What's Up With the "Labeling?"

[wgjones3]

Well, as a Christian writer (albeit an unpublished one), I feel like I have something to say about this, too--especially in light of the C.S. Lewis quote. I write fiction. Always have, hope to continue always. In writing characters that are believable and well-rounded, I always touch on religious beliefs. When asked, I always claim to be a Christian writer. I know a lot of people who hide from the label, insisting that they're "writers who happen to be Christian," but as far as I'm concerned, that's symantics. Either you write with a Christian audience in mind or you don't. Likewise, with musicians, either you sing for a Christian audience or you don't. Is one more noble than the other? One one hand, you're sending a message to an otherwise unchurched audience. On the other hand, you're supplying a positive alternative for Christians who might otherwise turn to music that would weaken their faith by tempting them to sin.

As a Christian writer, I don't really care if people refuse to look at my work because of its Christian label. Those aren't the kind of readers I'm after. I'm not looking to evangelize the world through my writing. I want to preach to the chior, so to speak, because that's where my heart is at. I write for people who want Christian entertainment. For me, it's not a ministry, it's a vocation. My goal is to push the boundries of what is good fiction, and if the Lord blesses me with the talent to do so, then I'll be happy whether the world takes notice or not. If the Lord doesn't bless me in the talent department, then I guess it doesn't matter either way, because I won't have any readers to speak of.

Personally, the only merit I can see to a Christian artist who shuns the Christian label is that they will be given opportunities to testify and minister that those who are labeled Christian won't be given. On the same token, what good is that testimony if the artist is indistinguishable from non-Christian counterparts in terms of a lifestyle and in terms of an end product?

In the end, what matters isn't the label. It's what God has put into that particular peson's heart, and the fruit they bear both as an artist and as a person.

 

[aria384gp:)]

Well, as a Christian writer (albeit an unpublished one), I feel like I have something to say about this, too--especially in light of the C.S. Lewis quote. I write fiction. Always have, hope to continue always. In writing characters that are believable and well-rounded, I always touch on religious beliefs. When asked, I always claim to be a Christian writer. I know a lot of people who hide from the label, insisting that they're "writers who happen to be Christian," but as far as I'm concerned, that's symantics. Either you write with a Christian audience in mind or you don't. Likewise, with musicians, either you sing for a Christian audience or you don't. Is one more noble than the other? One one hand, you're sending a message to an otherwise unchurched audience. On the other hand, you're supplying a positive alternative for Christians who might otherwise turn to music that would weaken their faith by tempting them to sin.

As a Christian writer, I don't really care if people refuse to look at my work because of its Christian label. Those aren't the kind of readers I'm after. I'm not looking to evangelize the world through my writing. I want to preach to the chior, so to speak, because that's where my heart is at. I write for people who want Christian entertainment. For me, it's not a ministry, it's a vocation. My goal is to push the boundries of what is good fiction, and if the Lord blesses me with the talent to do so, then I'll be happy whether the world takes notice or not. If the Lord doesn't bless me in the talent department, then I guess it doesn't matter either way, because I won't have any readers to speak of.

Personally, the only merit I can see to a Christian artist who shuns the Christian label is that they will be given opportunities to testify and minister that those who are labeled Christian won't be given. On the same token, what good is that testimony if the artist is indistinguishable from non-Christian counterparts in terms of a lifestyle and in terms of an end product?

In the end, what matters isn't the label. It's what God has put into that particular peson's heart, and the fruit they bear both as an artist and as a person.

Excellent post, sir! I dare say you made your point with clarity, dignity and eloquence. I can definitely tell that you are a writer.

 

[brettnolan]

I don't see how you guys aren't getting the point.

Non-christians typically do not knowingly and purposely do Christian activities. They might show up at church every once in while just to say they tried it, but that's it. If you advertise a concert for a Christian band and use Christian jargon in your advertisement, you're not likely to get very many non-Christians showing up. Your light may be seen, but no one knows anymore about it than they did before they saw it.

I agree...if they are asked whether or not they are Christians they should say yes. But if asked if they are a Christian band, it would be perfectly legitimate to say no. If they are all Christians, but not playing praise music, they are not a Christian band.

Just for fun, let's say Celine Dion is a Christian. I don't know if she is or not, let's just say she is. So is her music now Christian also? Of course not. Conversely, is she now not a Christian because her music isn't?

