This past Sunday, Dan began teaching on Romans 14. I get the privilege of continuing the lesson this coming Sunday. Those of you who were present Sunday experience Dan’s bag of sins (a bag full of playing cards, wine, cigarettes (an empty carton), and IBC root beer (huh???)). These items represented what we would call “disputable matters.” For example, one person may totally abstain from playing with Poker cards because of the association with gambling. Another may enjoy all sorts of card games played with Poker cards–even a friendly game of Texas Hold ’em. Neither is right nor wrong in their stance. It is a matter of one’s individual conscience.
In Romans 14, the disputable matters were practices which, although neither intrinsically good or bad, those of weaker faith would partake or abstain in order to confirm their salvation. The thought process would go something like this: Real Christians don’t eat meat sacrificed to idols. If I were to eat any meat at all there’s a real possibility that I might get some of the sacrificial meat unknowingly. And if I were to eat that meat then I wouldn’t really be a Christian. Therefore I will eat only vegetables.
Another disputable matter was the observance of special days, weeks, months, etc. Some observed, some did not.
To Paul, the bottom line was unity in the Spirit–protection of the fellowship.
What are some disputable matters over which you have seen Christians differ? Remember, these are not moral issues with clear biblical teaching (i.e. you can’t dispute adultery or murder–these practices are intrinsically sinful).
Here are some examples of issues over which I have seen churches divide:
* Whether or not to use multiple communion cups or one big cup (Jesus used one cup…).
* Having a kitchen in the church building (Paul says you have homes to eat in).
* Styles of worship music
* Lifting hands in worship
* Whether the Lord’s Supper is simply a memorial or is there something more mystical.
Halloween.
How about what side of the stage the piano is on? If the preacher didn’t wear a tie. If the preacher wore a blue shirt instead of the prefered starched white shirt.
I have a question on the topic. With so much legalism coming from pulpits perpetuating the lie that the more mature christian is the one that abstians to confirm their faith, how can we as believers counter the lies that have become the norm without being accused of having a rebellious spirit? Here, Paul gives balanced instruction to both sides, but I’m always rebutted with not causing our brother to stumble.
If we always have to lay down our freedom to the lowest common denominator of faith, will anyone ever be free because of so many immature people that aren’t being grown up in the faith.
Paul says we should always be considerate of our culture but how can we be instruments of change in the culture instead of feeding the stereotypes that are scripturally wrong?
David, I think you need to repent of your rebellious spirit. 😉
I’m reading How to Read the Bible For All Its Worth by Fee & Stuart right now… this morning I read the following bit on what makes something a “matter of indifference” in the Epistles (pp. 69-70):
Your freedom is between you and God, and is subordinate to your obligations to love and obey as the Scriptures command.
I think the way you achieve freedom is to engage people in an authentic way. Only by being authentic can you hope to discover how to love others, and at the same time, elevate them from their lowest-common-denominator position.
In other words, we achieve freedom by laying down our freedom to serve others. If we cannot do that, then we are, ironically, enslaved to freedom…
Apparently Karate is an issue for some.
Oh, and let me clarify a bit. When I say “lowest common denominator of faith” I mean those that try to apply their personal convictions in disputable matters as absolutes to everyone else.
I generally see The Church like today’s politically correct work environment where every word must be measured, not in love, but in fear of offending someone. Where people are afraid to be authentic because they could be charged with “spiritual harassment” for the slightest misunderstanding. One person complains about something, then all of a sudden a blanket rule is enforced. Imagine that, a spiritual HR department – yikes.
Having said that, I am thankful to the leadership of GF for being true to The Word and having the guts to let people be real.
I would put gambling itself in the disputable matter list too.
How about men wearing shorts? I mean wearing them anywhere! Seriously. I once had someone tell me that he was told he could never be a pastor of a church if he wore shorts! Ever tried swimming in jeans or warm-ups pants? Hey, I love wearing shorts on Sunday mornings! Shame on me! I still have to personally draw the line at thongs for men. 🙂 Can I get an amen?
I totally agree with David and am so thankful for the leadership at GF…not only for having the guts to let people be real, but to have guts themselves to speak the truth each week in love from the front and to us one on one without judging.
