Pattertwig's Pal: CCM stands for "contemporary Christian music." Here's the Wikipedia article. It has two meanings: 1. music contemporary to every generation: "In the Garden" was contemporary to people living in the 1910s; 2. a specific genre of popular music that combines certain musical styles: not all Christian music today, such as Maranatha! Singers [inspirational, scripture songs] or Gaither Vocal Band [Southern Gospel] would be classed as CCM.

I will post more about music tomorrow. For now I just want to say the following...

And in the US today, we have some many cultures represented, including within cities and neighborhoods, we cannot expect everyone to express worship to God in the same way. Let me ask you this, would you consider another nationality's style of worship to be 'unChristian'? I am not saying you are doing this, but it is not a very far step from the position you have taken to get to that point. Think about it.

I strongly disagree! The position I've taken on music is biblical [I'll give examples tomorrow]. Some music is ungodly. Please admit that. Sometimes it's a genre, sometimes the lyrics, sometimes the context. We have to have spiritual discernment to know what is godly and what isn't. But the position I've taken also has nothing to do with a nationality's style of worship! I take personal offense at this! My heart is missions! My heart is evangelism! I know countless stories of men and women missionaries, from different countries, who served Christ around the world. I have been studying the modern missionary movement in history and literature for the past three years. I love black gospel and Southern gospel [as you can see from previous posts and my Youtube channel]. I love listening to Selah sing in Kituba, the language of the Congo [where their parents served as missionaries]. I heard the African Children's Choir in person last summer. They appeared with the Gaither Homecoming Friends on their South Africa DVD. I loved worshipping with my American, British, French, German, and Welsh friends on a mission trip to the UK a decade ago. And last Sunday was missions Sunday. I was so happy! I listened to a Ukrainian choir sing to the Lord in their language during the evening service. I sampled foods from at least 10 different countries afterward. [Check out the "evangelism" link in my signature...] You know nothing about me. And suggesting that my position on Christian music has anything to do with worship in other nations or among other nationalities is a gross mistake.

About seven years ago, one church was preparing to send people from their church down to Mexico with our organization. This church was uber-conservative. Not only did the boys dress up all the time, the girls wore skirts all the time, and they were even strick vegitarians. Before a group comes, we train them for two months before their week-long trip. Now this church believes only an organ is worthy for worship when it comes to music instruments. In training, we have a video that has Mexican worship music. This is partly to introduce to the groups that people in different places have different styles of worship. The team insisted they turn off the music because it was offensive to them. It was a very interesting week, but one family from that group learned something. They didn't have to accept the Mexican style as thier own, but they could learn to appreciate it as a cultural experience.

Personally, their thinking only organs are acceptable in worship is a bit strange. It's not even scriptural. The Bible mentions dozens of different instruments. But I also think this is an interesting example. Because I read two anecdotes in some books last night that opened my eyes.

The first rude shock to the young missionary's faith, on his arrival in heathen lands, is the utter indifference of the people, the clouds of incense that dim his sight, and the harsh music that deafens his ears, as he finds himself in some lofty temple, near huge idols, before whom crowds are prostrating themselves and offering all the worship their darkened, untaught hearts are capable of.

Source: Letter to a friend, cited in Annie Ryder Gracey, Eminent Missionary Women (1898), 67.

Often these forms are associated in the minds of the people with heathen worship or immoral practices. For this reason a group of East African pastors threw up their hands in horror when I asked if they ever used drums in their services or as a call to worship. They insisted that the drums to them meant heathen dances and they should not be used in the worship of God. Yet in other parts of Africa, as in Nigeria, they are so used and with great acceptance by church leaders.

Source: Missionary Life and Work: A Division of Principles and Practices of Missions, Chicago: Moody Press, 1959.

Music is frequently connected with, and used in, worship. But it matters who we worship! And it matters what music we use! The devil has his counterfeits to the real thing. Would you borrow the music used to worship a Hindu idol, let's say, and bring it into a Christian church? I hope not!

Do you approve of Christians watching operas like Puccini's La Boheme? Do you approve of Christians reading the poetry of Coleridge or Homer? How about Christians who listen to bluegrass or Celtic music? None of these are particularly Christian (except maybe bluegrass gospel--but that's another story). If we as Christians stop listening to the music of the world, reading its literature, and engaging it. There is both truth and falsehood in the world, but I affirm, with Augustine, that "all truth is God's truth" wherever I can find it.

Funny. I said before I liked classical music and I listen to plenty of it, including Puccini... And I like some Celtic music [with reservations]. I have a classical/celtic playlist on my Youtube channel. But there was a time when I felt guilty about listening to anything that wasn't Christian, including pop, classical, and Celtic. I'm also a grad student in English. So I've read plenty of Coleridge and Homer! [Although I don't like the latter because I don't like Greek myth...] Yes, I can enjoy literature and music from other cultures. But when it comes to worship, I want the music I use and enjoy to praise God. And not all music does that, wherever its origin. Music is different! You cannot compare it to literature or art. There's a strong connection between music and the spiritual world in the Bible. I'll explain tomorrow...