Mr Jones, there is a place for "preaching to the choir" as you put it. But there is also a place for reaching out to those who are lost. If you can get airplay on a secular radio station with a neutral song, then get the mainstream audience to buy your album with stronger messages on it (such as Amy Grant "Heart in Motion," Michael W Smith, Sixpence, Stacie Orrico), then get them to come to your shows, how can that be a bad thing? Jesus hid His message in parables! If you get get slapped with a Christian label, you likely won't get this chance. You may have a great Christian following and if that's your goal, that's great. But if your goal is to reach those that wouldn't otherwise be reached, then you may just be wasting your time.

Aria, your "survey" of the mainstream audience would be flawed, because you would be asking them what they thought of bands that have already crossed over. Most people already have a pre-conceived notion of what Christian music is. If you tell them a band they've never heard of is a Christian band and then play it for them and ask them if they like, at best your likely response will be "they're okay." Then they'll come up with a billion reasons why they didn't like it. If you don't believe me, check out some of the threads I started in the "Secular Music Charts" forum, formerly the "secular" forum(they're kind of old now).

I still say, sneak up on 'em if you can. Think about it in terms of other methods of evangelism. Generally speaking, standing on the street corner preaching is not as likely to gain a soul (in postmodern society), as getting to know someone first and gaining their trust, then sharing your faith with them when they are most open to accepting it.

 

[eutychus]

Christian musicians = Christian bubble = Christian subculture = the secular trying to be sacred, but missing the mark.

musicians = in the world = the sacred showing itself to the secular

 

[swingnscream]

Here's a few of my thoughts one the subj of the label Christian music.

1st off, if a band can't comfortably wear the name Christian -as a small band or as a mainstream band- than they better not. I'm so freakin tried of bands out their earning disgrace for the label of Christian music. I'm talking about those bands who go half way then duck & cover. Evanscene didn't make it 5 mins in spotlight without completely & absolutely denying where they came from. Six Pence None The Richer snub the Christian music scene when they were making big in the mainstream, but now that they're not so big in the mainstream anymore, now they have time for Christian music, magazine, radio, book & music stores, claiming the title, and things of the like. Tons of secular bands & artist that are out there now, started by saying they were "Christian" then when they got big enough in the mainstream to go on their own, they broke all ties to title of Christian and went out acting like any other secular artist ..or worse.

Don't get me wrong, there are good bands who know where they came from and haven't denied it or gotten "too busy" for the lil ol Christian music scene.

Yes, a lot of bands don't want to wear the title of Christian music becuz they don't play by some JPM standard [JPM: Jesus per minute]. But here's the deal, everybody wears labels. As a band you play & write about what you think about, what's in your heart, what's happenin in your life, things that are real like that, therefore as a Christian [person] you should have the spiritual applications of God in your everyday life & thought, let alone in your dealings of the heart. So it would seem absurd to me if some tried to say they were a Christian person who writes/plays music but that does not effect their music in such a way to make it "Christian music".
What? Do we think that Christian music means "holy holy holy " and some ridculous JPM standard? No. But as a Christian everything you do should be based off of your walk with God, simply becuz God should be working in your life in such a way that He is your life.

I think musicians & artist who try to escape the label of "Christian music" are the same as kids who don't want to be known as Christians in their school. I do think it is a shame, even though I personally understand wanting to be known as more than just some stupid label. However, this is a label that should define who were are and what we do. And what if... just What if.. we could be revolutionaries to show ppl how cool God is. WHAT IF... we'd all learn to praise God everyday with our "gift of cool"? Wouldn't that provide the same attraction, audience, and openess that the musicians who don't want to be labeled are looking for?
Afterall, the Bible says if we lift of up God, He will attract the ppl to Him. And isn't that what we all want? Not to be a big name Christian band or to have a great "Christian music" scene ...but to see God infecting every music scene [including mainstream], every culture and sub-culture there is out there. Shouldn't that be the point of our music and our lives?

The bands I listen to and buy cds of are Christian artist ..and I only buy Christian artist's music. I never full heartly support a band unless I know what they're about and what they stand for. Music is a huge deal in my generation, it's more than just entertianment, and I won't support bands or artist who don't take responsiblity in their lives. We're all being watched by someone else [if u're older than 10 u should know that by now], but musicians who are in spotlights [literally & figuratively] should know, yeah ppl and especially kids are watching them and repeating what they say and do.
I don't mean any of that as a threat ...but as a challenge. I know a lot of good Christian bands who know & understand these truths. It's a hard place to be [in the spotlight], but that's why when I do find good bands like these I support them full heartly [including prayer] and wish them all the best.