The institutional church today is trying so hard to “reach people” by dumbing down the message of God’s grace and His plan for our lives though Jesus. Then there is the other extreme of legalistic churches that want you to be a clone and fit their mold or brand of Christianity.
I was saved in the second type of church and could not get along with or associate with people that did not believe just like I did. (unequally yoked used way out of context) Thank God for giving me the conviction and courage to finally leave that place. That church is now an oil and lube shop in Dunwoody. Make your own joke. I am thankful for the Bible and head knowledge that I received there, and for being led to the Lord, but it took many years of the Lord “deprogramming” me to not get so bent when people did not live up to the man made standards that I set. I still have a hard edge at times that I still struggle with and pray to be softened.
As we realize the freedom we have in Christ to be ourselves (warts and all) with the support of the Body and local leadership at GF, a natural by-product is genuine authenticity with each other and the world around us.
When we do cross the line of clear Biblical standards and truth (sin) and if we are not repentant, we as brothers and sisters in Christ are commanded to confront each other in love and help each other to get forgiveness and victory over that sin. That requires transparency from all of us that can only come from building authentic relationships with each other in the local Body of Christ known as Grace Fellowship.
This about sums it up…
In the words of that great 80s new wave Christian artist Steve Taylor “Be a clone and kiss conviction goodnight. Cloneliness is next to godliness…right?, I’m thankful that they showed the way, cause I could never know the way to serve Him on my own!…..I want to be a clone!”
Wow, that karate article was a great example of personal preference run wild. I also think of the “Christian Rock” bonfire parties that sprung up everywhere in the 80’s urging teenagers to throw their tapes into the fire because the music came from the Devil. I remember a guy telling me that Amy Grant was communicating occult gestures in a music video! Hey, I don’t think I need to figure out some weird gestures from Amy Grant to know something is wrong there. I just can look at her life and realize there are struggles with authenticity…
Now, David, how ’bout that group Striper?
Another One – A Christmas tree on the stage at church. I was in a church in Staten Island that had a major “cow” over this one. It’s funny, you can have a tree on a stage for two weeks and some people will go crazy over it being wrong and sinful, yet there can be people who are grossly overweight every week and never dial into that issue.
It’s Stryper and they rocked – even if they did look like girls. And so I will add “listening to ‘secular’ music” to the list.
Here’s one for ya. There was a new pastor of a church that already had a youth beach trip planned (wouldn’t have been planned if he had been there earlier). Going beyond the regular call of modest swimwear, he wanted the girls to wear band-aids over their nipples. Everyone freaked. No joke, I was there. So, a big parent meeting was called and he backed down.
Now that I think about it C.A., he wore slacks the whole week we were at the beach. :^D
I will bet that pastor had a thong on under those slacks on the beach.
Shameful! ;
Stryper was pretty cool and their public testimony which if I remember right was not watered down at all. They did however look like girls! Personally I preferred Petra and Servant.
I am one that smashed my AC/DC albums in a door after being saved, but for me that was a “clean break” from my past. No pun intended. That is the important point. It helped me, but I should not be telling everyone to smash their records and burn their CDs.
Hey, along that line does anyone remember the old Baptist missionary story of the witch doctor that got saved and overheard one of the missionary kids playing Christian pop/rock on their tape player? The witch doctor went to the missionary all wild eyed telling him that the beat of the music the child was listening to was the same beat they used to raise demonic forces. That was one of the main arguments against Contemporary Christian Music in the 80s. To me it is about as legitimate as going blind if you engage in certain other activities. 🙂
We don’t need to scare people into obedience to make them fit our mold.
Real goals….
1> Mind of Christ
2> In the Word regularly
3> Everything for God’s Fame
4> Love others
5> Transparency
Wow, the African witch doctor story… I remember that.
Let me give you another one that actually leads into one of David E.’s questions regarding personal liberty being dismantled by the perceptions of the spiritually “weak.”
In college I promoted an outreach that included a walk in the woods that featured all sorts of scary, Halloween themed stuff. During the event we played some harder “Christian” music as background for various crazy field games. A fellow student (from Africa) came up to me and said something like, “the music you are playing is the same music that the evil tribes play in Africa.” I discussed with her the concern she had and eventually asked her what she would like me to do and she asked me to not play the music.