Exhibit A: St. Paul. In his speech to the Areopagus, Paul referenced Greek poetry and indirectly appealed to the sensibilities of the Stoic and Epicurean philosophers of the day. He could not have done this unless he had been culturally engaged and educated in Greek culture. We cannot engage our culture unless we speak its language.

Why is this the only Biblical example people give? Are there any others? I can think of a few cultural encounters in the Bible with the opposite message, namely that we must keep ourselves unspotted from the world [James 1] and there are some things we shouldn't borrow! I'll give examples tomorrow...

By the way, guess who showed up at my church this morning as a special guest? Bill Gaither! And here's what he had to say about music. He mostly talked about harmony. He said music [voice, instrument] was a wonderful gift from God, but still just a gift. We must connect it with a wonderful heart, spirit, and brain, i.e. do you run the lyrics of a song through your head? Do you know what you're singing? We must sing and play with passion and heart. Lyrics, rhythm, and melody are important. But harmony is the 4th piece that puts it all together. It goes further than these other elements, especially melody. It completes them, the fabric that makes the world work. Harmony is subtle and small. We need all the parts and they come together in harmony. He said no other religion had the music and artistry that Christianity does. He said the angels were singing the day Jesus was born and they haven't quit! He said that without all of us [choir, congregation, all Christians everywhere], no matter how insignificant, the music doesn't work. He then led the congregation in "Little is much when God is in it." Here are the lyrics and music. [Gaither Vocal Band!]

Persp,

For once I have to say I agree completely (ok, I'm not a hip-hop fan).

I'm sure there's something out there you could dig on.

I think you are still missing the point I am trying to make, 220. I fully agree that there is definately some ungodly music out there. But the genre itself has nothing to do with it. There were good solid Christian songs in a genre just as much as there were ungoldy songs in any genre, but it was the ungodly ones that made those genres popular. This is to be expected because the world does not support Godly activities. The vast majority of rock, and especially heavy-metal, is definately ungodly. Bands like Korn, and others are a pure images of rebellion, self, and the world. I am not these are not out there. They are definately out there and they are too the point that they have stereotyped the genres to that kind of attitude.

Now, may I ask you what your take is on movies or video games? Your posts indicate that you have stereotyped several genres of music. We do the same thing all the time. For movies, I like Mel Gibson as an actor. He does an excellent job with his emotions, his wildness, and delivering his lines. But a few of his movies are super saturated with language (Leathal Weapon 2,3 and 4, Ransom and a couple others in particular). If I watch a few of those and develop a stereotype, I will be inclined to think all of his movies are super saturated with language. This is not the case. Braveheart has a line here and there, but rarely from the mouth of Mel Gibson. The Patriot is even cleaner. I can't recall a bad word coming out of that movie.

Now, you have also indicated that your biggest concern is Godly bands, singers, attempting to emulate the world to reach a few. These people are out there too. Amy Grant is a fine example. She started out as a clean Christian artist, but she decided to go secular because it would make her more money. I am not denying these people are out there either. The artists/bands that claim to be Christian, yet appealing to meet the world's standards are not living the Chrisitan life. However, there are a still a few out there that are truly legit. These are the ones I am defending.

I love the idea that you are into missions. I am as well. I've been involved in missions since I was 6 and I know God has called me to go into a full time ministry with youth. My comment on other nation's music was not geared towards you specifically. I was making sure you were not doing that since I have seen it happen. Since you have been studying up on modern missions, I am sure you know how to speak to people of a different language and culture. You learn it. You learn how they speak, how they do things, thier mannerisms, cues, etc. I can't go to Kenya speaking only English. I need to learn Swahili. If I don't learn it myself, I need to depend on a translator who can speak both.

One other thing I have learned in my missions experience. Soccer is an excellent translator between the groups we host and the Mexican people. I barely speak enough Spanish to survive, yet I get along with the Mexican people quite well through a game of soccer. Music can act as a translator just like a game of soccer can. Here is a challenge that even I would struggle at. Can you present the Gospel Message without using any Christianese phrases? Most Christians would greatly struggle with this. For me, it is likely I will be using the sport of fencing to be my translator to minister. That is why I chose my username. My point is there are artists and bands out there that are using certain genres as a translator to reach the unsaved population. I am not talking about trying to sound like the world to reach them. I am talking about using what their audience can relate to and understand to reach them.

