It's a shame when a song sounds good, but it doesn't adhere christian values

[Greenriser]

It's a shame when a song sounds good, but it doesn't adhere christian values. Half the time I listen to songs because of the beats or instrument and I don't even pay attention to the words. They sound really interesting but when I focus on them I think, "hey, I really liked that song! Why does it have swearing, or degrades people etc!" Do you ever have this issue? Does it stop you listening to mainstream music, or do you listen to some of it and possibly filter content?

 

[aria384gp:)]

I agree with you, and to answer your question: If it doesn't glorify God then I don't listen to it.

I mean would I want Jesus to hear me listening to such things? No way. WWJD. And I know He would definitely not give any way for the devil, meaning He wouldn't listen to a song that glorifies what He hates. Have you ever read Phil. 4:8
Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things. See what I mean? And I don't recall mainstream artists praising God in their songs, and if anything, mostly every secular song is the exact opposite of what God tells us here to think on. Who would you rather trust the world? or God? I think you already know my answer.

 

[beatarmy2]

I have the same issue, where I like certain music, but it's not christain, or supportive of christain music. Unfortunately, I like music like Lincoln Park and Disturbed, but the cussing every few words isn't right.

 

[StandForTruth]

I agree with you, and to answer your question: If it doesn't glorify God then I don't listen to it.

I mean would I want Jesus to hear me listening to such things? No way. WWJD. And I know He would definitely not give any way for the devil, meaning He wouldn't listen to a song that glorifies what He hates. Have you ever read Phil. 4:8
Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things. See what I mean? And I don't recall mainstream artists praising God in their songs, and if anything, mostly every secular song is the exact opposite of what God tells us here to think on. Who would you rather trust the world? or God? I think you already know my answer.

Heh.
The music I listen to is a hundred times more true, honest, just, pure, lovely, virtuous, praiseworthy, and of good report then any so-called "Christian" band I've ever heard..

 

[brettnolan]

Phil. 4:8
Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things. See what I mean? And I don't recall mainstream artists praising God in their songs, and if anything, mostly every secular song is the exact opposite of what God tells us here to think on. Who would you rather trust the world? or God? I think you already know my answer.

This certainly leaves the Christian with not much to do. Think about it. The purity piece of this alone eliminates virtually everything...including church.

 

[Kelly]

We are LIBERATED from singing praise to worldy, carnal issues, not denied them.

 

[brettnolan]

Does this meet the criteria of Phillipian 4:8? Does it sing praise to "worldy, carnal issues?"

"All the girls in the bathroom talking.
Who they gonna take to the Sadie Hawkins?
My ears are burning but I kept on walking.
Smile on my face and an air guitar rocking.
Sadie Hawkins Dance, in my khaki pants.
There's nothing better.
The girls ask the guys.
It's always a surprise.
There's nothing better.
Baby do you like my sweater?
Sitting in the back of my next class napping.
Got up, gave a speech,
then bowed to the clapping.
Told a funny joke got the whole class laughing.
I think I got a tan from the light in which I was basking.
Scan the cafeteria for some good seating.
I found a good spot by the cheerleaders eating.
The quarterback asked me if I'd like a beating.
I said, "That's one thing I won't be needing."
And since I'm rather smart and cunning,
I took off down the next hall running.
Only to get stopped by a girl so stunning
(only to get stopped by a girl so stunning?).
She said, "You're smooth, and good with talking.
You're going with me to the Sadie Hawkins."

 

[aria384gp:)]

Does this meet the criteria of Phillipian 4:8? Does it sing praise to "worldy, carnal issues?"

"All the girls in the bathroom talking.
Who they gonna take to the Sadie Hawkins?
My ears are burning but I kept on walking.
Smile on my face and an air guitar rocking.
Sadie Hawkins Dance, in my khaki pants.
There's nothing better.
The girls ask the guys.
It's always a surprise.
There's nothing better.
Baby do you like my sweater?
Sitting in the back of my next class napping.
Got up, gave a speech,
then bowed to the clapping.
Told a funny joke got the whole class laughing.
I think I got a tan from the light in which I was basking.
Scan the cafeteria for some good seating.
I found a good spot by the cheerleaders eating.
The quarterback asked me if I'd like a beating.
I said, "That's one thing I won't be needing."
And since I'm rather smart and cunning,
I took off down the next hall running.
Only to get stopped by a girl so stunning
(only to get stopped by a girl so stunning?).
She said, "You're smooth, and good with talking.
You're going with me to the Sadie Hawkins."