Before I tell you what I did, how would you people respond?
Turn off the music. If you can’t lay down your freedom to love your neighbor, you are a slave to your freedom.
Amazing, it sounds like Dan actually MET the infamous “witch doctor”. I had always assumed that story to be some urban legend promoted by the Bill Gothard Seminars in the 80s.
(Eagerly waiting to hear from others.)
Now that I think about it, background music isn’t a great example because it’s not something that you can just abstain from unless you leave the event – which in the case of some college game night, it’s a pretty petty thing – just turn it off. (If it was at a worship leaders’ conference or a worship service that uses modern styled music, now that would be tricky.)
Can we find another case scenario to run with?
But after what Dan told that guy in college that asked to pray, there’s no telling what his response was. :^D
Sounds more like Dan met the daughter of the infamous witch doctor. My guess is that Dan accused her of being a plant sent by Bill Gothard to disrupt their Halloween outreach, or something worse like telling her…”This is America…If you don’t like it go back to the jungle where you belong and leave us alone”. That would be in character with him stopping that guy from praying because “he wanted God to actually hear the prayer” 🙂
Dear Dan, we are ready for your answer with anxious and open ears.
Wow! Bill Gothard and the Institute in Basic Youth Conflicts, now called the Institute in Basic Life Principles. I have not thought of that in many years. Actually I think it is a suppressed memory as this was during that ugly time of being with that very legalistic church that I was saved in. I went to those seminars at the Omni arena downtown in the early 80s before they tore it down to build Phillips arena.
This guy is the absolute poster child of this discussion blog and is where I first heard the story of the witch doctor and Contemporary Christian Music. Gothard is a complete and total legalist that was incredibly popular in the early 80s and packed the Omni for a week-long seminar. His truth is absolute in his own mind.
I am sure I can dig up my workbook somewhere, but all kinds of man made opinions presented as absolute truth that must be followed because he said so.
He mounted a crusade that all Contemporary Christian music is strait from the devil, and gave us the proper order that a Sunday service should be conducted from the opening prayer, testimonies, worship music and closing. Where was that in the New Testament? He also got very nutty to men by asking them to keep track of their wife’s menstrual cycles to somehow understand our sin better, and pushed the single lifestyle as a “better way” than being married because of (I Cor. 7) where Paul writes that “I wish that all were as I am”, and that “he that does not marry her (the virgin) does better”. I personally believe that these verses are commonly taken out of context to promote being single and against marriage. A good subject for another blog!
Google “Bill Gothard” and have a good read. We could dedicate yet another whole blog to this subject.
With all the BS that was shoved into my head as a teenager at those seminars, praise Jesus that we are not under the law of the Old Testament but under the Grace from the shed blood of our Savior!! I’m Free!
Here is some real truth to cut through all the BS. I memorized Romans 6 in college and would encourage everyone else to read it and get this part of the Word in your hearts to fully grasp the reality of sin in our lives and the freedom we have been given living under grace.
(Romans 6:6-14) NAS
“knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; For he who has died is freed from sin. Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him. For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus. Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts, and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God. For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace.”
Dan, by simply asking the girl what she wanted you to do shows that you already have responded in the way prescribed by Paul in Rom. 14.
The problems in Rome (or perhaps what Paul was trying to head off) stemmed from those who either judged the spiritual condition of their counterpart or they looked down their noses at them over disputable matters.
I would have followed up her request and asked her if this was a matter of preference or a matter of conscience (i.e. do you want me to turn it off because you don’t like the music or because you believe that listening to this music could jeopordize your relationship to Christ?). If, to her, it were a matter of conscience, I’d definitely turn it off. If it were a matter of preference, I’d politely ask her to reconsider her request and to trust me to select music that is appropriate to the group’s likings. I might even consider shutting it off just to be polite–and I would certainly tell her that I was doing it for her sake (maybe a little guilt there — haha).