Now, I am also not knocking your personal convictions to not listen to these genres/bands. I respect those decisions. It is the same thing as with alcohol. Many people have given alcohol a bad name because of abuse of it. But it, in itself, is not a bad thing. In fact, the Bible says a little here and there is actually good for the body. Personally, I won't ever have a beer. It is a personal conviction. I don't want the temptation to drink too much. But that being said, I can't enforce that conviction on someone else. My last few roommates like to drink (I haven't seen them do it in excess yet) and it is not my position to tell them they can't do it because I won't. Now, my roommates should be willing to honor my convictions by not doing it while I am around, but I should only expect that out of other solid Christians (which only one roommate out of seven so far have been). Be aware of passing on your own personal convictions onto others, because even if that is not your intention, it leads to unnecessary strife. This is for all of us, because at some point, each of us has been guilty of it. Personally, I would have quickly stood on your side about certain genres simply being ungodly, until a year and a half ago, when I was introduced to Curvine at the Christ for the Nations Youth Camp. I still won't listen to that stuff, but I have had to learn that not everything within that genre is as ungodly as the image it currently has. God had to expand my faith to let me see it and accept that there is more out there than what I thought that was pleasing in the sight of God.

es, I can enjoy literature and music from other cultures. But when it comes to worship, I want the music I use and enjoy to praise God. And not all music does that, wherever its origin. Music is different! You cannot compare it to literature or art. There's a strong connection between music and the spiritual world in the Bible. I'll explain tomorrow...

Your point is taken when it comes to worship. However, private listening is a matter of Christian freedom. Is there a need for discernment in our music choices? Of course, but we can't go overboard, like those who would say that Led Zeppelin and Aerosmith included subliminal messages in their music.

In terms of worship, I included the three criteria, but notice that I didn't specify what styles are and aren't appropriate. Why? Because while 16th century hymns may be appropriate in the Presbyterian Church where I attend, they wouldn't be at the multicultural inner-city church ten miles away, not to mention in Africa or Asia.

Why is this the only Biblical example people give? Are there any others? I can think of a few cultural encounters in the Bible with the opposite message, namely that we must keep ourselves unspotted from the world [James 1] and there are some things we shouldn't borrow! I'll give examples tomorrow...

The principle that I derive from Paul's idea of being "all things to all men" (1 Corinthians 9:22) is this: "When in Rome, do as the Romans do--just don't sin as the Romans sin."

TBG

220, nobody's denying that there is ungodly music. There are oodles of it. What I've heard people saying here is that there is no ungodly genre. There are genres that are more abused than others, such as rock and heavy metal (both of which I detest, by the way), but there's nothing more evil about one set of frequencies and wavelengths than another. A lot of your arguments sound similar to some that I read in a book called "Why I Left the Contemporary Christian Movement." I don't remember the author's name, but his story was basically that he had been a rock musician in a worldly lifestyle, and was saved out of it. He started working as a music minister, and found that when he tried to use anything with a rock beat (which includes a lot of CCM) he was tempted with old urges and desires. Okay, fine. This fella shouldn't listen to things that give him trouble. But does his particular case speak for all Christians?

Also, you mentioned that you like the Gaithers. I do too, in moderation. Matter of fact, my family heard them at the National Quartet Convention in Louisville last year. But the country/bluegrass/gospel genre (don't kill me for lumping them all together!) has been used by

1. Ungodly artists
2. For ungodly purposes
3. With ungodly content.

Does that make all the rest of it wicked? 'Course not. Let's apply the same idea to CCM.

Regarding women in leadership/teaching roles, I think the Bible is fairly clear that this should not be a practice in corporate worship. Paul was "carried along by the Holy Spirit" as he wrote, and though in certain passages he says "I desire," he is saying this by the will of God, and we are NOT free to pick and choose what bits we like from his letters and disregard the rest as uninspired. That's an extremely dangerous road to start on, because you are setting yourself up as the arbiter of what parts of Scripture are God-breathed and what parts aren't. It places your opinion over the Word.

Yes, Priscilla was instrumental in helping Apollo understand the Way better, alongside her husband. It's not that women are incapable of teaching at all. But there is no indication that she preached in a corporate setting, and I am afraid this is the license that many modern readers try to yank out of that passage. Private, one-on-one or small group instruction is one thing — corporate teaching is quite another. Women and men can both learn from each other. But men are accountable to God for the leadership of their families and churches, and that is why the Bible prohibits female pastors. That's just the way it is, girls.

Something that came up briefly in Sunday School yesterday was how we need to learn to submit to the Word of God. And submission doesn't mean much unless it is a sacrifice. Are there things in the Bible that are difficult for me to comprehend and/or accept? Definitely. But they are opportunities for me to submit myself and my preferences to God and what He says. I have to love His Word because it is His Word, not because it complements my life or aligns with my cultural paradigm.

And so I thank God for the things I don't personally like in His Word, because they teach me humility and submission to His authority in my life.

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.?) [. . .]

Are there any Lewis books or G.K. Chesterton books that cover this topic?

The Black Glove could probably fill in more about Chesterton's take on the topic, but I do know Lewis wrote specifically about Hell in The Problem of Pain. He famously noted:

There is no doctrine which I would more willingly remove from Christianity than this, if it lay in my power. But it has the full support of Scripture, and, specially, of Our Lord’s own words; it has always been held by Christendom, and it has the support of reason.

I love the order of importance Lewis gives those.

Also, a good systematic theology — such as Wayne Grudem’s — thoroughly covers the doctrine of Hell and briefly addresses the un-Biblical, unhistorical, and illogical nature of those who want to claim that somehow everyone will be saved.

