From: noel@crs.cl.msu.edu (Noel Estabrook)
Newsgroups: rec.music.christian
Subject: Re: *Burning*Albums* (Anti-Secularism)
Keywords: LONG
Date: 28 Jul 92 02:09:39 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:
>In article <1992Jul25.152837.18326@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> noel@crs.cl.msu.edu.UUCP (Noel Estabrook) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul25.061114.5250@techbook.com> kim@techbook.com (Kim Larsen) writes:
>Now you have a problem.  When you talk to somebody about Jesus, *you*
>are bringing the message.  If you insist that the message and the
>messenger are inseparable, then you cannot write or sing a song that is
>not essentially sinful, as all people are.

Not true.  When Moses brought down the Ten Commandments, was his message
sinful?  When John the Baptist proclaimed the coming of Jesus, was he
sinful in his message?  What about the apostles?  No, no, no.  We have to
realize that when we praise God or bring His message, we are speaking 
through the power of the Holy Spirit, not necessarily through ourselves.
As Paul says, when we accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior, we are
"transformed", we now have something which is of benefit to the world, and
if we listen to the Holy Spirit, our message will (hopefully) sometimes 
reflect that Good News.  God loves to hear the praise given Him by those
who have given their lives over to Him.  Certainly we are still sinful and
flawed, but we are REDEEMED.  Madonna has no such claim.  Those who are
slaves to Jesus Christ are the ones who have the message we (and the 
World) need to listen to.
>
>The only way to bypass this problem is to replace the "reality"
>criterion with "intent", and say that a song written or performed by
>someone who *intended* to praise God is okay to listen to, but if the
>identical song were written by somebody not intending to praise God, it
>has nothing good to offer.  Apart from the fact that this system
>basically ignores the song *itself* altogether, I am interested in how
>you plan to determine somebody's intentions.

Obviously I can't truly "judge" someone's intention.  However, I am
intelligent enough to see their "fruits".  We are hopefully discerning
enough to know that if a bisexual, fornicating, profeesed anti-Christian
is putting out music, it is not going to be profitable or edifying.  Even
if by some chance one could argue that it could be, couldn't the same
be gotten from a much more sure source?  If Satan wants to talk to me 
about something supposedly in support or God, and God offers to tell me
the same thing, I'm much more likely to listen to Him.  

>
>Suppose I write a song about the ways in which we damage our natural
>environment.  Maybe it talks about being good stewards; maybe it
>doesn't.  Maybe it refers to God directly, or mentions His name, or
>maybe not.  Will you listen to it?  Would your answer change if I
>professed to be a Christian in a magazine interview?  On the record
>sleeve?  What if I never said anything one way or another, leaving you
>nothing to go by but the album and the songs on it?  How would you
>decide whether it is "OK" to listen to the album?

To your first question - it depends.  If the song edifies me and draws
me closer to God, then I may.  To answer your second question - if you
professed to be a Christian, then yes, I would probably listen to the 
song more closely.  Servants of Jesus Christ can certainly offer me
more useful insight into the world than non-believers can.  To ansewr
your third question - well, if I didn't know for sure, I would investigate
to see what fruits your life had produced to determine whether I would
or not.  If I couldn't find anything one way or another, I would assume
that you don't care enough about your commitment to Christ to tell anybody
about it, so I would wonder where you were coming from.  Those who are 
truly committed to Christ can't help telling people about it (if you don't
confess me to man, I won't confess you to my father" Jesus says)  If I have
to dig through tomes of material to find out if you're a Christian, I have
to assume you're not, or if you are, you`re not very committed.  I don't
believe in the "private Christian" who believes that his faith is nobody's
business but his own - it's a direct contradiction of Scripture.  If someone
(especially someone famous) is a believer, people will know about it ("else
the stones will cry out" :-)).
>
>My point is, you couldn't.  Even if I gave you the "easy way out" and
>told a _Rolling_Stone_ interviewer that I am indeed a Christian, how do
>you *know* that I'm "really" a Christian, and not just saying so?
>Maybe I consider myself a Christian because I consider myself basically
>a good person.  If your evaluation of music depends so strongly on the
>artist's intentions, then you will never know if *anything* is "safe"
>to listen to.
>
Exactly.  I will never "know", and that's why Christ told us to be
discerning and use our minds.  It certainly beats saying "well, I'll
just listen to anything and figure out what I figure is good.  It'll be
okay".  Anyone who tries to make _any_ decision on such incomplete 
information is indeed setting himself up for a fall.  I want to have all
the information God can give to me before I make a decision about something
that can effect me so.>
>>Is this even the point?  I think that the lives of those who we let
>>influence us DOES matter.  If I listen to the music of a confessed
>>Satanist (hypothetical), will I be receiving edifying input?  Very
>>doubtful.  If I don't even take the time to find out if that person
>>is dedicated to God or not, I have failed in my responsibility to God
>>, myself, my intellect and my spirit.  We are told to discern.
>
>Nowhere has anyone said (as far as I can tell) that knowledge of the
>artist does not affect one's interpretation of the music; the very
>opposite is the case.  While Satan can misrepresent the Bible, we know
>that he tells lies not because we know the Bible so well, but because
>we know the Author.

I disagree.  Adam and Eve knew God perhaps more intimately at one time
than any of us can, and yet they were deceived by Satan (even though God
had warned them of doing the very thing they ended up doing).  God gave
us the Word to _help_ us discern.  If you had never read the Bible, would
your knowledge of Christ be the same?  Maybe if you were alone in a jungle
somewhere in Africa, God would personally reveal everything about Him to
you, but we have been given Scripture as a help.  I do agree that God
does reveal Himself personally, but let's not underestimate Scripture.
>
>If I had a predisposition to like Madonna's music (which I don't), my
>knowledge of her from interviews and videos will cause me to interpret
>her lyrics one way instead of another.  A visitor from another country
>might honestly interpret the lyrics to her songs to be quite innocent,
>and would be able to enjoy the music.  However, when the videos and
>interviews become known, the visitor may be forced to reevaluate the
>songs, and may no longer be able to enjoy them.

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.
>
>In short, knowledge of the artist does matter, insofar as this
>knowledge affects one's interpretation.  However, it is still possible
>to find positive meaning in a song despite the realization that the
>artist may not have intended it that way.

Possibly, but why bother?  Confucius _may_ have something valuable to
say, but why should I read his works, when Jesus can tell me the same
thing through a source that I can be confident of?  No need.  Anything
Confucius can tell me, Jesus can tell me better.  Anything Madonna can
tell me, a servant of the Lord can tell me better.
>
>You have said that, if one disapproves of an artist's person, one must
>disapprove of his work (please correct me if I am mis-stating your
>position).  It is not surprising that you also believe that endorsing
>an artist's work implies endorsing his person.  Therefore, if I listen
>to Phil Collins' music, you believe that I am thereby endorsing his
>values and aspirations (whatever they may be).

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.  Now, I don't approve of what Amy
Grant is now doing (there's another thread on this, please don't flame it).
However, I certainly can't argue with some of the beautiful music she has
put out in the past in praise of God.  I would buy one of her earlier 
albums, but not one of her recent ones, because her commitment to Christ
isn't as evident ("it's okay for Christians to be sexy" [People, 1991]).
I do believe that buying a person's product _is_ endorsing their work.  If
I buy a crystal at a new age shop, I am doing more than buying a bauble that
looks pretty, I am putting money in the pockets of those who would see Jesus
defeated.  I can't do that, if you can, I can't do anything about that, nor
will I try.
>


--
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