I wanted examples. I never connected Mark 3:21 with 3:31-35 because in the KJV it says "his friends [own people] . . . went out to lay hold on him, for they said, 'He is beside Himself.'" But it obviously mentions his mother and brothers in 3:31-35, doesn't it? My mom wrote a blog on John 2:1-10, demonstrating Mary's faith and trust in Jesus. And we have no way of knowing, but I think Mary may have been part of the female train that supported Jesus in His ministry [probably food, clothes, etc] in Luke 8:2-3.

Now I understand the confusion: different translations. I can see why you didn’t connect those two parts. It isn’t very clear even in my NRSV although it does say family in the first part and has “Then” in the second part. If I am reading my German Bible correctly, it has verse 31 reading “Meanwhile, Jesus’ mother and brothers had arrived.” I took that to mean “during the time when Jesus was talking to the scribes.” Most of the time Mary does show faith and trust in Jesus, but she was only human and thus didn’t always understand what was happening. I just wanted to show that even the most willing people God chooses to use are not perfect.

A similar question has been asked in the ministry of preaching. Do people want a pastor with one or more theological degrees or a pastor who's filled with the Spirit? I prefer the latter. But the ideal is both.

The theological degrees need to be of the right kind though. Sometimes people who study the Bible intensely read it too academically and thus lose the true meaning. I read an article in one of my Brio magazines about Christian schools that aren’t strictly teaching the Bible. I’m afraid I’m not explaining this well, but I’m too lazy to go through the old magazines I’ve kept to find the article. I’ll do it however, if someone wants me to.

All of the discussion about singing / music in church reminds me of 1 Corinthians 12 and the talk about different people having different jobs / roles in the body of Christ. It seems to me that some people are trying to do different roles than the ones for which they were intended.

If I am reading my German Bible correctly, it has verse 31 reading “Meanwhile, Jesus’ mother and brothers had arrived.” I took that to mean “during the time when Jesus was talking to the scribes.” Most of the time Mary does show faith and trust in Jesus, but she was only human and thus didn’t always understand what was happening. I just wanted to show that even the most willing people God chooses to use are not perfect.

Good point! That's true of all us humans. We don't always understand what's going on. But God knows and that's enough. That's what "Farther Along" and "We'll understand it better by and by" are about. You have a German Bible?! And you can read it?! So jealous! I had one semester of German in grad school. Although I fell in love with the language [and some German food], I don't remember any German!

The theological degrees need to be of the right kind though. Sometimes people who study the Bible intensely read it too academically and thus lose the true meaning. I read an article in one of my Brio magazines about Christian schools that aren’t strictly teaching the Bible.

Excellent point! Some theology schools are teaching everything but the Bible. Others are teaching it wrongly [i.e. Fuller Seminary and its ilk ]. J. I. Packer addresses this issue in his book Freedom and Authority. So you read Brio? I still remember getting monthly issues, c.15-20 years ago.

All of the discussion about singing / music in church reminds me of 1 Corinthians 12 and the talk about different people having different jobs / roles in the body of Christ. It seems to me that some people are trying to do different roles than the ones for which they were intended.

Thank you! Why didn't I think of this?! Some people can sing or play and some can't. Some can preach and some can't. Some are good volunteers and electricians and some aren't. Those who can't shouldn't. At least regarding music and preaching, there's nothing wrong with giving instruction to those who have natural talent [but need training], so they'll improve what God has given them. This means the church has to help people find their niche, their gifts.

I guess He thought no worship was better than idolatrous worship.

Very good point. Very. And one that I keep trying to make.

Do we ask God to inhabit the praises of His people? Do we ask God to open His eyes and ears to us and accept our worship, our sacrifices of praise?

Now, 220…I’m a bit confused why would we ask these things? There’s no reason to ask God to do something He already does…Scripture states His eyes and ears are always open and that He does inhabit the praises of His people…without being asked.