One reason that perhaps resources are sparser in addressing the topic is that it’s not so much thought through by people, but felt through. Most Christian books I’ve seen cover the topic of Hell very well, and briefly address Universalism. When compared with Scripture, church history, and reason, it’s just not a tenable position for a professing Christian to hold.

(WiseWoman, I’m glad you found the time to say something here about that. Perhaps soon I can also address the female-leadership issue a bit, and mostly point people toward the written resources that have helped me deal with the unusual passages of Paul’s about women in worship.)

Anyway, sorry for my delay here! Much of my free time this week has actually been spent on novel work. However, I’ve kept up a lot with the discussion here, and didn’t need to say much because (in alphabetical order) Fencer for Jesus, Gladius, Mother-Music and The Black Glove were already saying everything I would have said. You folks need to know that sometimes I just get giddy reading through your responses. This isn’t just because of some sentiment like: “Yay! Cool people are on ‘my’ side” (although that’s true). Rather, it’s because I see gracious, well-thought responses and discussion about a serious yet fun issue — in short, what Christian worship is, or is not. Even long-distance and in this limited venue, you are echoing Christ’s truth and grace to me!

And that’s not meant to denigrate your contributions by any means, 220chrisTian. By now I’m sure you’ve realized that either some things you’ve said keep being misunderstood (which is possible, despite your lengthy posts), or your view is in the minority (I hope you don’t feel “ganged up” on).

I think it’s more an issue of making sweeping statements — such as this music sounds worldly to me — without backing them up Scripturally or thinking of the implications.

Others have already asked for clear Scriptural support for implications that this music is okay, but this music genre isn’t, and so far I haven’t seen it. I don’t think those were meant to put you on the defensive, or to accuse you of being myopic, but to ask you to “Think about it,” as Fencer phrased it.

Like Fencer, I’ve had to rethink my own “worldly” (I mean my rather insular, evangelical) assumptions about what is and isn’t God-glorifying music.

Getting a bad ‘rap’?

In spring 2008, I attended a conference called New Attitude, which was also attended by a Christian rapper named Shai Linne. At first I wasn’t so much put off, or thinking overtly to myself, “This is ‘worldly’ stuff.” For me it was more like: “This is not my kind of music.” It wasn’t legalism, or racism, just cliqueism. People tend to favor people, and music, that act in more predictable ways and with which they’re more familiar. (Is this a sin? Could be, but that topic, though related, is best saved for another time. …)

So then, accompanying a background track filling the auditorium, this man speaks out:

This story starts at the climax, we find that time’s lapsed — don’t mind that
It’s kind of like a night cap filled with divine acts
We zoom in the lens on Christ's agony on the garden
Doomed for His friends — His tragedy for our pardon
Foreseeing the Father’s cup of wrath has Him stifled and weak
He’s sweating blood with His disciples asleep
The Prince of Peace knows the beef shall increase
Since the thief approaches with the soldiers and the chief priests
His arrest is not just — neither is the trial
While Jesus is being treated foul, He sees Peter’s denial
He’s sent to Pilate, to Herod, back to Pilate
The violence of humanity at its finest
So now He stands before the crowd doomed to die
An angry mob who’s yelling out “crucify”
The way they treat the Lord of glory is debased and it’s foul
But you miss the point if you don’t see your face in the crowd

Were you there when they crucified my Lord?
Were you there? Were you there?
Were you there when they crucified my Lord?
Were you there? Were you there?
Man, sometimes it causes me to tremble
Yo, sometimes it causes me to tremble

Now, as Christian radio host Todd Friel said recently, you can pack more solid doctrine into a hip-hop cadence like that than the content of most hymns!

However, I think what you said in a previous post could apply to this song “Were You There”:

I don't like the music. Too much worldliness for me. There's no peace in this kind of music.

Notice I did not say you do think this about this particular song, because as far as I know when you made that statement — about newer, upbeat songs mentioned by Fencer — you had not heard this particular song. Please don’t misunderstand what I’m saying. What I mean to say is instead, why do you apply this standard of “worldly” to some songs? Could it not just as easily apply to this one? Upon what Biblical verse, chapter, slogan, can you base such discernment?

“Were You There,” as written by Shai Linne, could sound very “worldly” because it is based on music styles evolved in the non-Christian “world.”

Also, there is no “peace” in this song. Of course there isn’t. It’s a song about Christ’s very brutal death for the sins of His people, on a cross 2,000 years ago. It is not supposed to be “peaceful.” A lot of urban-style, hip-hop music isn’t “peaceful” by definition. It’s meant to be gritty, and the better ones — especially by Christian artists — get people to think, and think hard. All the songs on Shai Linne’s album “Atonement” are that way, and they are awesome.

Like Fencer, it’s just been within the past year that I’ve been forced to rethink my personal aversion to this style of music.

Now, does this mean I’m saying all Christian music should not be peaceful and only point us toward thinking deep and hard about Christ’s gruesome, violent death on the Cross? Nope. But neither should “that’s peaceful” or “that’s not peaceful” be a litmus test for what is worshipful or God-honoring music. Worship, whether public or private, should include more than one set of standards.

