Posted on 12/07/2004 12:06:09 PM PST by LouAvul
"Rocking for Christ".....i.e. the latest fashion in "born again" bumper sticker theology. God reaches His people spiritually in His own time. And thank God, He doesn't depend on these head banging idiots and their half baked arminianism to do!
I wanted to share an article I recently read in which the author's premise was that music elicits a response from the listener independant of the words accompanying the music. He went into the fact that "soothing", quiet music has been used forever to calm babies.
His theory was that heavy-metal, hard rock, certain Rap,(again, regardless of the lyrics) etc. evokes a response from the sub-conscience that would not be considered a "good" (i.e, Christian) response.
All I'll say is that this really makes sense to me, but I'm no expert. Just sharing the thought for discussion.
Ginny Owens is my all-time favorite artist. Never had a favorite until her. She sings her share of the "Jesus is your pal" songs, but she also balances them out with "real" messages. Not that "Jesus is your pal" isn't a real message, it has it's place. But I agree with you that Jesus being my pal will not get me saved.
Here are the lyrics to "Land of the Grey" by Ginny Owens. I very much like her confrontational attitude towards our society in it.
Nobody is saying you shouldn't. But being "like one of His" does not necessarily mean you have to be an organist who refuses to play anything but hymns.
The guys in Switchfoot are "His" - and if their being good at what they do in a genre that appeals to young people makes a kid more curious about Christianity and inclined to explore it, there is no harm in that.
poing
Rich Mullins was definitely one of the greatest there's ever been, even though his music wouldn't necessarily be considered rock.
Now, it just makes sense that if you're trying to calm a child, you don't shout and scream - but I don't think a better option is singing dirty lyrics softly.
The idea that Christian rock is a bad thing seems to me to be a perception by people who don't find it appealing, and nothing more.
I love Third Day!!
I love Third Day!!
I love Third Day!!
I love Third Day!!
I love Third Day!!
I love Third Day!!
I love Third Day!!
I love Third Day!!
http://www.air1.com/
This is a great station, you can listen on the internet and also check to see if they have a broadcast station in your area.
http://www.air1.com/
You might give this a listen.
Bingo!
You are completely missing the point. You seem to have your mind made up. Some would call it opinionated, others would call it steadfast.
I will say this: I believe all styles of music have their place in worship service. However, I do tend to break them into two groups: performance music and congregational worship music. I saw Hillsongs in the Seattle area a few years ago. They led a worship service. I really enjoyed their "performance." However, my comment to my wife afterwards was that it felt more like a concert than a worship service. Yes, sometimes even I can see SOME modern Christian music that way.
Then you have the Michael W. Smith "concert" on DVD called worship. It seems like a worship service more than a concert. He leaves out his performance numbers. It is an amazing thing to "watch."
Basically, I think you need to lighten up on this whole issue because what really matters with this whole thing is what is in the heart of the worshiper. And you and I cannot know that. We can only speculate. But it is really none of our business in the long run. If a person really don't like the style of worship in a church, and it is a real problem, they should try to change it or change churches.
This is true whether the music is hymns or modern rock or anything in between. Anyone who demands that one group or another is just wrong or unscriptural is A) Judging others in a way the Bible clearly tells us not to (in other words, their attitude is a sin); or B) A control freak.
I personally really bristle at the latter.
BTW, yes, some of those other posts do bother me as well. You won't find it from the other group for the same reason you wouldn't find it from the Pharisees in Jesus' day. That is, it is not the particular area in which they may be tempted.
On the other hand, their area of temptation may (I repeat, "may") be that they err in the direction of "appearances" or sort of "worshiping" the tradition itself.
In other words, different camps are vulnerable to sin in different directions.
C. S. Lewis, in Mere Christianity sort of touched this when he said the Prostitute may be closer to heaven than the judgemental prudish tea totaler that goes to church every week.
I am sure that some here would say that you will go to hell for doing that.
Oh but He does depend on us, them and everyone to do their part. Don't think that you are the ONLY one that God may use. He isn't an elitist.
That one sort of gives me the creeps. It puts words in Jesus' mouth.
That is why I won't touch the Left Behind books either. I will not read "Bible based" fiction. Christian based is ok though.
Michael W. Smith's 'Worship" is absolutely AWESOME!
>>Kazaa? Thats a whole other thread ain't it? Bet it would push this one over a thousand.<<
Heh, heh... It's ok to download songs for your own personal use. It is the "sharers of large quantities of songs" that cross the legal line.
Or have I opened a hornets nest... 8^>
>>you dont even sing out loud?<<
Now you get over here and clean up this coffee you made me spew all over my keyboard!!!
8^>
I would still like to see some examples of "watered down" christian songs. I haven't seen them yet. It seems people are using a blanket statement against a whole genre simply because they don't like the genre.
It is reminiscent of the Pharisees of the 1950's who said rock was evil because it had an "evil jungle beat." Heh, heh...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.