From: harling@pictel.com (Dan Harling)
Subject: Re: *Burning*Albums* (Anti-Secularism)
Keywords: LONG
Organization: PictureTel Corporation
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 18:45:39 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.020939.29006@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> noel@crs.cl.msu.edu.UUCP (Noel Estabrook) writes:
>In article <1992Jul27.213401.1825@pictel.com> harling@pictel.com (Dan Harling) writes:
>>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...

You are clearly judging the song on the basis of the artist's merit,
not on its own merit.  A work of art, as a form of expression, has a
life of its own apart from its creator.  To say that you would listen
to my song (and hopefully enjoy it) if I professed to be a Christian,
but that you would not listen to it if I did not, completely ignores
this fact.


>...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.

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...

One's interpretation of music is influenced by knowledge of the artist;
when lyrics may be ambiguous, this additional information may be
helpful in determining the intended meaning, but it does not *force*
you to interpret it that way, any more than knowing that Herman
Melville was (I believe) homosexual *forces* me to interpret
_Moby_Dick_ any differently than before I knew that fact.


>>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.

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.

Once he realizes the artist's intentions (insofar as that is possible),
he will have to determine for himself whether his *own* reaction to the
music will change.  If he can't help but think of the video or the
interview or whatever gives the song a sinful side in his mind, then he
should stop listening to it.  If he can continue to interpret it the
way he did before, despite the artist's intentions to the contrary,
then he does not sin by continuing to enjoy it.


>>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.

"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
the majesty that I see when I listen to  _Awaken_ by Yes, but the song
that evokes that image within me was not expressed by Christians.
Indeed, nearly all of the music that speaks to my soul of eternal
things--that brings me closer to God--is expressed by non-Christians.

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.

While I feel that lyrics are important, and ought to be as
"theologically correct" as possible, the music itself is *equally*
important, if the song is to be anything more than a musical tract.
Because I listen to music in order to appreciate the *music* as much as
(or more than) the lyrics, I am rarely satisfied with "Christian"
music.  Groups with one or more members who are Christians (e.g.,
King's X, U2, Yes) tend to do much better, because they do not have the
tendency to sacrifice musical expression.


>>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...

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?


>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]).

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).


>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.

Somebody mentioned it before: "Guilty by Association".  If you cannot,
in faith, buy a person's product then you should not.  However, I don't
think that you can apply this universally.  Who made the computer you
use to write these letters?  It is pretty likely that at least _one_
non-Christian profits from its manufacture; you are probably putting
money in the pockets of at least one person who would see Jesus
defeated.  The same goes for the paper you write on, and the paper
clips and staples you use to hold them together.  I suspect that you do
not research the sources of all these items.

You may have a better case if you limit the argument to art, in that it
is usually the work of a single person, and often directly represents
the artist's values.  If you do not appreciate a work, either because
you don't like its form, or because you don't like what it says to you,
then obviously you shouldn't buy it.  However, that does not preclude
other Christians from appreciating it and buying it for their own
reasons.
____________________________________________________________________________
Daniel A. Harling                        (harling@pictel.com)
PictureTel Corp.             Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of
Peabody, MA  01960                 PictureTel, but they ought to be!
Newsgroups: rec.music.christian