Let’s not trash the /entire/ Gothard ministry because of his more legalistic stands on some issues. Remember, as Paul wrote, we must neither look down on weaker brothers nor condemn those who exercise their freedom (Romans 14). And the Institute in Basic Life Principles by no means adheres to the strict definition of legalism: making a part of justification dependent on rules you must follow. We can’t write off that ministry as heretically legalistic. Maybe just a bit too strict in certain areas.
And Ken, I agree with your comment.
Jeffrey, that kind of gets back to my original question. They might not be preaching heretical legalism but they definitely aren’t teaching freedom in Christ. It’s as if they are promoting weakness (on a mass scale) instead of growing the body in a deeper understanding of the Word.
Last night, I was reading about two different views/models of the relationship between Christianity and culture. Here’s a snippet:
The Gothard Seminars identify with the first view (which I don’t happen to agree with) and cater to the alarmist, lemming-minded* crowd. (I’m not meaning to be insulting here, just descriptive. I remember a lot of people didn’t have any spiritual issues with eating white bread until they learned from the seminars that God never intended for man to eat it and the chemicals inside it are the devil’s tools of destruction against us.) Instead of shining light on the freedom given by Christ to be used for the sake of the Gospel, it reinforces and supports ideas that Paul clearly identifies as spiritual immaturity.
*The story of lemmings following each other off cliffs to their death was made up by Disney film makers.
I understand exactly what you mean, David, and I’m not coming out fighting for Bill Gothard, but I am saying that C.A.’s comments were quite harsh. He seemed to be attacking the ministry or the person rather than the stands with which he may disagree. Some personal baggage also seemed to be an issue in his estimation of the ministry’s worth. It just came across to me as a little inflammatory.
Did you mean “They might *not* be preaching heretical legalism”?
I am truly sorry Jeffrey if I offended you in any way. I was only trying to share my past experiences with that ministry and describing the effect it had on me as a teenager.
Have you been the the Gothard Seminars? I went for two or three years.
I had a knee jerk reaction to this as the memories all started flooding back when his name was brought up in conjunction with the music. For me looking back on those seminars it was more like being “programmed” than helping us to find our victory and freedom in Christ, and so I expressed that here.
I take back the comment of Gothard being a “complete and total legalist” as there were some positives, but the tone of the seminars were very absolute and “this is the way it is”. Gothard is a brother in Christ, but lots of the teaching are “out there” and would be very in line with most independent fundamental or primitive Baptist churches of which I came out of. Hard lined.
I was influenced by some very damaging teaching at a critical age from my church and Gothard that has taken me many years to overcome. Can you understand if I get a little emotional about it?
I tried to only made my comments based on his teachings and not spin, though I did get a bit emotional.
This was a blog to discuss “disputable matters” and this seems to loom large as one of the best known people that fits the discussion to a tee.
And you know what? I do have some baggage from these experiences. Does that somehow invalidate my comments? The difference is that I want to openly discuss and seek freedom with the help of my brothers in Christ. I don’t want to put on a face and a fake pose as so many of us do everyday. Are we here as a Body to really be transparent about our lives, or should I just clam up and fit the mold?
Just trying to tell what is on my heart, though it seems from the comments above that my heart still has some very sharp edges.
Anybody willing to sharpen some iron with me sometime, let me know. I will be here waiting.
Signing off….
C.A., I hope you know that Jeffrey was “crossing swords” with you in order to sharpen both yours and his. So don’t sign off yet!
Everyone needs to keep in mind that there is no body language or facial expressions available on blogs or email (and I don’t think emoticons count!!!). Sooooo, we must try to smile with our words.
Hold hands now… Kumbaya, my Lord…
Don’t worry, C.A., I wasn’t offended. I do appreciate that you are not writing off his ministry completely–that’s all I thought was out of line. Yes, I’ve been to the children’s portion of his seminars. I totally understand your point of view on this “disputable” matter and was not trying at all to dismiss any or all of your previous post. Thanks for your insight!
Here’s one for the list:
Certain combinations of vowels and consonants like: @&$, $%+#, etc.
And what about stealing copyrighted music? Oh wait…
I don’t think “spicy” language is in the area of disputable matters since the purpose of that kind of language is to shock and draw attention to the hateful, coarse, or disrespectful attitude of the speaker.