Boy, Mr. Brett do you love picking on me or what?

Just kidding

I don't have time to reply to that and since you love challenging everything I say, I will think of an answer supportive enough to back my opinion and get back to ya.

 

[brettnolan]

Boy, Mr. Brett do you love picking on me or what?

Just kidding

I don't have time to reply to that and since you love challenging everything I say, I will think of an answer supportive enough to back my opinion and get back to ya.

I just want people to think about things. These arguments came up in the old secular forum and there was never given any good support for not listening to secular music.

Not to mention the difficulty in deciding what is secular and what isn't.

I'm not picking on you at all. I get uncomfortable when something is labelled as sinful or wrong, when the Bible doesn't do so. Is it one of the 10 Commandments? Does it fall under "Love your neighbor as yourself?" I don't think so. It is neutral. Obviously, on this issue, one has to use one's discernment.

Unfortunately for you, I don't know what you can say about this particular example. It's by a Christian band. It's not necessarily a Christian song. What's sinful about it? It doesn't glorify God. It doesn't glorify Sadie Hawkins dances. Seems okay to me, although I must admit, I haven't played it backwards.

 

[bleechers]

Unfortunately for you, I don't know what you can say about this particular example. It's by a Christian band. It's not necessarily a Christian song.

It's a (weak) Relient K song.

"Christian" is not how we define it. Something either is doctrinally sound, doctrinally heretical or neutral. The above example is neutral. I don't care who sings it, it can't be called "Christian".

I've been in both Christian and secular bands (since 98, however, I've been exclusively Christian). I would never say that my secular songs (no matter how "positive" or "family friendly" or "moral") are "Christian."

Let's say I wrote a song called "Let's Work Our Way to Heaven with the Help of Allah" and the lyrics followed the title. The song can never be deemed "Christian" merely because I say so. There is "Christian Truth" as revealed in the scripture. It is not generic nor applicable to "all religions."

We all the obligation to judge all things by the Word of God: "the Bereans were more noble than the Thessalonicans for they searched the scriptures whether these things [Paul's preaching] were so."

So I agree that some things can be "neutral" but that begs the question: why would a band that calls itself Christian (and markets itself to a Christian audience) do "neutral" songs? I'm not saying that they don't have the liberty to do so (they don't have the liberty to be heretical, however), but why would they want to do "neutral" songs (to any major degree)?

It may not be "sinful," but it sure is a waste of time.

Now, if a band does neutral songs to avoid preaching truth, then they ought to search their souls to see why.

 

[brettnolan]

Why wouldn't a Christian band do neutral songs? Are Christians not allowed to have fun with their music? Are Christians not allowed to sing about loving another human (Amy Grant/Stacie Orrico for instance)?

I don't get it. What's wrong with simply having a band play "clean" music that has nothing to do with doctrine whatsoever?

Why would they WANT to do neutral songs? Who knows? Who cares? How is it a waste of time to give Christians an alternative to mainstream vulgarity? Now we're crossing over into the other thread. Why can't a band that has WILLINGLY accepted the Christian "label" provide an alternative to mainstream music whether Scripturally based or not?

Should Relient K now shun the Christian label because they want to do something besides praise music?

What do you want from these guys? Everything? Perfection?

 

[bleechers]

Why wouldn't a Christian band do neutral songs? Are Christians not allowed to have fun with their music? Are Christians not allowed to sing about loving another human (Amy Grant/Stacie Orrico for instance)?

They can do whatever they want to do. They just can't call it "Christian." We had a song called "Blue-Eyed Happy Girl" that I love, but I don't pretend that it's "Christian."

I don't get it. What's wrong with simply having a band play "clean" music that has nothing to do with doctrine whatsoever?

Nothing particularly wrong with it and nothing particularly right with it. If it doesn't relate distinctively "Christian" truth (doctrine) then don't call it "Christian." I'm not telling anyone what to do. I just note that (a) we are commanded to preach the gospel and (b) there are "better things" as in "Mary has chosen the better thing" by honoring the Lord with her substance.