I understand your point: we do need to focus on God in unity, and not just engage in a thoughtless habit.

Well, I don’t like “Who am I,” “Friend of God,” and “My Savior, My God,” just to name a few. There’s so much bad “Christian” music today: some CCM, alternative, rock, etc. “In the Garden” is saintly compared to much of this music!

I am interested why you consider “Who am I” and “My Savior, My God” bad “Christian” music? Please detail what you find in these songs that is unscriptural or irreverent, or what it is that makes them “bad”?

mm

We've had this talk before. Songs like "Friend of God", "I am Free", "Who am I?", and "Take it all" have been disliked by several on this forum because of an apparent focus on self. The way I see it is this: if you are looking for something to be focus on self, you are going to find it. If you are going to go looking for something that is praisworthy, you will find it as well. Just because a song has the word "I" in it, that doesn't make it a self-centered song. If it is self-centered, it because a person makes it that way. But those songs were not written to be as such.

"Friend of God" was taken from two Scriptures: Psalm 8 (I think) for the verse, and John 15, where Jesus calls us friends. Yes there is a place to acknowledge that we are sinful people and to be humble and such, but that is not where God wants us to stay. The song "I am Free" is a celebration of where God has made us now. "Take it all" is a song of a journey from searching for something of value and all the author found was Jesus. The whole song is pointed to him and offering all we are (which is what God asks of us) to him. Yes, some of these songs are upbeat, but they were written for a younger generation. You can't witness to someone unless you speak to their language. That is what these songs do.

"Who am I" is a song about humility. Any reference to self was written to reveal how we pail in comparison to God, but how God claims us for his own. If anyone things this song is self-centered, they need to take a serious look at the words and not the word "I". It is prideful to say that "I am an adopted son of God, bought by the Blood of the Lamb"? Is it prideful to say "I am free from sin and death through Christ Jesus"? Is it prideful to say that "I will fear no evil...whom then shall I fear?" It is wrong for me to tell my Lord and Savior "Take all of me"? That's what these songs are saying. They are not 'bad' Christian music. They are worship. If they are not your cup of tea, that's fine. But that doesn't put us in a position to say they are not Biblically sound.

I will give another example of this. I mentioned him earlier, but there is a new rapper whose reach is growing. His name is Curvine and he is an all-out, hold nothing back believer in Christ. He uses rap music to reach this generation's youth. Now I will never listen to rap intentionally. I won't have any on my playlists, not will I turn on a radio station that plays it. But I have listened to this guy three times and he brings the Word. I have heard the arguments for and against mixing Christianity into culture. I used to not like the idea because it sounds like making Christianity fit into the culture, but this is not the case. Paul himself said that he had to become weak to the weak, just so that he might reach a few. If we are to minister to others, we need to speak their language. That doesn't mean go out and party with the drinkers, and therefore act as they do. If you want to reach a group of basketball players, go play basketball with them. If you want to reach skiers, go skiing with them. If you go to Mexico, learn Spanish (or use a translator). Curvine is reaching out to today's youth using a language they speak, rap music. He is not trying to mimic Eminem or other rappers. He is using a language that his audience can appeal to. That is also what a number of these other songs are about. They aren't meant for everyone. But they do mean a lot to the ones who they were written for.

On another topic.
Does anyone here know any good book resources about Universalism? or books with chapters about it? (ones that are fairly well-known and possibly are in Australian libraries etc.?) This is needed for a (Lutheran) Theology subject I'm doing at uni.
There's a lot of information of the Net but of course we can only use books.

So far I have these books:

- Universal Salvation: The Current Debate by Robin Parry
- Knowing Christianity by J.I. Packer
- The World to Come and Final Destiny by J. H. Leckie
- Universalism and the Doctrine of Hell by Nigel MaCameron

Are there any Lewis books or G.K. Chesterton books that cover this topic?
Any others you can think of?