Look to the Psalms as an example. Many of those are very peaceful, odes to God’s glory and the magnificence of His nature, love, Law and personal guidance. Many are agonizing prayers to God in times of terrible trouble. Still others, the infamous “imprecatory” Psalms, are very honest, gritty, non-peaceful rants against enemies, portraying the harsh realities of a fallen world and the continuing struggles with sin. I daresay that if David had written the Psalms today, he might have had a hip-hop, gritty, “urban” feel in mind to the words, even if not the music.

As I read more of what you’ve written, I think the difference of opinion here could be much more rooted in differing sets of foundational beliefs.

‘The Devil’s music’?

The devil has his counterfeits to the real thing. Would you borrow the music used to worship a Hindu idol, let's say, and bring it into a Christian church? I hope not!

Contrasted with your view, Scripture doesn’t present the idea of Satan having “ownership” to certain kinds of music, art, or anything other than false doctrines and whatever is opposite that which God has created or stated as truth.

Why not “borrow” music (not religious ideas or contents, music) used to worship “a Hindu idol”? Are you in effect saying no one should eat meat that’s been sacrificed to an idol? Hmmm. That comes much too close to applying personal scruples or standards about holidays or eating habits to other believers, either implying or stating there’s no way something about this can be redeemed and made holy and glorifying to God (Romans 14). You personally may have spiritual “issues” with music developed in “the world,” or holidays, or eating habits, being done to the glory of God, but Paul didn’t grant Christians with non-salvific scruples veto power over those who did not naturally struggle with such things. He said that Christians with more freedom should not lord their freedom over others, and ought to interact with everyone in the spirit of Christ's love. But this goes both ways. The apostle also made it clear that these were issues on which there are no clear “black and white” standards.

As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God.

Romans 14: 1-6 (ESV)

To this I would add: do not pass judgment on a believer who enjoys certain kinds of music, either in public or private worship. These are issues of personal preference and spiritual opinion, not basic principles that ought to be applied to all Christians.

I think you already know this, based on your words that you enjoy southern Gospel, some contemporary artists (such as Michael W. Smith), Celtic music and such. Now, surely you know there are Christians out there who would use your exact same reasons against your preferences as you have here: i.e., It’s worldly. What then would you say to them? Probably the same things as others have written to you in this discussion, and the same things I’m saying now.

Similarly, a few Christians would say that you, as a Chronicles of Narnia fan, are reading about demonic creatures (fauns), pagan mythology (witches, minotaurs, etc.) and (worst of all) Magic. Based on their own personal scruples — or just nitpickiness — they would “discern” for the same reasons as you seem to be discerning other music genres or selections: It sounds worldly. Tolkien and Lewis didn’t care much for that sort of view; their idea is that all mythology has its roots in God’s “true myth” and can be taken back and places in story contexts that honor the Word.

Please do think about this, and consider not only consistent reasoning, but Scripture’s admonitions.

No music style, whether hymns, “pop,” classical, hip-hop or rap, Celtic, film-style soundtrack, southern Gospel, country, is the “best” music, and none of these are immune to being used for evil. And no music style should be classified as “the Devil’s counterfeit.” The Devil is not nearly so creative or so powerful.

Ripping the ripoffs, redeeming the ‘pagan’

In all this, I am not trying to swing the pendulum to the opposite extreme of some kind of “musical antinomianism,” with no content standards at all, or license for simply ripping off the world without discrimination or an eye for being original for God’s glory. Instead, you will find little but agreement here for everything you’ve said about loving music that will glorify God and His truths first and foremost.

However, in your search for this goal, it seems you are at worst not casting your net wide enough, or at best, failing to be careful enough with your language and pronouncements about what is “worldly” or what is a Devilish “counterfeit,” and what is not.

Also, I will agree that some Christians, in their sometimes-so-sad efforts to get the world to like us, will often produce cheap ripoffs of things that not even the world considers cool anymore (often years behind, too). Recently I saw perhaps the worst-ever example of this — yes, even worse than the t-shirt with the Name of “Jesus” in place of the “Reeses” logo. Yes, it seems that in all of the Church’s evangelism over the years, we were missing the one outreach method that would have finally convinced everyone that Christianity is the way to go: “Sunday School Musical.” Watch the trailer, if you dare, and weep.

But in response to the evangelical-ripoff phenomenon, I have a few reminders:

1) Making cheap ripoffs of things is not a Christian “invention.” There’s a South American “studio” that tries to rip off Pixar movies (such as a groan-awful ripoff of Kung Fu Panda or far worse, this horrid, pathetically cheap imitation of the masterpiece Up. And some Atheist t-shirts say “What Would [Richard] Dawkins Do?”, totally neglecting the fact that popular Christians haven’t been commonly using that slogan for at least 15 years.