Why would they WANT to do neutral songs? Who knows? Who cares? How is it a waste of time to give Christians an alternative to mainstream vulgarity? Now we're crossing over into the other thread. Why can't a band that has WILLINGLY accepted the Christian "label" provide an alternative to mainstream music whether Scripturally based or not?

Well, I guess the context is: given the choice between preaching the power of God unto salvation to a dying world as commanded by Him or doing "neutral" songs, I don't know why anyone would choose the latter. They certainly can choose to do neutral songs, but they'll have to answer to God for the use of their talents. Are they "burying them in the yard" or investing them wisely? I dunno, but at least they should consider the question.

Should Relient K now shun the Christian label because they want to do something besides praise music?

Depends. Shun? Who's giving them the label? If they choose the label, then they are responsible for the label. I didn't say they couldn't do silly songs like "Sadie Hawkins Dance." Sure they can. But SHD is not a "Christian" song. I won't answer for the studio time they used, they will. That's all I'm saying. I'm not picking on one song, but I'd be disappointed if I did a Christian CD with one silly song and the silly song got all the attention (whoop, whoop, whoop!)

What do you want from these guys? Everything? Perfection?

I just want all of us to do that which the Bible commands us to do. If you find something on my CD that you think requires an explanation, then I'd be glad to do it. After all, I openly use the word "Christian" in my ministry. By doing such, I become accountable to the Body for the use. Most of all, I become accountable to the Lord.

I'm not passing judgment on Relient K based on one song. The example was given and I responded to it. Now, if RK is another one of these "We're a Christian band that refuses to preach the gospel, etc." bands, then I do have a problem... as we all should.

Hey if they do a show with doctrinally-sound songs, peach the gospel from the stage, be confident in the Lord that everyone at the show understands the gospel... then sure, go ahead, do Sadie Hawkins Dance... just don't a night's worth of SHD, say nothing, avoid the gospel and try to tell me it's "Christian."

 

[brettnolan]

You're confusing me. YOU have a song titled "Blue-Eyed Happy Girl" that is NOT a Christian song.

Why would YOU want to play such a song?
Are you a Christian musician or not?

What I'm hearing you say is contradictory. On one hand you think Christian musicians should only "do that which the Bible commands us to do" by "preaching the power of God unto salvation" as opposed to "doing 'neutral' songs." On the other hand, you yourself have a song that is not Christian.

So if SHD, is on a CD that is otherwise Christian, does that make the entire CD non-Christian? Does that make Relient K a non-Christian band?

 

[bleechers]

Did you read my last paragraph? I said that SHD is fine, so long as they have done that which God has commanded. Overall, I said they can do whatever they want to do. But we'll all answer for all we do (gold, silver, precious stones or wood, hay, stubble). That's all I was saying.

Again, there are "better things" and we will answer for the use of our "talents."

It's just a reminder from me, not a command from me. The Bible, however, does command us to preach the gospel. Just a reminder. We will answer for our response to that command and for our use of His time.

As for "Blue-Eyed Happy Girl," we last performed it in 1998. It was recorded in 1992. And (if you'll read the last paragraph of my last post again), we only performed it after a night of OVERT gospel preaching and OVERTLY Christian music. It's not part of my normal set.

Hey, if Relient K preaches a clear, unadulterated gospel message, they can do all the SHD songs they want! I'm not gonna be there at the Bema Seat to answer for anybody but me, I'm just trying to keep us all focused on why we're here.

I don't want to have to say to my Lord on that day "Sure You gave me all those gigs and sure I could have told people the gospel... but golly, I was positive... doesn't that count for anything?"

I don't want to hear the answer. Again, given the choice...

 

[brettnolan]

I think this is almost off-topic. You're getting into preaching and sharing the gospel and I have been under the impression that you feel like musicians, due to the number of people they can reach, are required to do this and others, a firefighter for instance, isn't so much. Now I realize you are NOT saying that, and that you would come back with "EVERYONE is commanded to preach the gospel."

But practically speaking, don't we all have jobs to do outside of the Great Commission? And aren't we also allowed to pursue that work?

Apply that to a Christian entertainer then. Is every waking moment going to be spent preaching, or will there be times when the entertainer can simply entertain?

 

[nephilimiyr]

Unfortunately for you, I don't know what you can say about this particular example. It's by a Christian band. It's not necessarily a Christian song. What's sinful about it? It doesn't glorify God. It doesn't glorify Sadie Hawkins dances. Seems okay to me, although I must admit, I haven't played it backwards.