I might could go with you on some of the words that are considered euphamisms for “cuss” words like, “Gee Whiz, Shoot, and Dang” as being in the grey.
Yes Ken I totally understand and thanks.
🙂 😉 :o| : :o{)
yep….just not the same as seeing someone’s face.
I was only signing off for now as I think I have had more than enough input on this issue and figured that I would leave a little hard drive space for someone else to expound.
I also think it is time for me to reel my guts back in a little for now after spilling them on a couple different blogs here.
The post just above this one looks like a new an exciting direction.
Holy…..”expletive deleted” Batman!
Go for it guys!
In response to Ken censoring my already censored post … “Come see the violence inherent in the system. Help, help, I’m being repressed!” :^)
That’s cool. We’ve already discussed this into the ground on Hugh’s blog.
My general point is that culture defines what “spicy” is and is disputable as cultures intersect with each other.
OK. Let me put it this way. I don’t think the use of “spicy” language (as determined by the culture) is a disputable matter–The culturally based definition of “spicy” is a given.
IMHO, the use of language that your culture deems as “spicy” betrays a wrong attitude and is therefore never the kind of behavior that honors God.
I have read through Hugh’s blog and I believe that Mel Gibson displayed a not-very-Christlike attitude in his quote of Rhett Butler.
Correct. I agree that Mel’s incorrect attitude was displayed but there are plenty of other ways to use language deemed “spicy” that displays a proper attitude — if we can remove ourselves from our personal convictions for just a moment (like asking a fish to imagine life on land).
Yes, we must be responsible to our own culture but we cannot demand everyone else to conform to it. Our culture is always changing/evolving and intersecting with others – right here in our own communities. It would be a shame to condemn those that have the mind of Christ but use different words than us.
I’m sure many people were offended for us to be able to say the word “pregnant” in the holy house of God — how uncouth and disrespectful, eh?
And so the process goes for other words in dispute today. It’s just hard to see while we’re in the middle of it.
We can drop this tangent and get back to the original topic if you want.
I think all this discussion made us forget to ask Dan again what he did about that girl/lady that asked him to change the music at his Halloween event years ago.
I am very curious.
Dan?
Ok, here we go. I first asked her if she was serious – you know those joker-types who run around talking about being raised on the dark-continent with a witch-doctor next door! After she said, “Yes I am.” I proceeded to ask her if she struggled with music like this. Did it bring back pagan rituals to her that she was apart of or her family was apart of? She said that it didn’t, she just remembered the general environment of the music. Apparently, she had rejected the pagan practices that were using the music and had not participated in the ceremonies. I went on to explain that although the music may remind her of her background, it was not the same music and certainly not the same intent as the witch doctor or any other pagan belief.
After some discussion she walked away. Point? She was not being drawn into remembering a sinful lifestyle or habit that she had given up to follow Christ. She simply had a preference against that style of music; therefore, it was not a stumbling block issue for her. She simply did not like it, to which I can understand, but I did not feel warranted shutting down the system due to her lack of appreciation for a particular beat or style of music.
Let’s face it, if each of us told another person about an item we would rather not see happening in another Christian’s life we would have a mess on our hands. The spirit of Paul’s admonition was not personal preference, but potential to draw a person into a lifestyle of past sin. To tear down another brother or sisters for an expression of personal liberty was wrong. However, this situation was just rooted in personal preference (like classical music vs. jazz music or a tie in church vs. jeans in church), and an opportunity to learn that the body of Christ can express preference and that is great. If she would have told me it was bringing back memories of sinful activity or enticing her to sin then I would have shut it down no problem.
There ya’ go – come and get me!
So did she walk away in anger? Did the conversation ever continue? Did the mute saboo ever communicate the eminate danger? (Sorry, Veggietales reference.)
Assuming she walked away in anger. It seems like most of us just want to avoid conflict in the name of Christ. While we should all be willing to go to bat over the Gospel, we have a hard time with causing conflict over personal preferences. We find it easier to fall back on Christian ideas about considering others first than examining whether we’re dealing with truely stumbling into sin or a preference disguised as conviction.