Keep rocking for Christ! ...Cuz it's not about us, it's about Him!

 

[aria384gp:)]

Here's a few of my thoughts one the subj of the label Christian music.

1st off, if a band can't comfortably wear the name Christian -as a small band or as a mainstream band- than they better not. I'm so freakin tried of bands out their earning disgrace for the label of Christian music. I'm talking about those bands who go half way then duck & cover. Evanscene didn't make it 5 mins in spotlight without completely & absolutely denying where they came from. Six Pence None The Richer snub the Christian music scene when they were making big in the mainstream, but now that they're not so big in the mainstream anymore, now they have time for Christian music, magazine, radio, book & music stores, claiming the title, and things of the like. Tons of secular bands & artist that are out there now, started by saying they were "Christian" then when they got big enough in the mainstream to go on their own, they broke all ties to title of Christian and went out acting like any other secular artist ..or worse.

Don't get me wrong, there are good bands who know where they came from and haven't denied it or gotten "too busy" for the lil ol Christian music scene.

Yes, a lot of bands don't want to wear the title of Christian music becuz they don't play by some JPM standard [JPM: Jesus per minute]. But here's the deal, everybody wears labels. As a band you play & write about what you think about, what's in your heart, what's happenin in your life, things that are real like that, therefore as a Christian [person] you should have the spiritual applications of God in your everyday life & thought, let alone in your dealings of the heart. So it would seem absurd to me if some tried to say they were a Christian person who writes/plays music but that does not effect their music in such a way to make it "Christian music".
What? Do we think that Christian music means "holy holy holy " and some ridculous JPM standard? No. But as a Christian everything you do should be based off of your walk with God, simply becuz God should be working in your life in such a way that He is your life.

I think musicians & artist who try to escape the label of "Christian music" are the same as kids who don't want to be known as Christians in their school. I do think it is a shame, even though I personally understand wanting to be known as more than just some stupid label. However, this is a label that should define who were are and what we do. And what if... just What if.. we could be revolutionaries to show ppl how cool God is. WHAT IF... we'd all learn to praise God everyday with our "gift of cool"? Wouldn't that provide the same attraction, audience, and openess that the musicians who don't want to be labeled are looking for?
Afterall, the Bible says if we lift of up God, He will attract the ppl to Him. And isn't that what we all want? Not to be a big name Christian band or to have a great "Christian music" scene ...but to see God infecting every music scene [including mainstream], every culture and sub-culture there is out there. Shouldn't that be the point of our music and our lives?

The bands I listen to and buy cds of are Christian artist ..and I only buy Christian artist's music. I never full heartly support a band unless I know what they're about and what they stand for. Music is a huge deal in my generation, it's more than just entertianment, and I won't support bands or artist who don't take responsiblity in their lives. We're all being watched by someone else [if u're older than 10 u should know that by now], but musicians who are in spotlights [literally & figuratively] should know, yeah ppl and especially kids are watching them and repeating what they say and do.
I don't mean any of that as a threat ...but as a challenge. I know a lot of good Christian bands who know & understand these truths. It's a hard place to be [in the spotlight], but that's why when I do find good bands like these I support them full heartly [including prayer] and wish them all the best.

Keep rocking for Christ! ...Cuz it's not about us, it's about Him!

I agree with you 100%!

 

[bleechers]

"God has chosen by the foolishness of preaching to save some."

"Woe unto me if I preach not the gospel."

Hey, they give me a mic (in the studio or on stage) and let me say what I want... in what other arena do we have such an opportunity to do that which we are commanded to do (preach the gospel)?

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God unto salvation..."

"The cross is to those who are perishing, foolishness."

Paul said that he came not in excellency of speech or with clever arguments. No, he came preaching the gospel. Foolish? Well, that is God's method. I haven't figured out a way to improve on that. I'm only responsible for my obedience, not the results.

Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word. How shall they hear unless someone be sent to preach? Again, how many places do they give you a mic and let you say just about anything you want?

I'm not telling anyone else what to do, but as for me, I wanna use my music (CDs, shows, etc.) to do that which God has commanded... and that includes "earnestly contending for the faith" (Jude 3).

Wanna hear unabashedly Christian music? Write to me. All CDs are free.

 

[humblegyrl]

Way to go bleechers. I applaud each individual's response.

I am also a writer. I do not seek labels. I hope that what I write pleases God and not my audience. I believe many Christian artists have sought secular labels for increased publicity to the unbelieving crowd. (Fame, money, or maybe genuine outreach.) However, I can not judge their motives because I can not see into their hearts as God can.