LOL,

You know I once had "Stairway to Heaven" on a Led Zepplin Album that when I heard that there was a Satanic message there if you you played if backwards. I tried it by placeing my finger on the album and moving it backwards just to see if that was true.....

 

[nephilimiyr]

I have found great pleasure and closeness to God when listening to music that causes me to worship him and motivates me to just thank him for everything! There is christian music that doesn't do this for me yet still has christs message in the lyrics. I also listen to some secular music that although it doesn't glorify God it doesn't curse him either. Secular music whether it's rock or classical or whatever doesn't mean to me that it is sinful to listen to it.

Does Mozart's music cause me to sin just because it doesn't hold any biblical truths? NO! This example can be applied to many other forms of music. My rule of thumb is that if the lyrics are acting in a way to destroy God's message I will reject it. But there are plenty of secular artists out there that do create music that doesn't destroy God's message. The purpose of that music may not be to worship him or to edify the truth or his glory BUT in alot of ways it causes me to worship him and thank him for the many things he has given us. There's a sense that the lyrics has to say this but I don't believe so.

God has given us music as a gift not just to worship him but also to celebrate the life he has given us. Music can minister to us whether there is a godly message or not.

 

[bleechers]

OK, the difference between a fireman and a musician: the fireman is not given a microphone, placed on a stage and pretty much given free reign to say what he wants. Both have a responsibility, one has more freedom to do it.

It takes less than 30 seconds to preach the gospel from the stage.

If, in whatever we do, we fail to heed the command of scripture (when given the opportunity), we can never say "failing to do as commanded on purpose is God's will." It is not. We know what God's will is, He has clearly laid that out for us in the NT.

Does Mozart's music cause me to sin just because it doesn't hold any biblical truths? NO! This example can be applied to many other forms of music.

Fine, I never said (or even suggested) that Mozart or the Beatles or Air Supply are causing anyone to sin. But I can say this: listening to that music may not be edifying. One thing you will see in my posts is the constant refrain: I'm not telling anyone what or what not to do (unless expressly forbidden by scripture).

What I am saying is:

(a) The Bible does command us to do certain things (preach the gospel, for example). Stating that obeying this is a "choice" is not acceptable.
(b) There is nothing inherently wrong in listening to Mozart, etc., but it is not "Christian" per se. All things are allowable, but not all are profitable.
(c) "Christian" is not how we choose to define it, but how the Bible defines it.
(d) Given the choice to "say" or "not say" a Word for God, it is best that we "say."

I am just arguing for "the better way". Jesus told Martha that Mary had chosen the better way. I don't condemn listening to the Beatles or bands doing "say-nothing" songs, but I do say there is a "better way" and am baffled as to why many "Christian" bands knock themselves over to say nothing...?

My rule of thumb is that if the lyrics are acting in a way to destroy God's message I will reject it. But there are plenty of secular artists out there that do create music that doesn't destroy God's message.

How do you determine that which "destroys God's message"? How do you determine what is God's message? BY THE SCRIPTURES. That's exactly the same way we determine what is "distinctively" Christian and what is not.

We have all been given time, talents and gifts. We will be judged on how we use these. Is it not best that we use them for the advancement of the gospel, the sanctification of the church and for the glory of God?

All I am saying is (with that in mind) why are there so many willing to go to the mat to defend say-nothing bands and very few willing to go to the mat to defend the faith? Why is there an army ready to defend the rights of "Christian" bands to never say a word of truth from the stage and very few willing exhort to church to "preach the gospel," "defend the faith," "rebuke heretics," or "search the scriptures"?

I think we've got this thing on its head.

 

[nephilimiyr]

If, in whatever we do, we fail to heed the command of scripture (when given the opportunity), we can never say "failing to do as commanded on purpose is God's will." It is not. We know what God's will is, He has clearly laid that out for us in the NT.

I think the question needs to be asked why you are so against music that doesn't praise God. Is it commanded in the Bible that the music we create or listen to has to be praiseing him? That's what seems to be the big question here in this thread. If that is the case I have to say no. Yes there are many scriptures that say we are to sing praises to him and with all types of instruments but does the word forbid useing those intruments in a way that it doesn't praise him? Please provide me scripture of this because I know of none. And since there is no scripture that tells us this why do you persist in telling us that any music that doesn't praises God or glorify him is wrong? Are you our judge? I think not.