Thanks guys

You have a German Bible?! And you can read it?! So jealous! I had one semester of German in grad school. Although I fell in love with the language [and some German food], I don't remember any German!

One of my majors in college was German. I read my German Bible to try to keep my German fresh. I compare it (and my understanding of it) to one of my English versions. It is so hard to remember languages. I took a year of French in college and remember hardly any of it.

So you read Brio? I still remember getting monthly issues, c.15-20 years ago.

Yes, I did. I got Brio and Beyond until a little bit before I graduated from college. I still have some issues I haven’t read yet. I was too busy with school. I should probably get caught up on them. They were very good. Unfortunately, Focus on the Family recently stopped publishing them. My sister, who was still getting them, was not happy.

I’m going to play a little bit of devil’s advocate. The discussion about Scripturally based worship has been very interesting. Lately, I have been wondering about the parts of the letters that are about women and worship and why many denominations have decided it is okay not to conduct worship in the manner described. There is clearly Biblical support for not letting women do certain things. How does one decided which Scriptures related to worship to use to base worship on and which ones not to? Below are some Scripture references to worship.

I desire, then, that in every place the men should pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or argument; also that women should dress themselves modestly and decently in suitable clothing, not with their hair braided, or with gold, pearls, or expensive clothes, but with good works, as is proper for women who profess reverence for God. Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man, she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve, and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty. 1 Timothy 2:8-15 NRSV

What should be done then, my friends? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up. … As in all the churches of the saints, women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak but should be subordinate, as the law also says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a women to speak in church. 1 Corinthians 14:26-27 34-35

RubyGamgee: welcome to the CRP thread! I still remember the first time I poked around in this thread on the old forum. I was afraid to post anything with so many philosophical giants. I'm not one, by the way. But other CRP posters have to put up with me now! I'm curious about your username...

Why would we ask these things? There’s no reason to ask God to do something He already does…Scripture states His eyes and ears are always open and that He does inhabit the praises of His people…without being asked.

I confess I've probably borrowed "inhabit the praise of His people" from my church. The only Biblical reference I can find is Psalm 22:3 [in the KJV]. I don't know what other versions say. I need to research this.

Regarding God's eyes and ears, they're not always open. What's the idea behind this language anyway? Prayer! We know God's eyes and ears aren't open to sinners. And yet God has graciously heard the desperate cries of some sinners over the centuries. Check out some old war stories and Reader's Digest to see what I mean. God promises His eyes and ears will be open to the righteous [i.e. those who trust in God]. Psalm 34:15 [and 1 Peter 3]: "The eyes of the LORD are upon the righteous, and his ears are open unto their cry." Even then, they won't be open to His own people if they don't confess sin: "If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me" [Psalm 66]. "And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood" [Isaiah 1]. Many people prayed for God to open His eyes and ears to His own people, to hear or be attentive to their prayers, including King Solomon [1 Kings 8:29, 52; 2 Chronicles 6:20, 40], King Hezekiah [2 Kings 19:16, Isaiah 37:17], Nehemiah [1], and Daniel [9]. And God honored their request [see 2 Kings 19:35-37, 2 Chronicles 7:15, 32:21-22, Nehemiah 2:4-8, Isaiah 37:36-38, Daniel 9:20-27].

Songs like "Friend of God", "I am Free", "Who am I?", and "Take it all" have been disliked by several on this forum because of an apparent focus on self. . . .Just because a song has the word "I" in it, that doesn't make it a self-centered song. If it is self-centered, it because a person makes it that way. But those songs were not written to be as such.

I think you make a good point. There was a time when I liked "Who am I." And I can see it's about humility. But I just don't care for the group or for the CCM genre anymore. I still like "Friend of God." I admire its biblical lyrics, for one thing. And yet, it seems like a lot of emphasis on self. Why not just look up to Jesus? But I have never liked "I am free," "My Savior, my God," or "Take it all." A relative initially thought the lyrics to the last one were "take it off"! And I can see why she thought so... "My Savior loves / My savior lives / My Savior's always there for me / My God He was / My God He is / My God He's always gonna be" ... In one Sunday morning service a few months back, the Holy Spirit gave a message in tongues that said "Yes, I love, I live, but I love you and I died for you." I thought the message was basically saying the song was drivel. There may be nothing wrong with the lyrics to some of these songs, for the most part. But I can think of better songs with the same messages.

