MMF - Christian rock is not evil

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jimmy Higgins:


Huh? I didn't make any mention on pornography. Would be a bit tough to promote the word of god through pornography.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes indeed. It would be tough to promote the Word of God that way. Impossible is the Word. The same is true when a person uses blasphemy. How can you spread the gospel and blaspheme the name of the Lord at the same time? My contention is that Carmen manages to do exactly this.
The same is true with murder. How can you preach the gospel and commit murder at the same time? That's a good one! Read Mat.5:21,22. Jesus defines the command, "Thou shalt not kill," as being "angry with your brother." Murder begins with anger. Anger comes from the heart. And so as jim described POD sings with anger about the praise of God. It just can't be done. Murdering worship?!
DHK

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The same is true with murder. How can you preach the gospel and commit murder at the same time? That's a good one! Read Mat.5:21,22. Jesus defines the command, "Thou shalt not kill," as being "angry with your brother." Murder begins with anger. Anger comes from the heart. And so as jim described POD sings with anger about the praise of God. It just can't be done. Murdering worship?!
DHK <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

While I don't support POD's style, still, this type of comment is a big double standard that permeates CCM criticism. What about all that angry fear/guilt arousing preaching? The same people look up to that and even bemoan the loss of it in the modern church. This too was often hateful, and also brought attention to the preacher. Anything that can be said of rap and some other music styles can be said of fiery preaching.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by redwhitenblue:
We have very different opinions of what blastphemy is, I do not believe Carman uses blastphemy at all.

karen<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Opinions don't count. Look in a dictionary or even an encyclopedia for that matter. If you don't know look it up!

BLASPHEMY

blas'-fe-mi (blasphemia): In classical Greek meant primarily "defamation" or "evil-speaking" in general; "a word of evil omen," hence, "impious, and irreverent speech against God."

(1) In the Old Testament as substantive and vb.:

(a) (barakh) "Naboth did blaspheme God and the king" (1Ki 22:13,16 the King James Version);

(b) (gadhaph) of Senna-cherib defying Yahweh (2Ki 20:1,17 = Isa 37:6,23; also Ps 46:5; Eze 20:27; compare 1Ch 12:23), "But the soul that doeth aught with a high hand (i.e. knowingly and defiantly), .... the same blasphemeth (so the Revised Version (British and American), but the King James Version "reproacheth") Yahweh; and that soul shall be cut off from among his people."
Blasphemy is always in word or deed, injury, dishonor and defiance offered to God, and its penalty is death by stoning;

(c) (charaph) of idolatry as blasphemy against Yahweh (Isa 65:7);

(d) (naqabh) "And he that blasphemeth the name of Yahweh, he shall surely be put to death" (Le 24:11,16);

(e) (na'ats) David's sin is an occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme (Ps 64:10; also Ps 74:10,18; Isa 52:5; compare Eze 36:29; 2Ki 19:35 the King James Version; Isa 37:3).

(2) In the New Testament blasphemy, substantive and vb., may be

(a) of evil-speaking generally, (Ac 13:45; 18:6); The Jews contradicted Paul "and blasphemed,"
the Revised Version, margin "railed." (So in the King James Version of Mt 15:19 = Mr 7:22; Col
3:8, but in the Revised Version (British and American) "railings"; Re 2:9 the Revised Version, margin "reviling"; so perhaps in 1Ti 1:20; or Hymeneus and Alexander may have blasphemed Christ by professing faith and living unworthily of it.)

(b) Speaking against a heathen goddess: the town clerk of Ephesus repels the charge that Paul and his companions were blasphemers of Diana (Ac 19:37).

(c) Against God:
(i) uttering impious words (Re 13:1,5-6; 16:9,11; 18:14,17);
(ii) unworthy conduct of Jews (Ro 2:24) and Christians (1Ti 6:1; Tit 2:5, and perhaps 1Ti 1:20);
(iii) of Jesus Christ, alleged to be usurping the authority of God (Mt 9:3 = Mr 2:7 = Lu 5:21), claiming to be the Messiah, the son of God (Mt 26:65 = Mr 14:64), or making Himself God (Joh 10:33,36).

(d) Against Jesus Christ: Saul strove to make the Christians he persecuted blaspheme their Lord (Ac 26:11). So was he himself a blasphemer (1Ti 1:13; compare Jas 2:7).

T. Ress (ISBE)
DHK

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Eric B:


While I don't support POD's style, still, this type of comment is a big double standard that permeates CCM criticism. What about all that angry fear/guilt arousing preaching? The same people look up to that and even bemoan the loss of it in the modern church. This too was often hateful, and also brought attention to the preacher. Anything that can be said of rap and some other music styles can be said of fiery preaching.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You equate the rebellious angry-filled voices of rock singers to Holy Spirit-filled preachers emphasizing a point in Scripture. Ludicrous!

