From: ajw@cbnews.cb.att.com (andrew.j.whitman)
Subject: Re: What do you do when your child thinks Metallica is cool?
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 20:02:39 GMT

In article <nestabro.721661764@nova> nestabro@nova.gmi.edu (Noel Estabrook) writes:
>
>>In article <nestabro.721626208@nova>, nestabro@nova.gmi.edu (Noel Estabrook) writes...
>
>>>pops on, say, some Kansas once in a great while, but when I go into a house
>>>and see scads of worldly books and music hanging around, and no evidence
>>>of Scripture and Sripturally based things, I have to wonder.  Wasn't it

Well, Noel, if you dropped by my house you'd find scads of non-Christian
("worldly"?) books and albums, and scads of Christian books and albums.  
Probably half a dozen Bibles, nihilistic punk rock albums, copies of
"Why I Am a Christian" by Malcolm Muggeridge and "Why I Am Not a
Christian" by Bertrand Russell, and John Michael Talbot albums next
to Talking Heads albums.  

I think the primary difference in our approach to such things is that
I think it's possible to find something genuinely good and worthwhile
in the non-Christian works, even while I disagree with some or all
of their basic premises.  You think (at least I believe you do)
that the non-Christian (worldly) nature of the works automatically
disqualifies them from worth and merit.  

We've had this discussion several times over the last couple of 
years, and I respect where you're coming from.  But let me try
out a little diagram on you (with apologies to Francis Schaeffer):


                                   |
                                   |
                  Bad Message/     |        Good Message/
                    Good Art       |          Good Art
                                   |
              ---------------------+-------------------------- 
                                   |
                  Bad Message/     |        Good Message/
                    Bad Art        |          Bad Art
                                   |
                                   |

In the real world things don't break down so neatly, but let's assume
that this is a valid way to evaluate art.  The areas of conflict
here are the upper left-hand and lower right-hand corners of the 
chart.  Obviously, nobody wants to support a bad message that 
isn't performed/developed well, and likewise, nobody disputes the
fact that the best of all possible worlds is to produce creative art 
that contains a truthful message.  

The question is, what do you with everything that falls somewhere in
the middle?  Your response, I think, is that the message should
take priority over the art (correct me if I'm wrong).  Therefore,
anything on the right side of the chart would be okay.  My contention
is that anything on the right side *or* the upper half of the chart
is okay - including well-done art that contains a bad message.  
Why?  Because I believe we have the ability to hold on to the 
good and reject the bad, and the ability to discern which is which.  

>One of the most faulty arguments for "secular" things is that, "well, they
>talk about _real_ life, and _real_ problems that we can't just _hide_
>from."  I got news - Scripture talks about every important problem there is,
>and gives the solution for it.  If that ain't real life, nothin' is.

But this is a simplistic view, Noel.  Yes, the Bible deals with real
life issues.  Does it address every important problem there is?
Global warming and the depletion of the ozone layer?  Racial tensions?
Abortion legislation?  Drug addiction?  AIDS?  Sexual abuse?  The Bible 
provides us with principles to address all these issues, but it obviously
doesn't deal with them directly.  And to say that "Jesus is the
answer" is to do a disservice to the complexity of the issues. 
It's *not* that simple.  

Face it, there *are* real problems out there that we *can* hide from,
and that the church has often hidden from, but that we *shouldn't*
hide from.  And if people want to address them in books, music, or
the visual arts, then more power to them.  And when they do, the
same principles that I outlined above apply.  We still have to
evaluate the message and we still have to evaluate the artistic
expression.  

>I don't think it's individual at all.  God told us what is worldly in his
>Word.  If millions of people in the world hold something in high esteem,
>there's a good  chance it's not of God (since the world doesn't appreciate
>the things which are of God).

"Popularity" does not equal "ungodliness."  It may or may not.  Michael
W. Smith and Amy Grant are enormously popular.  So is Madonna.  I
don't think looking at popularity charts is going to help a whole
lot one way or another.  Discernment might.

>--
>Noel Estabrook			 |	Your religion is what you
>nestabro@nova.gmi.edu         --|--     do after the sermon is over.
>Instructional Design & Tech.    |     
>Michigan State University       |               Romans 12:2

>--
>Noel Estabrook			 |	Your religion is what you
>nestabro@nova.gmi.edu         --|--     do after the sermon is over.
>Instructional Design & Tech.    |     
>Michigan State University       |               Romans 12:2

Andy Whitman
AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus, Ohio
att!cblpn!ajw  or
ajw@cblpn.att.com

(who copied Noel's .sig twice in honor of his return :-))
Newsgroups: rec.music.christian