Yes, some of these songs are upbeat, but they were written for a younger generation. You can't witness to someone unless you speak to their language. That is what these songs do.

I don't like the music. Too much worldliness for me. There's no peace in this kind of music. A song can be upbeat and still have peace. It's not the beat I'm talking about. It's something else. People talk about witnessing to a younger generation. Why treat them differently from the rest of the church? Why not pass down the time-honored music of the past? Or introduce some excellent Christian songs that aren't in the CCM genre that are being written today? This phenomenon in churches is pretty recent, as late as the 1960s or 1970s. Before that, the old taught the young. I also strongly believe some types of music are not Christian, no matter what lyrics are put to them, including alternative, rock, and rap. And some young Christians are waking up to that.

Pattertwig's Pal: I remember more French than German because I was exposed to it earlier and longer. But I still can't read a French Bible! Ah, women in worship. I'm not too fond of either passage you quoted, although I like 1 Timothy 2:9-10. I want to believe Paul was talking specifically to the Corinthian churches in that one passage. I'll have to get back to you on this one.

Note to mods: it timed me out for the first time ever! If I hadn't copied the whole thing before I hit the preview button...

220chrisTian, I understand your position. But here is an interesting thought. Did you know the greatest enemy of a particular generation's style of worship is the previeous generation? This is seen throughout history. Why couldn't we teach them the older hymns that have similar messages? Why shouldn't we treat the youth different than the adults? I already stated the answer in my post. They don't speak the same language that the older generation does. The modern day CCM out there is the language the younger generation understands. They can relate the messages, to the beats, in those songs. They can't relate so well to the older ones. And if they can't relate, how can they worship?

If what works for you is the older style of music, that's great. But people worship in different ways. Personally, I am not a singer. I am the kind of person you want kept far away from a microphone when it comes to singing because I re-define tone deaf. If someone were to come up to me and say I can only worship in this way, how would I be able to respond? There is a verse that I don't have the time to look up the reference, (I think it's either Hebrews or Corinthians) that describes believers who limit others in their way of worship as actually having a weaker faith. I believe it was in context with being able to eat certain foods that God has released from being 'unclean'.

Now everyone has thier own style of worship, be it musically, artistically, or in whatever they do. If one way is how someone worships, that's fine. But if that someone tries to enforce his style on someone who worships in a totally different means, that person has demonstrated a weaker faith by putting a limit on God. These newer songs, even if they are not a particular genre that we like, are still worship. To be honest, rap, rock, hip-hop, etc is just music. God created music so in itself, it is good. It's just that people used it to show thier rebellion and now they have a bad connotation because of that. Did you know that the classics were considered bad, un-Christian, and unfit for audiences' ears when they were written? Did you know that the songs you support were just as disliked by the previous generation as you have indicated on this generation's songs? Think about it.

Guys like Curvine are doing something very radical. They are taking what some people call good music and they are taking it away from the enemy that seeks to use it for evil. The music, no matter what the lyrics, in itself is not bad, because God created those sounds. The question is not the music, but the artist. I don't like rap, rock, heavy-metal either. I would never put that kind of music on myself. But I have seen true worship being performed through it. The music had nothing to do with it. It was just the tool being used. And as a sword can be used for murder and terrorism, it can also be used for defense and protection. The sword is not evil because it can be used for bad. It is just a tool that can be used either way. Music is the same. It was intended to be good. All styles included. It is the rebellious, hateful, pridful, artist that makes it so. The same tunes could have been used by a God-fearing artists and the effect would be very different. As God doesn't look at the outward appears but the inward, God doesn't look at the music but the heart of the artist.