Whatever the case, I applaud quality music that isn't loaded with f-bombs, promiscuity, adultery and hatred. We need to counterstrike these negative messages. Yes, there are artists out there that claim that God is their number one when their lyrics are quite questionable. Yes, they can hurt the Christian image.

But, I believe that there should be less time spent criticizing. Set the example. Keep doing what God has revealed to you to be right. The action supporting the label (or no label) is what matters.

 

[brettnolan]

Six Pence None The Richer snub the Christian music scene when they were making big in the mainstream, but now that they're not so big in the mainstream anymore, now they have time for Christian music, magazine, radio, book & music stores, claiming the title, and things of the like.

I don't remember this with Sixpence in particular. I remember then unashamedly telling a secular 'zine where they got their name. Still a valid point, but humblegyrl has a response to it later.

...this is a label that should define who were are and what we do. And what if... just What if.. we could be revolutionaries to show ppl how cool God is.

This label also turns people away before they can form an objective opinion of the artist. The label automatically, for many people, says "NOT cool." Right or wrong, that's what the label does. If you want to show people how cool God is, you have to get God in front of them first. Then you can retro fit the label.

Afterall, the Bible says if we lift of up God, He will attract the ppl to Him.

Hypothetical question. I don't follow POD around all day every day. But let's assume that they live their lives in a very strong Christian walk. If this is so, and they can get out into the mainstream and spread the message subtely through their music and overtly by their lifestyle, wouldn't that be better than spreading the message to people who already know God?

To me, THAT is where your "attraction" is.

And isn't that what we all want? Not to be a big name Christian band or to have a great "Christian music" scene

humblegyrl, can you take this one?

I can not judge their motives because I can not see into their hearts as God can.

thanks!

...but to see God infecting every music scene [including mainstream], every culture and sub-culture there is out there. Shouldn't that be the point of our music and our lives?

Amen! So if removing the "Christian Music" label helps us "infect" the mainstream, then peel off the label.

Think of it in terms of other stereotypes. Stereotypes are typically some truth that is twisted into something negative. A stereotype is a label. Ask any minority group in the US, how hard it is to overcome labels. Unfortunately, Christians come with negative labels attached and some well-earned. I can't think of a specific one right now, but how many times have you seen a movie, or heard a story about someone doing something extraordinary, only to be denied acceptance when the powers that be found out they were black, or a woman, or handicapped, etc.

 

[bleechers]

Hypothetical question. I don't follow POD around all day every day. But let's assume that they live their lives in a very strong Christian walk. If this is so, and they can get out into the mainstream and spread the message subtely through their music and overtly by their lifestyle, wouldn't that be better than spreading the message to people who already know God?

OK, I'll bite!

I see a lot of Bible verses commanding us to preach the gospel, teach sound doctrine, spread the gospel, rebuke gainsayers, reprove error, reject heretics, etc.

I see that God has chosen "the foolishness of preaching to save some."

I see God commanding us to "earnestly contend for the faith."

I see God revealing that faith comes by hearing the preached Word, etc.

Where does God tell us to "spread the message subtley"?

Sure, if you're in a job that forbids you to talk or to teach on company time, then the last resort is being subtle. But that is not the case when they give you a microphone, book you studio time and set up radio and magazine interviews.

The first goal should always be to preach the gospel (for it is the power of God unto salvation - there is no other). We should never subjugate that duty in the name of a "positive" or "subtle" message.

A "Christian walk" backs up a Christian message, not the other way around. If POD has an audience of 30K fans and use the free mic time to preach a clear gospel message, then they at least know 30K people who've heard the truth... and they've been obedient to God. If they are rejected because of the message, then they're in good company. God doesn't need POD's (or anyone's) subtle messages, He commands that we preach the Word, when it's convenient and when it's not convenient. The results are His business.

He chose "the foolishness of preaching" to save souls.

Would you suggest that Jesus and Paul could have been more "successful" and had "longer careers" if they had just toned it down a bit and were more "subtle"? Surely not.

You might lose a gig, a contract, a house, a studio... but what is gained is eternal.

I don't know where the Bible teaches a "subtle message" approach. I know where we are commanded to have lives that radiate God's goodness, but that never (never) takes the place of the multiple commands to "preach the gospel to every creature."

 

[swingnscream]

OK, I'll bite!

I see a lot of Bible verses commanding us to preach the gospel, teach sound doctrine, spread the gospel, rebuke gainsayers, reprove error, reject heretics, etc.