I say disguised as conviction because one can truly have a preference of not liking the music that Dan was playing but would that be enough to movitate them to come up and ask him to turn it off? Unless that person is Kevin Schultz, probably not. ;^P
I wouldn’t say she walked away in anger, but she did not like the fact that the music was still playing. I never spoke about it to her again either. I really didn’t know her and this incident apparently didn’t foster a future relationship.
I do believe we have a certain level of responsibility to help others consider the issue at hand when it comes to “grey” areas. It is part of the “give and take” of Christianity.
One thought of clarification: I would not label “secular” music as grey. In particular, the music that has anti-God lyrics cannot be grey since they hold a value that is related to Biblical truth. Also, there are certain songs, love songs is a good example, that need to be avoided depending on the stage of life a person is in. For example, I would warn a person who is not married about filling their mind with romantic tunes that centers on a person being their “love.” It just charges up the flesh and focuses the affections on another person that can steal our joy from being satisfied with Jesus. However, I would say that Christian couples can listen to love songs since it can encourage feelings related to their covenant relationship.
Wow, I bet I just opened up Pandora’s box with this one. That’s cool, I love a good discussion…. come and get me David.
Thanks for explaining what happened Dan. I believe you handled it well back then. You will never be able to please everyone all the time. Someone will always be upset with something we do. Especially in churches……unfortunately! Even if we believe we are following Biblical principles or that we are on the right side of grey areas. This is the point of why we have disputable matters right?
As far as music goes, I agree with you completely on that. Personally I enjoy modern praise and worship, smooth jazz, some modern Christian Rock like the Rock and Roll Worship Circus http://www.worshipcircus.com, and CCM oldies from the late 70s and 80s like White Heart and Petra. Can’t get into most new CCM since lots of it (not all) seems to not have the clear message as the older CCM, and is truly big business now. Just me, but will not judge others if they don’t share my preferences as I once would have. However, I will help a brother or sister in love if I see that music influencing them negatively. Of course we don’t give that same freedom and flexibility to our kids!
Let me see if I’ve got this straight, Dan… Listening to any form of “secular” music is not just gray, but black—outright sin. Do you really want to lump everything from the Sesame Street theme song to Marilyn Manson into one category and pass judgment on it? Maybe we’d better start a monetary all hum Latin to each other. At what point is a song orthodox enough to not be “secular” and OK to listen to?
And if it is sin for a single person to listen to a love song, shall I infer that it would have been sin for Paul to read “Song of Solomon?” [Insert Church Lady quote here.]
Without question music choices and styles are one of the most divisive subjects among believers and churches. Christian vs. Secular, Hymns vs. Modern P&W. I don’t think Dan was making blanket statements that all secular music is wrong. Songs which blatantly promote sin, from artists that are blatantly in sin should be avoided. Is there any question of that? Truly garbage in garbage out. Just look at all of the teenagers trying to look, act, and sound like gangsta rappers/thugs. Very disturbing. Songs that might be a stumbling block for some will not be for others such as the love song reference from Dan.
For me, I would prefer to listen to a P&W tune that sets my mind on Jesus than an oldies Beatle tune, but I would still enjoy listening the the Beatle’s tune and would not turn it off. My wife is a big oldies fan too so I must keep a happy household! 🙂
Now to kick in this hornet’s nest and start running away fast…for any that believe all secular music is sinful, how about the old point that Satan was in charge of music as one of God’s angels in heaven before he was cast out? Yikes!
To take from Eric’s comment above about the Church Lady, when ever you listen to a certain secular song you must ask the question…..Hmmm…well who might be the influence behind this song…..now let me see here……
http://www.danacarvey.net/satan2.wav
Click above or cut and paste into your browser…
That sounded to me like a blanket statement, but maybe I misread it. If so, then apologies to Dan, a paragon of blog comment clarity. 😉
Sorry guys, I’m on vacation at the beach this week with only a dial up connection.
But I don’t believe in “secular”. Everything is what it is and spiritual value is assigned by those involved.
Sound crazy? Could be the sun. :^)
The “in particular” and “certain songs” statements seemed that Dan was talking about certain songs and not all “secular” music.
Dan….what say you?
Just as the very sunburned David wrote above (we are all jealous, even with only dialup), it can even be disputable in some cases which music is really secular or Christian.