2) Imitating a style or wanting to do something similar is not automatically a ripoff or a compromise. It happens all the time in secular artistry, and in fact it is far worse to try to be so “original” that you fail to evaluate honestly what and who your inspirations are. Frank Peretti was enthralled with 1970s blockbusters such as Star Wars and Superman and wanted to do something similar, but he came up with a rip-roaring original (questionable theology aside) called This Present Darkness. Certain musicians may like and seek to honor newer musical styles, but improve upon them in very original and God-glorifying ways, and not just rip them off like a Wal-Mart “Great Value” generic alternative for Honey Nut Cheerios.

3) Christians own certain genres that the world tries to copy all the time. Examples: The Lord of the Rings, The Chronicles of Narnia, southern Gospel music. And — this may get me some howls even from fellow “Calvinists” — the Left Behind series and end-times literature, whether fiction or nonfiction, are, I would argue, absolutely Christian originals. See also: the Bible, good vs. Evil, the story element of a hero dying in place of someone else, and so on.

As The Black Glove pointed out, Paul was familiar with pagan Greek poetry. Did that mean he tried to write his own pagan poetry, only with Christian messages? Not that we know of. But Paul also wouldn’t stand in front of the Greek philosophers, and, if they quoted a poet at him, simply say “That sounds worldly; I haven’t read it, and I’m proud of my standards,” the way some Christians do. (Note: I am not saying you are like this; also, I would add that most Christians in the West have the opposite problem.) In fact, Paul pointed out how some poems echoed Biblical truths, perhaps despite themselves. He used this knowledge not to prove Biblical truth, but to reach across to their culture.

How is that different from using even a pagan song, movie, book series, etc., to reach people where they are? It’s not. It’s an exact parallel. Does that mean we should only do this sort of rhetorical trick and thus either look lame or worse, compromise more-direct Gospel presentations? Not at all. But at the very least we know from Scripture, not personal opinion, that we have this option.

In the Church, and in evangelism, we can vary our approaches, ad-lib it if you will, as the Spirit gives us the ability — mixing references to “worldly” things or even casual replicating of “worldly” styles with more-direct references to what God has actually said.

It’s an issue of Christian freedom, not just “avoiding worldliness” when no actual Scriptural standards have been violated, or “avoiding the Devil’s counterfeits,” when the Devil is not nearly so powerful as to have come up with an artistic creation in the research laboratories of Hell that Christians cannot touch without being contaminated. No, Christ or His people can take something back as their own in the first place. Everything good on Earth is His, not the Devil’s. God, not the Devil, is in charge of Earth. He will redeem all of this planet from the seeming dominance of evil, just as we can redeem “pagan” things from nonbelievers now.

Regarding women in leadership/teaching roles, I think the Bible is fairly clear that this should not be a practice in corporate worship. Paul was "carried along by the Holy Spirit" as he wrote, and though in certain passages he says "I desire," he is saying this by the will of God, and we are NOT free to pick and choose what bits we like from his letters and disregard the rest as uninspired. That's an extremely dangerous road to start on, because you are setting yourself up as the arbiter of what parts of Scripture are God-breathed and what parts aren't. It places your opinion over the Word.

Yes, Priscilla was instrumental in helping Apollo understand the Way better, alongside her husband. It's not that women are incapable of teaching at all. But there is no indication that she preached in a corporate setting, and I am afraid this is the license that many modern readers try to yank out of that passage. Private, one-on-one or small group instruction is one thing — corporate teaching is quite another. Women and men can both learn from each other. But men are accountable to God for the leadership of their families and churches, and that is why the Bible prohibits female pastors. That's just the way it is, girls.

Something that came up briefly in Sunday School yesterday was how we need to learn to submit to the Word of God. And submission doesn't mean much unless it is a sacrifice. Are there things in the Bible that are difficult for me to comprehend and/or accept? Definitely. But they are opportunities for me to submit myself and my preferences to God and what He says. I have to love His Word because it is His Word, not because it complements my life or aligns with my cultural paradigm.

And so I thank God for the things I don't personally like in His Word, because they teach me humility and submission to His authority in my life.

Thank you, thank you ww...as usual, your post matches your screenname.

And this is exactly what I feel the problem turned out to be with the worship music brochure: people just didn't want to submit to Scripture. Now, saying that is a judgment call, because I haven't personally spoken with these people...they have yet to be willing to talk with me about it.

But I would definitely appreciate anyone who could point out where that brochure is Scripturally WRONG. Because it would help me no end to know if I was at fault in it's content or distribution.

And as I said...I'll be leaving the music directorship of the church as soon as financially possible, not because it's been really hard to face this last upheaval, but because I realize how ridiculous it is to profess a certain conviction and yet be doing the opposite.

mm

I've read everyone's comments. Sometimes I'll respond to a member and sometimes I'll just give my [hopefully researched] thoughts on the subject. I apologize if I don't acknowledge everyone who's replied since my last post.

MM: On the subject of asking God to inhabit the praises of His people, on inviting the Holy Spirit into worship [assuming they're the same], what are your thoughts on the songs below? Are they biblical? I don't know.