I see that God has chosen "the foolishness of preaching to save some."

I see God commanding us to "earnestly contend for the faith."

I see God revealing that faith comes by hearing the preached Word, etc.

Where does God tell us to "spread the message subtley"?

Sure, if you're in a job that forbids you to talk or to teach on company time, then the last resort is being subtle. But that is not the case when they give you a microphone, book you studio time and set up radio and magazine interviews.

The first goal should always be to preach the gospel (for it is the power of God unto salvation - there is no other). We should never subjugate that duty in the name of a "positive" or "subtle" message.

A "Christian walk" backs up a Christian message, not the other way around. If POD has an audience of 30K fans and use the free mic time to preach a clear gospel message, then they at least know 30K people who've heard the truth... and they've been obedient to God. If they are rejected because of the message, then they're in good company. God doesn't need POD's (or anyone's) subtle messages, He commands that we preach the Word, when it's convenient and when it's not convenient. The results are His business.

He chose "the foolishness of preaching" to save souls.

Would you suggest that Jesus and Paul could have been more "successful" and had "longer careers" if they had just toned it down a bit and were more "subtle"? Surely not.

You might lose a gig, a contract, a house, a studio... but what is gained is eternal.

I don't know where the Bible teaches a "subtle message" approach. I know where we are commanded to have lives that radiate God's goodness, but that never (never) takes the place of the multiple commands to "preach the gospel to every creature."

Sweet! A thousand props to you buddy! Exactly. Our culture teaches us to be "polite" [which really translates as be quite], but yeah the Bible says be bold, be couragous, go out and preach the good news. Mind you, it shouldn't be done in a rude or overbearing way, but what are ppl really going to think if we are cowards about what we believe?
I'll be the first to admit it's hard to find a good balance. I think what POD does is good, and I understand that they felt that's the way they had to do it to be heard ..and yeah it works for them. ...But if all Christian artist did the same thing ..we'd look like fools & cowards for not being straight up about what we believe.

But yes, to give the other half creidt, the way it is now a days, we can't all do it the same way. Just like missionary who go into some country with a different trait or occupation, sometimes bands have to go into mainstream without the Christian title on their name badge [so to speak]. But we can't all do that ..and we shouldn't either.
...is that more agreeable for the other half of this "debate"?

 

[brettnolan]

Sweet!
But yes, to give the other half creidt, the way it is now a days, we can't all do it the same way. Just like missionary who go into some country with a different trait or occupation, sometimes bands have to go into mainstream without the Christian title on their name badge [so to speak]. But we can't all do that ..and we shouldn't either.
...is that more agreeable for the other half of this "debate"?

Yes, the other half agrees with you. Everyone has a different way of evangelizing. You can't forget that Christian musicians that cross over into mainstream are still reaching many people for Christ (except for those who apparently weren't Christian to begin with - Evanescence), as long as their lifestyle reflects it. Now if POD is partying backstage with Linkin Park and all the groupies, obviously they are not backing up their message. Until I know that is the case, POD is a Christian band in my book, as is Amy Grant, Michael W Smith, 12 Stones, Switchfoot, MxPX, Relient K (who plays in bars), etc.

As for commands of a subtle approach...how many parables did Jesus tell?

"Let those who have ears to hear..."

 

[bleechers]

As for commands of a subtle approach...how many parables did Jesus tell?

Well, Jesus tells us that parables were given as a judgment:

Luke 8:10 He [Jesus] said, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to others I speak in parables, so that, 'though seeing, they may not see; though hearing, they may not understand."

So are you suggesting that the goal is for unbelievers to not understand?

Matthew 13:9-14 "Who hath ears to hear, let him hear. And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given... because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive..."


We, however, are commanded multiple times all throughout the NT to preach the gospel without ceasing. I agree that the method or medium might differ, but the simple gospel is clear and unchangeing.

God has the prerogative to speak in judgment. We have been commanded to preach the gospel and defend the faith. When Jesus did use parables with His disciples, He pulled them aside and explained them. You wanna do a "parables" CD? Go ahead, but if you want anyone to get the truth that you are commanded to share with them, the liner notes had better explain the "parables."

Failure (refusing) to preach the gospel is not an option. No one is ever called to a ministry of "not telling anyone the gospel." In America with an almost absolute freedom of speech, we certainly have no excuse for withholding the gospel message.