What about crossover music “pioneered” by people like Amy Grant in the 80s? Some people have made it a big business to try and make everyone happy, and hard to figure out if a song is about God, or an infatuation with a man or woman. I don’t like that at all, but can’t get on others that might enjoy it as my argument would be weak.
We could “strain gnats” all day long on this issue, but everyone is going to have their own personal standards and tastes on the subject of music.
We must be discerning in what we listen to, and not be influenced by artists with lifestyles and lyrics that are opposed to basic Biblical principles. We must especially guard our children from what they listen to and watch.
This is a real strong parallel to television, and what we should and should not be watching.
In most of these cases it must come down to our own convictions and not let our judgment of others run amuck. This only hurts our goal of being a Body that truly cares for one another and accepting differences that are considered “disputable”.
We all have some serious logs in our own eyes that we need to have surgically removed before we offer to use a pair of tweezers to take the splinter out of our brother or sister’s eye, or in this case with music maybe their ears! (Nix paraphrase Bible)
We must agree to disagree on some things and move on with our goals to sharpen each other, and be beacon to that world out there.
Have a great week everyone!
I think “spicy language” is disputable depending on your particluar social exposure. I agree that intent in language is not disputable, but cussing is not always used in sinful intent. How many words do we use besides cuss words these days that are not used with the original intent they were meant to be used with? Communication is always disputable so long as it is not a matter of the heart.
The cultural argument is correct…but I believe that here on this blog (and in this church) we all share the same culture. So, while we may point out that language is culturally relative, we’re all in the same reference frame, so a logical judgment can be made on this issue.
Also, Andrew, we’re not talking about not using words whose meanings have changed, per se…we’re talking about using words which have or have taken on a vulgar meaning.
The words that our culture considers vulgar are associated with a lifestyle or philosophy that is worldly and anti-God. People generally begin to use such language out of rebellion or trying to fit in (read: be like the world). Consequently, anyone who uses such language is associated with a sinful lifestyle–even though language and lifestyle are not necessarily concurrent. Our culture makes that connection.
Now for an analogy. Why do many Christians, who feel they have the freedom to drink alcohol, not do so in public? Because they know that unbelievers will see them, and they wouldn’t have the time nor the opportunity to explain that their behavior is not inherently “sinful.” All the unbeliever sees is a Christian that is compromising–because they (wrongly) think that the Bible says not to drink, or something like that.
Similarly, in our pseudo-Christian culture (at least ethically), many people think that drinking or smoking or cussing is inherently wrong because of some Biblical or church standard. They don’t understand that “nothing is unclean in itself” (Romans 14:14, NASB). All they know is that this Christian is a hypocrite. Our responsibility, as Paul says, is to “not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil” (Romans 14:16, NIV).
Therefore, to paraphrase a familiar passage, if a word hurts my witness for Christ before an unbeliever, I will never use that word again. It’s simply not worth the risk to use such language.
CCM has anti-God lyrics. “Secular” music has Godly lyrics. I agree with David…the line cannot be drawn based on who is producing the music. The standard is whether the music expresses a Biblical worldview–or, at least, not a worldly one. And, for private listening, even music that is off-base in this respect can be an interesting study as long as we keep our Biblical worldview “glasses” firmly in place.
Maybe it was the sun, David, but I don’t think you can say “everything” when it comes to art. Even though a song may have some meaning to you personally, if you are enlightened to the artist’s original intent and it doesn’t line up with your interpretation, the song can lose its spiritual meaning.
And anyway, why are we talking about spiritual meaning? All of it has spiritual meaning–whether the spirit be of the world of God. That’s why we’ve got to “test the spirits.” Because everything, however innocuous it may seem, has some spiritual impact. Some things are just more spiritually neutral than others. That’s what this blog is about.
Wow, I should have migrated this to my blog since I don’t get “kick-back” to my e-mail when a reply goes up. Sorry. In referencing “secular” music, I am speaking of a person’s regular diet not an isolated occasion. For example, when attending a Braves game, I hear “Crazy Train” (Ozzy) and I do not consider that a sin. Although secular, it is not sinful and I think no one would disagree or we would, as Paul says, leave this world to not sin.