Welcome into this place
Holy Spirit, thou art welcome in this place
Holy Spirt, come and fill this place
Holy Spirit, rain down
Welcome, Holy Spirit

You personally may have spiritual “issues” with music developed in “the world,” or holidays, or eating habits, being done to the glory of God, but Paul didn’t grant Christians with non-salvific scruples veto power over those who did not naturally struggle with such things. He said that Christians with more freedom should not lord their freedom over others, and ought to interact with everyone in the spirit of Christ's love. But this goes both ways. The apostle also made it clear that these were issues on which there are no clear “black and white” standards.

Yes, I realize I can't force my personal musical choices on others. That's the Holy Spirit's job, not mine. It's a grey area. And I address that below. But I also think music used in worship, usually in a public place, should have some conformity, whatever styles are used. It should please and glorify God. And spiritual peace in music has nothing to do with whether it's fast or slow, with tempo, beat, lyrics, etc. It's a spiritual component. I love songs about the cross. But some are peaceful [both fast and slow] and some are not. And it also matters who is singing or playing a song.

Are you in effect saying no one should eat meat that’s been sacrificed to an idol? Hmmm. That comes much too close to applying personal scruples or standards about holidays or eating habits to other believers, either implying or stating there’s no way something about this can be redeemed and made holy and glorifying to God (Romans 14).

Daniel and his friends avoided the Babylonians' food and drink [1:8-16]. You may say it's just meat and wine but the implication is that it was offered to idols. In Acts 15:20, the Jerusalem council advised Gentiles to "abstain from pollutions of [things polluted by] idols." What's the pollution? Worship of an idol? Food offered to an idol?

Dr. Ransom, you say we can redeem what's pagan. Right now, I disagree. But I have to do more research, don't I?

Exhibit A: St. Paul. In his speech to the Areopagus, Paul referenced Greek poetry and indirectly appealed to the sensibilities of the Stoic and Epicurean philosophers of the day. He could not have done this unless he had been culturally engaged and educated in Greek culture. We cannot engage our culture unless we speak its language.

Paul was born a Roman and reared in a Greek-speaking city. Before his conversion, he was taught both Hebrew and Greek language, thought, and literature. He clearly used the latter to his advantage to spread the gospel. But he didn’t learn Greek ways of worship. And he had little respect for Greek myths [Acts 14:11-18]. Those who worshipped the gods of Greek myths tortured him [Acts 14:19, 19:23-41]. In these ways, Paul refused to conform to the heathen cultures around him. In many of his letters to various Gentile churches, Paul’s basic message is trust in Christ and don’t copy the heathen practices around you, even if that culture is your native “language.” Why? You’re bought with a price! [1 Cor 6] You belong to Jesus now! Conform to Him and His Word, not to the world [Rom 12]. Be spiritually separate! “Come out from among them and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing, and I will receive you” [2 Cor 6]. And what’s the message of the Jerusalem council to Gentiles? No, you don’t have to be circumcised or conform to Mosaic Law, for these things cannot save. But you should still “abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood” [Acts 15]. Even these things were probably new to some Gentiles and would mark them as separate from their heathen neighbors.

The book of Daniel is all about the people of God keeping themselves pure, not becoming like the heathen Babylonians, Medes and Persians around them. And because of their faithful witness, their refusal to be corrupted or resemble the heathen culture, Nebuchadnezzar and Darius believed God!
1. Judah was taken captive to Babylon and purposely saturated in a heathen culture. The Babylonians taught them “the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans” [1]. There’s nothing wrong with this, per se, but the problem was their intent. They also tried to teach Judah their heathen ways of worship. Chosen youth were given Babylonian names, the names of their heathen gods [1]. They were given Babylonian food and drink, offered to their heathen gods [1]. The Babylonians’ purpose was to corrupt the Jews, to make them forget their homeland and their God. But guess what? “Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the portion of the king’s meat, nor with the wine which he drank” [1].
2. When Daniel interpreted Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar’s dreams, he relied on God, not the magic, astrology, or sorcery of the Babylonians. 1:17-20, 2:18-23, 27-30, 5:11-16
3. Daniel’s 3 friends refused to bow down to Nebuchadnezzar’s golden image. They disobeyed the king in order to obey God. – chapter 3
4. Daniel refused to stop praying three times a day. He disobeyed the king, and a bad law, in order to obey God. – chapter 6
5. Chapter 5: why was Belshazzar destroyed? He used the vessels from God’s temple to drink wine and toast his heathen gods. One would think these were just vessels. But they were considered holy by being used in the temple. They had a holy purpose. And Belshazzar made them unclean. If God cares that much about some cups, don’t you think He cares about our culture, about the music, books, and movies we surround ourselves with? About what we use in worship?

