From: hill@spot.Colorado.EDU (Michael Hill)
Subject: Re: *Burning*Albums* (Anti-Secularism)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 02:19:27 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.020939.29006@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> noel@crs.cl.msu.edu.UUCP
(Noel Estabrook) writes:
>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.

That is a good point.

>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]).

And now, the statement that made me reply to your post.

Oh my!  Quick, gather up the children and herd them into the back room,
plug their ears, and pray that they haven't been corrupted!  A Christian
acknowledging that we, along with the rest of humanity, are sexual
beings, and admitting that our sexual nature might be a gift from God?
Blasphemy!  Sacrilege!  Burn that witch at the stake!  (Just as soon as
the Inquisition's finished with her, that is.  They got first dibs.)

So Amy (or anybody else, for that matter) says it's okay for Christians to 
"be sexy", and all of a sudden you're able go gauge her commitment or
the evidence thereof by one statement?!  Come on, Noel, if there's a
larger portion of the statement to which you disagree, you would have
done well to quote it in its entirety, not just a sound bite.  If it's
not the greater context in which you found something objectionable, then
I feel justified in exploring the meaning of this small snippet.

"Be sexy" I interpret as meaning admitting that our sexual nature colors
to a large extent the way we interact with everything in our experience,
and that we don't have to deny this fact (like Adam and Eve hiding their
nakedness in the garden) out of shame.  I see it as meaning that we
can acknowledge our sexuality as a good gift from God (alliteration!)
for which we should thank Him.

If you disagree with this, you will need to demonstrate conclusively how
you derive your difference of opinion from the seven words you quoted
above.

>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

				Unequivocally, yes.

			--Michael

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Hill   <><  Isaiah 9:6 | "Don't you forget now that Somebody died for
hill@spot.Colorado.EDU         |  you/ I'm tellin' you the truth, man, I ain't
Ball Aerospace Systems Group & |  gonna lie to you/ Good guys, bad boys, we're
University of Colorado@Boulder |  all the same/ Saved by grace is the name of
$ mv net.flames /dev/null      |  the game."            --Allies, "Burden Down"
-------------------------My boss is a Jewish carpenter!------------------------
Did you ever notice that everybody in favor of abortion has already been born?!
Newsgroups: rec.music.christian