Doesn't Matter What We Call It

Something is not "Christian" merely because we say it is. If I wrote a song called "Work Your Way to Heaven with the Help of Allah," no matter what I call myself or my ministry or the song, the song itself is not "Christian".

A "positive message" or "subtle message" cannot be distinctively "Christian". It may reflect a Christian worldview, but that is not what we are called to preach in the NT. "Butterfly Kisses" relates no eternal truth. It may reflect a Christian's life experience, but it is as much Mormon or Catholic as it is Evangelical. There is nothing distinctively "Christian" about the song, except that Bob Carlisle says it is.

I'm not saying that Bob shouldn't do "Butterfly Kisses." Just don't call it "Christian." It can be part of a Christian CD, if the whole project relates biblical truth, but on its own, it is in no way distinctively "Christian."

For the life of me, I can't imagine why some bands/musicians go so far out of their way to avoid doing what the Bible commands them to do. Preaching the gospel is not a burden, it is a privilege.

God chose clear preaching (the truth in love) as His method ("the foolishness of preaching"). Why do we think we can improve on that?

 

[brettnolan]

I'm sorry, but I don't think you can see the forest for the trees. In addition, you are applying the label to every little detail.

Well, Jesus tells us that parables were given as a judgment:

Not seeing the judgement.

Luke 8:10 He [Jesus] said, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to others I speak in parables, so that, 'though seeing, they may not see; though hearing, they may not understand."

So are you suggesting that the goal is for unbelievers to not understand?

Not at all. I don't think that's what this passage is suggesting either. If that were the case only the twelve would be saved as you indicate below. To me, this is black and white. Those who hear but don't understand are comparable to people who hear but don't listen, those who see but don't perceive are like those who see things happening but don't understand the significance.

When Jesus did use parables with His disciples, He pulled them aside and explained them. You wanna do a "parables" CD? Go ahead, but if you want anyone to get the truth that you are commanded to share with them, the liner notes had better explain the "parables."

Jesus DID pull his disciples aside, not the entire assembly. Presumably, then it was the disciples job to tell the rest what the parable meant, but maybe not. Jesus used the parables to impart spiritual truths to the masses using illustrations about their life that they could relate to. In a similar way, musicians can relate spiritual truths to the public without spelling it out for you word for word.

Something is not "Christian" merely because we say it is. If I wrote a song called "Work Your Way to Heaven with the Help of Allah," no matter what I call myself or my ministry or the song, the song itself is not "Christian".

A "positive message" or "subtle message" cannot be distinctively "Christian". It may reflect a Christian worldview, but that is not what we are called to preach in the NT. "Butterfly Kisses" relates no eternal truth. It may reflect a Christian's life experience, but it is as much Mormon or Catholic as it is Evangelical. There is nothing distinctively "Christian" about the song, except that Bob Carlisle says it is.

This is where I think you're nitpicking AND adding another layer of complexity that is unnecessary. I can't disagree with you on any of this. But we're talking about labeling a band or artist, not each individual song. Furthermore, I think we have agreed that there is a place for things that are not "distinctively" Christian. You went on to say that this one song doesn't make Bob Carlisle a non-Christian artist. I feel like you're flip-flopping without actually flip-flopping.

For the life of me, I can't imagine why some bands/musicians go so far out of their way to avoid doing what the Bible commands them to do. Preaching the gospel is not a burden, it is a privilege.

God chose clear preaching (the truth in love) as His method ("the foolishness of preaching"). Why do we think we can improve on that?

You're big on the "preaching". Are you saying that if it's not preaching the gospel, then it's not Christian? If so, then what would you call it? And if this is the standard, then I would say that there are very few, if any, "Christian" artists out there today.

 

[bleechers]

Jesus says plainly in Luke that the purpose of the parables is that "hearing, they may not understand." It was not, as you argue, His way of "subtlely" relating truth to unbelievers. Look at the parables themselves. He talks about throwing the chaff in the fire and about weeping and gnashing of teeth. Not terribly "subtle."

So, are you arguing that Christian artists should sing songs that "hearing they might not understand"? Is that your point? Because that is what Jesus very specifically said was their goal.

Paul did not speak in parables. The church does not speak in parables. Paul said "I hid nothing" for he "declared all the counsel of God".

The church is commanded to "preach the gospel" and to "contend for the faith." God has "chosen the foolishness of preaching to save some." Parables were Jesus' (God's) way of hiding truth to those who had hardened their hearts. We are not called to hide truth. If one will not hear, we are commanded to walk away and move on.