I am talking about lyrics that are opposed to truth and pursued by a follower of Christ as a regular part of their media diet. When this happens, it is not a grey area since they are not glorifying God since anti-God lyrics can’t do that regardless of how a person may think it relates to them.
Make more sense?
Also, Andrew, could you please clarify the statement: “Communication is always disputable so long as it is not a matter of the heart.” Would you also include in this blasphemy against God? In other words, can I blaspheme God in legitimate ways? It’s just that the statement you make is pretty wide in practical application…
Also, does this make definition of words up for grabs depending on how the author interprets them and not a generally accepted norm? For example, remember former President Clinton’s infamous, “it depends on the meaning of “is” statment?
I am a constructionist, but context plays a role in meaning. We cannot, however, assign meaning to the word “gay” as used in original Winnie the Pooh books, or in the Flinstones theme song, according to its generally accepted norm.
hey hey, I’m back from vaca. Where to begin?
Okay, to believe that everyone on this blog and at Grace shares the same culture is incorrect – especially as the church grows. Like it or not our language is always changing – some words become more vulgar, some less.
One of the easiest way to see this in the span of one to two generations. Jeffrey, I’d be willing to bet that the word “sucks” is used regularly in your weekly vocab. For people in their mid-30s on down it is no more than a way of saying that something is “disgustingly disagreeable”. To an older generation it means something a bit more offensive – do your own research. :^D
Dan, the Clinton example is a stretch, but the answer to your question is “YES”. Just as the Bible is so often taken out of context, we should look to what the authors meant instead of taking things at “USA 2005” face value.
Dan, I think I see what you’re saying as I think of millions of mindless, professing teenagers soaking the stuff in off pop-radio that is clearly against the Christian world view but is fun to sing and dance to. (Mostly sexual content.)
Here’s my story, over the past 6 years or so I’d say most of my music diet is about 1/12th CCM now that I am actively avoiding the FISH and embracing eclectic internet radio stations – Radio Paradise.
I tend to find some kind of creative beauty in music. I’m not drawn to genres but anything with artistic integrity – rap, country, heavy metal, afro-cuban, jazz, you name it. Even though I don’t like the content, Emenim is increadibly talented and does amazing things with vocal/lyrics and music. Radiohead combines rock with just unexpected elements that somehow just seem to work. Nine Inch Nails takes synthesis to new levels as they create new tones and layer effects. I am drawn by the same attribute that made the beauty of the oceans and heavens – creativity.
The reason I say I don’t believe in the idea of secular is because most people equate religious with spiritual. Like Jeffrey said, everything has spiritual meaning, even if it isn’t religious in nature. If you separate your life into religious and non-religious sections then you haven’t given your whole life to Christ. There is so much music that isn’t religious but can still bless your life and give God glory if you let it. (I think of playing follow the leader around my house with my kids to Paul Simon’s song Graceland.)
Jeffrey, regarding the artist’s original intent, I see it more like meat offered to idols. It may not have been intended to glorify God but I will not give the artist that power over me. Take “Crazy Train” for instance. I’m not an Ozzy fan but as I looked the song up, I read it as frustration with a fallen world – even corrupt preachers. From a Christian world-view I know this world is fallen and it isn’t my home. I can relate to this song. I might just go download it tonight. Thx Dan!
Wow apparently funerals are gray areas too.
Quite an interesting site to explore too. At first I thought it was a fake just to mock Christians but I guess not.
I have heard about these guys and they have to be the nastiest group to name the name of Christ. Anti-Christ.
In the Eric’s blog about Frist and abortion we discussed how we can try to win an argument on only moral or intellectual grounds and totally isolate the people that we are trying to win. “Tainting the mission field”.
These kinds of horrible and ungodly tactics will no doubt turn more people away from Christ, and flame their hate for those of us that really care about the person but hates only the sin.
These vicious people hate the person too because of their sin. Thank God that he still loved us despite our sin and sent Jesus or we would all still be lost for sure.
God does not “hate” anyone. He “hates” our sin.
It is very hard to not want to hate these horribly misguided people, but then we would be just like them!