From: noel@crs.cl.msu.edu (Noel Estabrook)
Newsgroups: rec.music.christian
Subject: Re: *Burning*Albums* (Anti-Secularism)
Keywords: LONG
Date: 29 Jul 92 20:29:35 GMT
Reply-To: noel@crs.cl.msu.edu.UUCP (Noel Estabrook)
Organization: Michigan State University

>>In article <1992Jul27.213401.1825@pictel.com> harling@pictel.com (Dan Harling) writes:
>I don't mean to underestimate Scripture, but merely to point out that
>Scripture can be misapplied apart from the guidance of the Holy
>Spirit.  One form of this guidance is in the knowledge of God's
>character.  But this is tangential...

Tangential, but I agree.  Knowing God's character means that I know He
can't tolerate sin.  Therefore, if I am to be like him, I must have the
same abhorrence for sin.  I know, you'll say that secular music isn't
necessarily sin.  We could debate it forever and not get anywhere, so 
I'll drop that, I've already provided some Scripture on the subject...
>
>>Exactly my point.  If I enter into a situation I am unfamiliar with (the
>>foreigner), then before I took the plunge into something I was unfamiliar
>>with, I would investigate first - it would be the only prudent thing to
>>do.
>
>It is the "prudent" thing to do only if you believe that the unfamiliar
>situation can cause you to sin without the intention of rebelling
>against God.  I have a hard time believing that the foreigner in the
>above example is necessarily sinning or being led astray by the music,
>at least not until he has reason to understand the songs differently.

Wait a minute.  If I enter an unfamiliar situation, then the point is is
that I DON'T know it won't cause me to sin - thus the need for investigation.
If I enter an unfamiliar situation, the odds are 50/50 (at least) that it 
could lead to sin.  Thus, I owe it to myself to investigate.
>
>"Why bother"?!  We are talking about *art*, not philosophy!  So often
>it seems that Christians forget that music is expressive, not just a
>scaffold to present theological truths.  I look to God as the source of

Ah, there's the rub.  When someone produces a piece of art, they ARE
saying something.  Maybe not "theology" in the sense that our limited
minds can understand, but a purpose.  Purpose must be towards God, or
it won't help us grow.
D
>It is a shame that music produced by Christians (let alone the
>"Christian music" subset thereof) rarely evokes such a response in me.
>Perhaps it is because people put so many expectations on Christian
>artists, overemphasizing the theological content at the cost of musical
>expression.  Christian music tends to be evaluated solely on the
>lyrics, as though the music were nothing more than accompaniment.

Or perhaps it is because we are a generation that wnats nothing more than
to have our ears tickled with what we want to hear for our own pleasure.
Perhaps the lyrics in some Christian music convicts us, makes us uncomfortable
thus leading us to music which is a little easier to swallow.
>
>>Yes and no.  If one disapproves (I don't like the term, but we'll use
>>it) of a person, we have to investigate the work.  Again, I'll go to the
>>extreme - I don't like Satan, and I must reject all that he does.  Therefore
>>in one not dedicated to Christ, I have to lean more towards rejecting their
>>"teachings" than towards accepting them...
>
>So do I.  But why just "lean" toward rejecting their "teachings" (if
>that's all that their music is)?  That is where our positions
>apparently differed.  While I was willing to entertain the possiblility
>that a song written and performed by a non-Christian might be
>worthwhile to listen to, you did not seem to be.  Have you changed your
>position, or did I misunderstand you in the first place?

Not at all.  I'll just go back to my original post.  In Scripture, music
is used as a tool to edify believers or worship God.  As such, I restrict
myself to music that does those things.  Since a non-believer has no
desire or intent to either edify believers or worship God, I don't use
their music.
>
>
>>isn't as evident ("it's okay for Christians to be sexy" [People, 1991]).
>
>It *isn't* okay for Christians to be sexy?  I guess it depends on what
>you mean by "sexy"...  There is nothing wrong with making efforts to be
>attractive, unless you intend it to lead others to sin (in thought or
>in deed).

Sexy - exciting or intending to excite sexual desire (Webster's New 
World Dictionary, 1987).  There are numerous places where Scripture
warns women against external appearance that may excite.  Intention is
irrelevant.  I have an attractive wife.  If she dresses in a mini-skirt,
tight blouse and high heels, then she is certainly going to cause others
to lust (and thus sin).  In this case she shares in the sin, even though
her intention may have been to merely look attractive for my sake.
>


--
Noel Estabrook		|	If you were indicted in court for being a
noel@crs.cl.msu.edu   __|__	Christian, would there be enough evidence
Educational Technology  |	to convict you?
Michigan State Univ.    |				Romans 12:2