A question of academic curiosity rather than personal relevance. (I used to run with posters named Crazy8s and Fish, for those who came to certain conclusions. ) There must be a lot of single women on these forums plus a few widows. How do your churches handle the verse Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty from 1 Timothy 2 just quoted. It sounds awfully conditional. I expect some of the seekers on the Mush thread might ask, or might be asked, if that verse means they aren't saved, or fully saved, or whatever, unless & until they have a child. I was thinking more that it sounds conditional in that it implies God couldn't/wouldn't save a maiden or a sterile wife, or alternately that lack of children indicated lack of saved status, or at least a gradation or pro-rate. They did seem to believe that back in Hannah's day (mother of Samuel the prophet). But I've heard a few churches who still handle it that way.

Also a curiosity: Priscilla and Aquila. Paul didn't have a problem with women prophesying, and in church (1 Cor. 11) but he had a lot to say about dress. It wasn't "should a woman prophesy" but "men and women, mind your hair when you do it." I've heard people argue that Priscilla can say what she wants out of doors, but if she said the identical things inside a church building she's in big trouble. (I didn't say the people who said it were consistent!)

But I've heard other odd ones that seeing this thread reminds me of. Specifically,

I've been to churches that had less than 50 in attendance. I prefer big to small. I mean, isn't that what heaven will be like?

I prefer small churches. (Not too small! The smallest church I attended once on vacation had 8 people. Very silent.)

Yeah, I know heaven will be big, but I don't want the Buddhist nirvana of just vanishing. Of course people (and large congregations) don't mean to make it sound that way but they do sometimes. (Paging Dr. Ransom: how about you reposting the link to your "Heaven" blogposts?)

On the negative side small churches can gossip, get hidebound, get obsessed with finances, and so forth. But big churches aren't immune from those things. What brings out the "Hey, I'd like some spiritual feeding too" is the ghetto-ization of a big church. Like it says in 1 Cor. 12, the eye cannot say to the hand, "I don't need you," or the head to the feet, "I don't need you." When I walk into a church and they want to know where to send me, I say I get spiritually fed better when I worship with the whole body of Christ. I know a lot of Christians really thrive in groups, but to me it's reminiscent of group-problem-solving at work, and divided by eye color. Especially problem-solving in Sales.

Some of the whoppers I've heard, to prove clueless is no respecter of persons:

"Prosperity Gospel" ... to the guy who lost his job

"We're a family church" ... to a single person

"Join our Pairs and Spares adult Sunday school" ... to the widow who doesn't feel like either.

"We're not your father's church" ... to an elderly couple lonesome because they outlived their best friends.

Still learning, brothers and sisters, still learning.

I still remember the first time I poked around in this thread on the old forum. I was afraid to post anything with so many philosophical giants. I'm not one, by the way. But other CRP posters have to put up with me now!

This is exactly how I felt / feel. Although I consider you one of the giants.

Pattertwig's Pal: I Ah, women in worship. I'm not too fond of either passage you quoted, although I like 1 Timothy 2:9-10. I want to believe Paul was talking specifically to the Corinthian churches in that one passage. I'll have to get back to you on this one.

I’m not too fond of them either. 1 Timothy 2:9-10 is pretty good though. I’m not sure why braided hair makes the list of things women shouldn’t do. It would be nice if Paul was just talking to the Corinthian church. Maybe he was, the question is how do we know if he was or wasn’t. My study Bible has a note about 11.5 (This part of Chapter 11 is talking about head covering and hair) that reads: Women in Corinth: … Paul’s advice applied directly to the cultural situation in Corinth, where unruly women were disrupting the worship services.

