacking their methods, as well as engaging in guilt by association attacks, which can be erroneous. Also, I think you try to tear down rather than contribute to helping them see where they are at risk.
Aaron,
For the record, discussing the idea that some music might be "innappropriate" is so beyond ridiculous that I cannot even remotely comprehend it. Because, seriously, whatever music you now enjoy was once considered sinful. Doesn't matter what it was, some Christian once thought you weren't Godly for enjoying it. So whatever music you're cautioning against now? In ten years, in twenty years, in however long, that'll become the norm.
What I wonder is how people can be shocked and scared by music? Music is the most beautiful, powerful form of expression that we as humans possess, even better than writing. And it's everywhere. I'm not even going to argue any of this with you, because I believe music survives above the ridiculous notion of anybody who finds it harmful. Music is simply too great to harm anybody.
What I wonder is how people can be shocked and scared by music?
Some music is very atonal, unskilled, distorted, and quite honestly, paired with very angrily delivered, profane lyrics. Some of these bands design to shock, and to rebel against societal order (and social hypocrisy). It's no wonder people of character reject it. However, they should not really discard the musical style just because those who use deliver profane and juvenile sentiments.
Various types of angry music, including great musical forms like rap, grunge, and hard music, are definitely valid forms of expression, and anger is certainly not a sin in and of itself. (Disclosure: I love grunge like STP, Pearl Jam, and Soundgarden, so my view of music is definitely self serving ;).
I'm not even going to argue any of this with you,
Good, cause we already agree. Did you misread something, thinking that someone here is anti-music?
Seeker,
I wasn't talking about you. I was trying to point out that arguing with a man who seems to shun all music outside of hymms and psalms is somewhat questionable. You might as well argue with bricks for being so hard. There's just nothing to be gained sometimes.