 

PERCEPTION, folks. Is that not what we're talking about in this thread? I read in my daily Bible reading TODAY that "her priests have violated my law, and have profaned mine holy things: they have put no difference between the holy and the profane, neither have they shewed difference between the unclean and the clean, and have hid their eyes from my sabbaths, and I am profaned among them." It is the obligation of Christian ministers (this term meaning preachers, SS teachers, missionaries, musicians, etc.) to be clear about issues of moral and spiritual distinctions. Yes, this is an OT passage (Ezekiel 22:26), but as with the Ten Commandments, the principle based in the character of God stands. If our medium (preaching, musical presentation) does not show the difference between the holy and profane and the clean and unclean then we are not ministering "clearly." We in essence give a bad PERCEPTION of the message by an unclear PRESENTATION of the message. Herein is the fault in much of the preaching and music presentations of the day. Just as foolish yelling and screaming in a sermon does not grant a clear understanding of the message of God, so imperceptible music voids the attempted message delivery by the musician. Yes, this may be a little deep at the first read, but let it sink in. I truly believe you'll get it...at least try to reason through this post. Thanks---Daniel

 

At the beginning of this thread, Karen, I described to you (and all) how, in "Resurrection Rap," Carman portrays Jesus as a gang leader who is crucified on a pole and then stabbed with a knife. His lifeless body is then thrown into a rubbish heap which blazes with light.
Which definition would you like to use?
1. It is "uttering impious words against God and against Jesus Christ." (i.e. "Gang leader")
2. It is "evil speaking generally." He has spoken in an evil way portraying the Lord of Glory, the King of Kings as a gang leader who ends up on a rubbish heap. That is evil blasphemy.
3. The basic meaning of the word blasphemy is "impious and irreverent speech against God." That is exactly what I see here.
DHK

[ November 10, 2001: Message edited by: DHK ]

 

I will echo Daniel's post, but add that the principle he described is well defined in the New Testament as well.

Dave,

When evaluating the morality of a musical piece, it stands or falls on its own merits, as you say. However, when something is used in Christian worship, there is a wholly different standard by which things should be judged.

The morality of an individual, more than his learning and the integrity of his teaching, qualifies him for speaking in Christian assemblies.  In both Titus 1 and 1 Timothy 3 the character of the ministerial candidate is emphasized before and with more force than the academic qualifications. People do not make a distinction between the "ministry" and CCM. Therefore, "who wrote it, where it was first sang, and what record company produced the first recording" are critical factors when evaluating CCM.


Jimmy,

Can you find an example of Jesus or the Apostles in which they used the conventions of the day to communicate the Gospel?

As I read the Scriptures, the Apostles relied completely on the Holy Spirit to quicken the Word in the hearts of people, and not on worldly wisdom or elloquence of speech.  And when it wasn't received, I didn't see them changing their methods, I see them shaking the dust off their feet as a testimony against those who rejected the Gospel.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DHK:
Yes indeed. It would be tough to promote the Word of God that way. Impossible is the Word. The same is true when a person uses blasphemy. How can you spread the gospel and blaspheme the name of the Lord at the same time? My contention is that Carmen manages to do exactly this. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you saying that this person singing is close in proximity to five people on screen engaging in sexual acts? Now that is quite a jump.

Are you going to say that Yes's Gates of Delirium is evil because it is speaking of violent acts when it is obviously attesting to the opposite?

Blasphemy is speaking against god. Just because you don't find favor in his words, does that mean he is blasphemis? Or does it mean you don't find favor in his words? Besides, if people are legitmately being saved in NON-VIOLENT ways, who are you to judge? Isn't that God's job?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jimmy Higgins:


Blasphemy is speaking against god. Just because you don't find favor in his words, does that mean he is blasphemis? Or does it mean you don't find favor in his words? Besides, if people are legitmately being saved in NON-VIOLENT ways, who are you to judge? Isn't that God's job?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jimmy, Blasphemy is not just speaking against God, it is also speaking irreverently against God. There is the difference. Carmen may not speak directly against God, like Marilyn Manson, but he speaks irreverently about God, which is also blasphemy.
Concerning people getting saved, the Bible is very clear. God uses His Word. "It pleased Him by the foolishness of preaching..." "For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness, but unto us which are saved it is the power of God." (1Cor.1:18) No where in the Bible does God use music to bring people to Christ. He uses the preaching of His Word. Christian music is for the edifying of God's people.
DHK

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DHK:


Jimmy, Blasphemy is not just speaking against God, it is also speaking irreverently against God. There is the difference. Carmen may not speak directly against God, like Marilyn Manson, but he speaks irreverently about God, which is also blasphemy.
Concerning people getting saved, the Bible is very clear. God uses His Word. "It pleased Him by the foolishness of preaching..." "For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness, but unto us which are saved it is the power of God." (1Cor.1:18) No where in the Bible does God use music to bring people to Christ. He uses the preaching of His Word. Christian music is for the edifying of God's people.
DHK<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well ya, if you omit the Book of Psalms!