I don't like the music. Too much worldliness for me. There's no peace in this kind of music. A song can be upbeat and still have peace. It's not the beat I'm talking about. It's something else. People talk about witnessing to a younger generation. Why treat them differently from the rest of the church? Why not pass down the time-honored music of the past? Or introduce some excellent Christian songs that aren't in the CCM genre that are being written today? This phenomenon in churches is pretty recent, as late as the 1960s or 1970s. Before that, the old taught the young. I also strongly believe some types of music are not Christian, no matter what lyrics are put to them, including alternative, rock, and rap. And some young Christians are waking up to that.

220…I gotta say I love it when you make these types of statements. Keeps me on my toes and gives me a chance to practice saying stuff that needs saying. So, just FYI, I ain’t pickin’ on YOU, but I will definitely pick apart and apply Scripture to what you say, because we HAVE to get down to foundational Scriptural principles on these things wherever possible.

Let us all pause for a moment to make adjustments to our oral configuration.

What follows is just the facts, ma’am.

You say “This phenomenon in churches is pretty recent” and “some young Christians are waking up to that.” Uh…you and those particular young Christians are kind of late to the game, actually. That debate has been raging for at least 500 years. 20 that I personally have experience with.

Liturgical and devotional music has been a hot topic since its birth. Please do not believe it if someone tells you that they have some kind of new revelation on it (or an old one that was overlooked). It has all been argued before.

Yes.

All.

Of.

It.

By minds greater and more dedicated to Scripture than mine. Think Pope Gregory. Think Luther and Calvin. Think all the members of the Council of Trent. And any number of lesser known but brilliant minds trained in theological thought, textual criticism, spiritual discipline as well as music.

How about it, everyone. Shall we reject all the new music and go back to the time-honored music of Gregorian Chant? Or do we need to go back even further than that…how we will do that, I don’t know…not much of that stuff written down. Well, except the Psalms. Of course, limiting music in church to only human voices singing the Psalms is Calvin and the Hugeunots...much later than Pope Greg. Or you can think of it as earlier, since that’s how the Hebrew children did it—‘cept that they had instruments. Guess that will complicate things…

mm

I'll say that for worship, I have three criteria that I use for determining whether a song (whether hymn or not) is suitable for worship:

1. Context: is this the context for, say, "Shout to the Lord"? In the church I am currently attending, a small PCA congregation in the deep south, this song would be the wrong style. At their sister church in inner-city Chattanooga, the song would be perfectly acceptable. Cultural context does matter.

2. Content: are the lyrics Biblically sound? Are they just fluff? This is one reason why I would love to see more churches adapting the Psalms--what could be more Biblical than singing Scripture? I have also appreciated Sovereign Grace Ministries' Valley of Vision project of taking Puritan poetry and adapting it as worship music--cool stuff (now if they'd only adopt the Westminster Standards.....).

3. Community: is it singable? I have honestly heard a ton of worship songs *coughDavidCrowdercough* that are not easily singable. If the song is in a key that cannot easily be sung, or at least harmonized (yet another reason to like Trinity Hymnal) by basses, sopranos, and teenagers whose voices are cracking, then it might not be good for worship. Worship is a community act and therefore we shouldn't discriminate against those to whom God has given less than average voices.

On a historical note, I should mention that, from what I've read, Beethoven was not a Christian. He was, at best, a deist or pantheist. While he remained a member of the Roman Catholic Church, it seems to have been a cultural Christianity that was not reflected in private life.

TBG

Can someone (Ransom?) please reply to my above post?

As for music, it's the heart's intent and worldview that determines whether the music honours God, not the genre. I believe all genres of music can be used for his glory. Just because you don't enjoy modern music doesn't mean it's not of God. I don't enjoy Gaither's music and much of classical music (although I do love a good movie soundtrack and some hymns). But I don't call these evil. I'm sorry but that stance is just a bit narrow-minded. I'm not saying a lot of Christian music isn't fluff, because much of it is. It doesn't plumb the depths of human experience and the trials of faith in God. But there are some very good ones. Like P.O.D, Jars of Clay, Thousand Foot Crutch, Toby Mac, Skillet - to name just a few.