Jesus used the parables to impart spiritual truths to the masses using illustrations about their life that they could relate to. In a similar way, musicians can relate spiritual truths to the public without spelling it out for you word for word.

Simply put: no He did not. He told us why He spoke in parables. He said it was so that the "masses" would not understand. It wasn't to relate truth, but to hide it. His ministry was very different from our ministry.

In Matthew 12, the Pharisees had rejected the Kingdom and demanded a sign. After that Jesus spoke to them only in parables as a judgment. His openly preached the Kingdom to Israel. We openly preach the gospel. We are commanded to preach the gospel.

"Woe unto me if I preach not the gospel," Paul said. "Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God." Who are we to come along as say "Well, that was fine for Paul, but using the Bible is such a turn off today. Maybe my clever, subtle messages are better."?

You're big on the "preaching". Are you saying that if it's not preaching the gospel, then it's not Christian? If so, then what would you call it? And if this is the standard, then I would say that there are very few, if any, "Christian" artists out there today.

No. I am saying that preaching the Word is God's chosen method for saving people.

So if we want to "reach the lost" then we must "preach the gospel." There is also room for "teaching the saints" in Christian music. But there again, "the scriptures are sufficient" and all "teaching" songs must be based in scripture.

Music can also be a means of praising God. But, again, that praise must be based on the scriptures and on God's attributes as revealed in scripture. Whatever we do that we call "Christian" must be proved such from the Bible.

As to how many truly "Christian" artists there are: if they can't distinguish their ministry by using the truths of scripture, then they are not "Christian". As I have said, something is not "Christian" just 'cause we say so. It must be proved "Christian" with "all diligence and sound doctrine."

Again I ask, show me from scripture how "subtlety" is better than doing that which God clearly commands? Repeatedly commands.

What's wrong with gospel that we need to keep it hid? It's offensive. Yes. But that is an excuse to ignore the command of God.

This is where I think you're nitpicking AND adding another layer of complexity that is unnecessary. I can't disagree with you on any of this. But we're talking about labeling a band or artist, not each individual song. Furthermore, I think we have agreed that there is a place for things that are not "distinctively" Christian. You went on to say that this one song doesn't make Bob Carlisle a non-Christian artist. I feel like you're flip-flopping without actually flip-flopping.

It is complex. I'm just pointing out areas of concern. I just want to see anything we do in the name of Christ justified by the scripture and not by human wisdom.

I would never command Bob Carlisle not to do "Butterfly Kisses," but if does do it and calls it "Christian," then the Body has a duty to protect the name of Christ and ask him why he calls it "Christian."

As for songs not "distinctively Christian," no, there is no place for them (by definition) to be called "Christian." Can "Christian" artists do them? Sure, but don't say the song is "Christian." Bob Carlisle will answer for the use of his talents and his words spoken and his opportunities given. I'm responsible to "contend for the faith," and when someone puts something out in the name of "Christianity" I have the right, nay the obligation, to "search the scriptures."

That's not so much flip-flopping as trying to delicately balance my duties as commanded by scripture and Bob's liberty in Christ. He has liberty to do what he wants, I have a command to "contend for the faith [Christianity]" and all that is done in that name.

So, when I hear a self-labeled "Christian" band say "we're not in anybody's face, we just have a positive message," we should all ask "on what basis, then, is your music 'Christian'?" Can you make a case from the scriptures for not preaching the gospel (or teaching) in the name of Christianity and for not saying anything, but being "positive" in the name of Christianity.

We cannot take the name of Christ lightly. It is not ours to do with as we please.

Anybody can play whatever they want, but if you call it Christian, be ready to answer for it. And, again, given the choice, why would anybody choose "not saying" over "saying" in light of God's commands to "say"?

 

[brettnolan]

Had a nice response but IE decided to shut down...so poo

Parables were Jesus' (God's) way of hiding truth to those who had hardened their hearts. We are not called to hide truth. If one will not hear, we are commanded to walk away and move on.

I get it, now. Disagree, but get it.

Again I ask, show me from scripture how "subtlety" is better than doing that which God clearly commands? Repeatedly commands.

I don't want to ignore this because that a peeve of mine, but if you take away the parables, I don't have anything......yet.

As to the rest, I had some stuff, but I'm not going to recreate it all here. I think it has taken me a while to recognize the different way you are approaching the discussion. I also have another beef, but I'll save it for another time.

 

[Acts 17:11]

Having just caught up with reading this thread I have to ask the question... Why are we so willing to defend those who will not speak boldly for Christ?