But for this conversation, let's keep the assumption that the Book of Psalms is in the bible. You say, he uses the the preaching of His word. Well, when singing, what comes out? I believe it is words. At any mass you go to, what is being done? People are singing. It seems clear that music and song is definately a tool for the preaching of god.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You equate the rebellious angry-filled voices of rock singers to Holy Spirit-filled preachers emphasizing a point in Scripture. Ludicrous! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's right! Because most of that was just as angry and rebellious (At the world for not following Christian values). Today, it has changed alot, but in the past, it was more than to emphasize a point in scripture. It was to scare people into obedience (which calls into question how "Holy Spirit filled" many of them were, because God does not want people frightened into loving Him.)

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Are you saying 1)that storytelling was the most popularform of performance art in first century Palestine and that, therefore, Jesus was merely using the convention of the day or 2) that Jesus sang and danced the parables to jazzy music<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Neither one, Aaron, although there are elements of truth to #1.

What I'm saying (and I think you know this) is that Jesus was trying to relate ideas that were foreign to the socio-religious cultures of his listeners. In doing so, he used stories and parables to convey His message to people.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jimmy Higgins:


I thought the gospel was supposed to be shared. Sometimes, don't you need to translate the bible into a language so it can be understood? The bible doesn't need to be portrayed as something beautiful. The bible is holy. Nothing you do to portray the bible can make it any better than it already is.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Strictly regarding the musical quality of some Christian rock bands, there's no accounting for some tastes, especially in youth.
As a youth I sought the sound that reflected the utter angst that characterized my uncertainty and fear as I meandered through my teen years. I was drawn to a sound, not a word, and in those heavy metal sounds I inadvertently heard messages that darkened my mind and closed off my soul.

The years have been kind and forgiving and my confusion has given way to a deeper understanding of what today's youth are confronting. I am still attracted to the sound, possibly because I work with youth, but bad messages turn me away...fortunately there are alternatives for today's youth. There are bands that reflect the intensity and energy of youth while providing counsel. There are bands that challenge the values of young people. There are messages about choice and commitment that reach out without sounding preachy, and young people are drawn to the same sound that dragged down a generation before. Someone wised up that youth is a temporary condition where great gains or losses are incurred. To critics, these Christian rock bands are stooping to a lower level. To others, these bands are reaching out to give lost youth the life-affirming messages they would never have gotten anywhere else.

[ November 11, 2001: Message edited by: Margie Kritzer ]

[ November 11, 2001: Message edited by: Margie Kritzer ]

 

As we navigate through this posting and counter-posting, let's be sure we are upholding one thing above all else--THE BLESSED WORD OF GOD. Margie's post was more of the pragmatic type of POV that permeates many of the music threads within BB. While we have to apply Biblical truth to today's culture and environment, we must never dilute the core truths of the Word of God. That's what we risk doing when we make the SOUND of the music a prominent tool for reaching youth. What standard are we drawing them toward in so doing? I have to believe that we are going down the man-made path that can lead to the destruction and dilution of Biblical truth. Think about it.

 

Good point, Daniel.

That's one of the dozens of problems I have with CCM.

While I don't believe that any one genre of music can be "evil", I do believe that CCM can too easily become manipulative.

Mike

 

Margie: I'm sick of people blasting hard rock. When I was a kid, I listened to Motley Crue, Poison, Skid Row, Warrant, Def Leppard, etc... Today I listen to Yes, Sting, King Crimson, Bruce Hornsby, Alan Parsons.

Granted, there are certain verbal wordings in "hard rock" that are suggestive, but that stuff just flies over your head just like those adult like jokes you didn't even see in the Warner Bros. cartoons. Aerosmith's Walk This Way has some extremely graphic, though creative, metaphors that I didn't notice until well after I first heard the words in my age of "innocence".

You know, the irony of it all is that the more you people push to censor music, the more people like Frank Zappa (may he Rest in Peace) and Marilon Manson will come out just to get into your skin. That's one of the reasons I started to like Manson, besides the fact he had alot of hidden progressive art talent. Half the reason he does what he does is because of your attempts to censor him. Perhaps if folks like you stopped acting like Mormons, more people would listen to you.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jimmy Higgins:
Perhaps if folks like you stopped acting like Mormons, more people would listen to you.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which being interpreted is:

"If you all walked and talked like the world, the world would love you!"

[ November 12, 2001: Message edited by: Aaron ]