220Christian, we have to read the Bible in light of who God is. The Bible describes the essence of God and his nature. Some things like Paul's letters need to be read in the context of the times and cultures. What audience was he writing too? What was the problem in that church? You have to ask these sorts of questions. Please don't misunderstand me, I believe God's Word is the ultimate authority when it comes to where God talks to us throughout history but we need to think critically and pray hard when we look into the Scriptures.

My Study Bible gives the following commentary, with which I agree, concerning I Timothy 2:8-15. Sorry it's so long...

2:8 men. The Gr. word for “men” as opposed to women. God intends for men to be the leaders when the church meets for corporate worship. When prayer for the lost is offered during those times, the men are to lead it. every place. Paul’s reference to the official assembly of the church (cf. 1Co 1:2; 2Co 2:14; 1Th 1:8). lifting up holy hands. Paul is not emphasizing a specific posture necessary for prayer, but a prerequisite for effective prayer (cf. Ps 66:18). Though this posture is described in the OT (1Ki 8:22; Pss 28:2; 63:4; 134:2), so are many others. The Gr. word for “holy” means “unpolluted” or “unstained by evil.” “Hands” symbolize the activities of life; thus “holy hands” represent a holy life. This basis of effective prayer is a righteous life (Jas 5:16). without wrath and dissension. “Wrath” and righteousness are mutually exclusive (Jas 1:20; cf. Lk 9:52–56). “Dissension” refers to a hesitant reluctance to be committed to prayer.

John MacArthur, The MacArthur Study Bible : New American Standard Bible., 1 Ti 2:8-15 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2006).

Just here with a quote by Mark Heard, related to the Christian music topic.

I think it is a mistake to set up rules and stereotypes for Christian musicians to follow. It seems like there is pressure from the Church community on a Christian musician to use his abilities ‘for the Lord,’ and by that, some type of evangelism, or some type of service to other believers is usually meant. I think the concern is good, but just because a person has musical abilities does not mean he is properly equipped in the areas of evangelism or ministering to the Church in ways that are expected and needed. I know this isn’t the popular thing to say, but I don’t believe God wants every Christian who plays an instrument to try and form a ministry from it.

Most Christians would say that the music should in some way glorify God. Obviously, one assortment of notes on the scale can’t glorify God more than another. Neither can certain assortments of words. Most Christians seem to think the words themselves do the glorifying, because so many Christian songs contain theological words. If you are an up and coming Christian singer and you have to sing for a Christian audience, you’d better throw in as many words like ‘saved’ or – ‘Hallelujah’ or ‘Sweet Jesus’ as you can, otherwise your spirituality will be discussed behind your back.

I can’t judge a song by a Christian or a non-Christian. I listen to and really enjoy a lot of music written by non-believers. When I hear Jackson Browne lament man’s inhumanity to man, it makes me mourn too. By the way, Browne seems to do a better job of exposing evil in the world than most Christian writers. When I hear a Paul Simon. or a Don McLean, or a James Taylor, there is much truth to be gleaned, regardless of where they stand with Christ, because they are true artists. I enjoy and appreciate their creativity, even though I may or may not agree with the things they say.

As for myself, I love historical liturgical practices dearly. I love having those links to the past, and so long as the liturgy is theologically sound, I see no reason not to keep using it. But I understand that not everyone feels the same way I do about the liturgy, and I don't demand that they do. I do find some common 'praise and worship' practices vulgar and irreverent, and I try to avoid seeker-sensitive churches. But music for casual listening is a much different matter. I happen to be a Christian hip-hop enthusiast, so I have some interest in the direction this conversation is taking. I admire guys like Curvine and Thi'sl and Tedashii, who are breathing life into what is probably the most materialistic genre of music we have right now. I wouldn't want them hippity-hopping in a Sunday service, but they are a nice counterbalance to all the negative stuff our ears are constantly inundated with.