Does the fact that they claim to be Christians somehow nullify their repsonsibility? The one thing we can do while on this planet that we cannot do in eternity is preach the gospel. Every Christian is commanded to do this regardless of vocation, location, or situation.

I just don't understand why we exalt people just because they cut a record. I understand the celebrity status appeal but the majority of these people don't give the gospel. When they do speak of God it's weak at best. For goodness sakes, George Harrison (who was far from a Christian) gave more spiritual messages about "God" than most CCM'ers.

Where are the Keith Greens? Where are the Twila Parises? Where are people who love the Lord enough that they can't help but to sing clearly about Him. These people would think you're crazy if you suggested they sing about anything else. Most of what I see is musicians more concerned about their image, how they compare with secular artists, and having lyrics generic enough to appeal to non-Christians who'll think the artist is singing about his girlfriend.

Being played on secular radio is seen as some kind of triumph for the church - here comes the great revival. It ain't happening folks - ask Jars of Clay.

Along with Bleechers, I'm not saying all Christians must play Christian music. That's between them and the Lord but since you guys mentioned parables, I think the parable of the talents can easily be applied. These people are choosing to play music, they may write whatever they want, and they choose to be vaugue for whatever reason. Telling the world the gospel is the greatest thing they can do but they choose not to. I fail to see why we view these people with such high regard. To me, they are wasting opportunities.

 

[aria384gp:)]

Beautiful post, Acts, really beautiful. Truthful and to the point. I must say that I am surprised that so many christians feel so strongly about this issue whether in support or against it. It's amazing how so many christians nowadays are conforming and yet don't realized that they are. It seems to me that they are asking "How close to the world can I get and still be a christian?" When like some have mentioned here, it should be how close can I get to God, and how else can I proclaim His goodness?

I understand that is a very heavy issue for some, as looking at other forums where people question "Should Christians listen to secular music?" Which in itself is another thread entirely. However, it seems the two go together. It's not sin not to be labeled a christian artist, but I think that actions speak louder than words, so what do they really mean by saying we don't want to be labeled "christian", is it to benefit themselves because if they were trying to witness and reach a larger amount of people, surely they don't believe they'll be able to by putting what they're standing for on the backburner, do they? Or maybe it is all about the sales, like we have seen so many times before. A humble heart with good intentions is deceived by the "green"-oh that color of fame, and begin to forget why and Who put them where they are? So what is it then? Why decide to "clarify" that you are not a "christian" artist?



Just my thoughts

 

[brettnolan]

It's amazing how so many christians nowadays are conforming and yet don't realized that they are. It seems to me that they are asking "How close to the world can I get and still be a christian?" [\QUOTE]

Again, not much time, but I'll turn this back to you a little. I feel you making a judgement against me with regard to music. Assuming this is true (it's not, but I'll play along), how is this reflected in your life? Where are you staying "close to the world?" Internet, TV, movies, the car you drive, the clothes you wear?

 

[bleechers]

Again, not much time, but I'll turn this back to you a little. I feel you making a judgement against me with regard to music. Assuming this is true (it's not, but I'll play along), how is this reflected in your life? Where are you staying "close to the world?" Internet, TV, movies, the car you drive, the clothes you wear?

I realize that you asked this question of ACTS, but lemme put in my two cents

$.01 - No matter where ACTS is "staying close to the world" it doesn't affect the argument. ACTS is not the standard against which the question is raised.

$.02 - The crux of the matter is why defend the "goal" of walking so close to the world (not you, but others)? If I do stay a little too close to the world in some areas (and I think we all do), that doesn't mean that I should defend my failure. ACTS was pointing out that the "goal" of some Christians and/or Christian bands is to be as close to the world as possible. They think its a good thing to be emulated. Whether ACTS is or not is irrelevant, the "goal" is what is being questioned (and why some people -present company excepted - defend that position).

As for me, I am baffled by bands who essentially attack the idea of being overt. How many bands have web sites with statements like the following:

1. We're not in anybody's face.
2. We don't shove God down people's throats.
3. We have a positive message that isn't a turnoff.
4. We want people to know that we're just like them.
5. We want to show the world that Jesus can rock!
etc.

The obvious implication here is that those of us who believe that God has called all of us (muscians in this case) to be overt in message are somehow wrong. They are saying that our "goal" is wrong. We may not perfect, we may fail, we may miss opportunities... but the "goal" is be overt and as obedient as possible in line with the commands of the Bible.

OK, so that was more like $.14 worth.