From: harling@pictel.com (Dan Harling)
Subject: Re: *Burning*Albums* (Anti-Secularism)
Keywords: LONG
Organization: PictureTel Corporation
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 21:34:01 GMT

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:
>>In article <1992Jul23.202652.23711@chili.cc.lehigh.edu> learnd@lafcol.lafayette.edu (Dave Learn) writes:
>>I never thought I'd find myself defending Madonna, :-) but ...
>>If that's the message they get, who are you to say they're
>>wrong?  A song is not the singer.  My relationship to a song is not
>>anyone else's relationship to that song.  Renewal can be found in some
>>odd places, if you will open yourself to look for it.  
>
>In the desert, Satan used Scripture to tempt Jesus.  Jesus said that what
>Satan was saying was WRONG.  We are not blank slates who are put here to
>soak in whatever is put before us.  Scripture tells me that if someone
>puts out a video that practially shows two women having intercourse, has
>simulated intercourse with men on stage, and publicly denounces Christianity,
>then I have every right to tell the person who says that kind of thing is
>ok that he is wrong.  A song is not the singer?  Get real.  If someone else
>had brought Jesus' message, would it have been the same?

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.

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.

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?

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.


>>Could any of us really pass a test like that?  God uses some very
>>imperfect vessels to impart truths to the rest of us.  I'm not talking
>>about Madonna, Phil Collins, or anyone else specifically--and this
>>discussion doesn't have to be limited to pop music.  Why "listen to
>>music...as a springboard to evangelize"?  Can't one simply listen
>>to music?  Must one go digging into the lives of every artist to see
>>if she or he is living just the way we think she or he ought to live?
>
>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.

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.

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.

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).

This may be the way you understand things, but you must realize that
all people do not think that way.  I have a very easy time maintaining
the distinction between a song and the artist who wrote it.  Although
my knowledge of the artist's intentions will affect my interpretation,
it is not the sole, deciding factor in my reaction; perhaps it is for
you, but I look at more than just what the author *says* it should mean
to me.
____________________________________________________________________________
Daniel A. Harling                        (harling@pictel.com)
PictureTel Corp.             Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of
Peabody, MA  01960                 PictureTel, but they ought to be!