Fine, I never said (or even suggested) that Mozart or the Beatles or Air Supply are causing anyone to sin. But I can say this: listening to that music may not be edifying. One thing you will see in my posts is the constant refrain: I'm not telling anyone what or what not to do (unless expressly forbidden by scripture).

And where in the Bible does it command us to only listen to music that edifies? I'm not familar with one but you seem to know for sure there is. Now you say you don't tell anyone what to do or not to do but then why are you argueing with what I'm saying? Scripture does not forbid us to create music that doesn't edify him. You seem to want to tell me that there is a scripture that does forbid us to do so. I ask that you show me this.

What I am saying is:

(a) The Bible does command us to do certain things (preach the gospel, for example). Stating that obeying this is a "choice" is not acceptable.
(b) There is nothing inherently wrong in listening to Mozart, etc., but it is not "Christian" per se. All things are allowable, but not all are profitable.
(c) "Christian" is not how we choose to define it, but how the Bible defines it.
(d) Given the choice to "say" or "not say" a Word for God, it is best that we "say."

I am just arguing for "the better way". Jesus told Martha that Mary had chosen the better way. I don't condemn listening to the Beatles or bands doing "say-nothing" songs, but I do say there is a "better way" and am baffled as to why many "Christian" bands knock themselves over to say nothing...?

No one here is argueing with what you are saying about "the better way" I agree with you on this yet I stop at the point of condemning others if they don't use that better way.

How do you determine that which "destroys God's message"? How do you determine what is God's message? BY THE SCRIPTURES. That's exactly the same way we determine what is "distinctively" Christian and what is not.

I know what the word of God says because I read the word. If there is a song that contradicts Gods word then that is what destroys Gods word. As Brettnolan has already presented, a say nothing song does not break down or destroy the word. You are trying to say that it does but you are failing in your attempt to convince me of this.

We have all been given time, talents and gifts. We will be judged on how we use these. Is it not best that we use them for the advancement of the gospel, the sanctification of the church and for the glory of God?

Just because there is a song that doesn't mention God nor any of his atributes doesn't mean that songwriter is going to hell. Your feelings is that all songs should push the advancement of the gospels. That's great! but I'm saying that just because a song doesn't say anything about God doesn't mean it is not showing any atributes of God nor does it mean that the songwriter or the listener of that song is being driven away from the Lord. You want to make the case that songs that say nothing about God drives us away from God, am I correct? If that is the case then I totally reject your message!

All I am saying is (with that in mind) why are there so many willing to go to the mat to defend say-nothing bands and very few willing to go to the mat to defend the faith?

You are takeing the wrong approach to this. I don't say I am going to the mat for say-nothing bands, you are putting me into that box of yours for the sole purpose so that you can acuse me of not going to the mat for bands that defend the faith. That is wrong for you to do this! Not everybody thinks or believes the same as you do and not everybody fits in that box you want to place everybody in.

Why is there an army ready to defend the rights of "Christian" bands to never say a word of truth from the stage and very few willing exhort to church to "preach the gospel," "defend the faith," "rebuke heretics," or "search the scriptures"?

Again, you assume that anybody who defends the right for a band to just sing wholesome songs and not necessarily sing praises to God is a sinner! That is makeing judgement on your fellow believer and is a sin! And again you are trying to place anyone who would want to defend these bands as saying they wont or refuse to defend the word of God. This is totally wrong and in my opinion is you once again trying to place everybody in this neat little box of yours that says they will either do this or they will do that. Rubish!

You have got to show me in the Bible where music is forbidden that doesn't praise God. Now why don't you take your own advise and search the scriptures and give me the scripture that teaches this?

Neph

 

[Acts 17:11]

"It is a form of spiritual fratricide to have the means of speading the gospel and not to use them (Ezek. 33:6)." William MacDonald

For a band/artist to not have overtly Christian lyrics is to overlook the vast spiritual need of the world today. Every Christian artist has the means to preach the gospel and edify the saints. To choose not to do so is to reject the calling God has given all Christians. How does one justify being given a microphone, having complete liberty to say whatever he/she wants, and yet not feel compelled to give the gospel to the live audience and the CD listening audience? Welcome to the Laodicean church.