Lot saw “the well-watered . . . plain of Jordan” and chose to live in Sodom, ignoring the city’s spiritual condition [Gen 13:10-13]. Compare this to Gen 3:6 and 1 John 2:15-17. Yes, Lot was called righteous and just [Gen 18:23, 2 Peter 2:7-8]. The Bible says he was “vexed with the filthy conversation [conduct] of the wicked” [2 Pet 2]. But living in Sodom still corrupted him! He thought little of offering his virgin daughters to some homosexuals. Yes, it was better than the alternative. But it was still sin. He also let these daughters commit incest. Yes, he was asleep, but it was still sin.

Unlike what some may think, Joseph wasn’t perfect. He tricked his brothers before revealing himself to them and also married the daughter of a heathen priest [Gen 42-44, 41]. But in heathen Egypt, he still refused to commit adultery or lie [Gen 39-41]. He continued to trust in God.

In everything she said and did, Esther submitted to King Ahaseurus. But she also obeyed her cousin Mordecai. She didn’t resemble the heathen Persians around her. And Esther eventually acknowledged her people the Jews and won protection for them. Mordecai didn’t resemble the Persians either. He refused to bow to Haman. In doing so, he disobeyed the king in order to obey God [Esther 3:2-4].

The nation of Israel was different. 400+ years in Egypt corrupted them. From the time of the Exodus until they entered Babylonian captivity, Israel kept backsliding – heathen worship, heathen spouses, heathen sins like sexual immorality, infanticide, etc. They also didn’t consistently observe the Lord’s Sabbath or Jewish festivals. They forgot God. But in the midst of national infidelity, some individuals—both Jews and Gentiles—were faithful to God. Rahab, a Canaanite, feared God and lied to protect the spies [Joshua 2]. Ruth, a Moabite, feared God and left her native, but heathen, culture and family to cling to Naomi—the people of God. She told her, “Whither thou goest, I will go, and where thou lodgest I will lodge; thy people shall be my people and thy God my God. Where thou diest, I will die and there will I be buried” [Ruth 1:16-17].

The result of disobedience, of not spiritually separating oneself from heathen practices, in whatever form they appear and whether or not the heathen culture is ethnically the same as or different from one’s own, is bondage and a corrupted witness. But the result of obedience to God, of spiritual separation and holiness, is liberty and a faithful witness. Joseph, Daniel and his friends, Ezekiel and other prophets in Babylon, Esther, Mordecai, and many others generally didn’t “speak the language” of the heathen cultures around them. They didn’t borrow much of it either. Yes, Daniel learned some aspects of Chaldean thought and culture. But it was forced on him. And he still kept himself pure, which was and is difficult without God’s help. Joseph and Moses probably learned some aspects of Egyptian thought and culture. But there were some things they wouldn’t do, including worshipping false gods. The book of Hebrews tells us that “by faith Moses . . . refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season”; “by faith he forsook Egypt” [11:24-25, 27]. These people spiritually separated themselves. And God honored their obedience, for others wondered what was different about them. And some believed!

You also mentioned about being able to understand the older generation's language in your study. That is easy. You are all Christians. How do you plan to reach the non-Christians living in your neighborhood? You can't use the Christianese many of us have heard our whole lives. Those that are not Christians don't understand phrases like 'sin', 'need a Savior', 'truth', etc. Especially in this culture where people don't hold to absolute right and wrong. You can't speak them in terms of absolutes if you plan to reach them. I am not saying we have to throw out Biblical teaching. I am saying we need to present it in a way that someone who doesn't speak 'Christianese' can understand.

I disagree. Telling people about Jesus should involve some “Christian-ese.” But we have to explain the terms, not avoid using them. Look at missionaries! Over the centuries, countless missionaries have told people in other nations and cultures about Jesus. How did they do it? First, they learned the language or used native speakers in order to translate the Bible into that culture’s language. Then they taught the people to read, if the latter didn’t already know how, so they could read the Bible and learn the terms for themselves. The missionaries also preached in the native language or used interpreters. Sometimes they used examples from nature or the culture to explain Christian ideas. They also taught the people hymns and songs, sometimes in the missionaries’ language and sometimes translated into the native language, to present Christian ideas. But they never avoided talking about sin, the need for a Savior and Christ as Savior, or biblical truth. This is the gospel and this is what the missionaries presented.

My best friend on the planet is French Catholic. He’s never been to America. He was first exposed to Protestant Evangelical worship [Selah, TRBC, etc] this spring and summer—via me. Now he loves this music! He says the Catholic Church in France is dead. And he said before he met me, he was ready to give up on Christianity. That’s how much he disliked his church.

I love Jewish music, foreign films [not dubbed], and Russian literature. I financially support a teenager in India with Compassion. Why? I’ve been fascinated with India for nearly a decade. And I have more in common with faithful Christians in other nations, speaking other languages, than I do with a civilized heathen who lives in America and speaks native English! I refuse to conform to the heathen cultures in America or any other nation. This is spiritual separation – holiness.

For years I never liked “You are Good” until I heard it @ TRBC. Now it’s one of my favorite songs. Why the difference? The worship leader, the person with the microphone, and the spirit in the church. I’ve never heard anyone @ TRBC sing anything bad or badly! They have a mix of old and new like other churches, but the music is great! This is one problem with my home church. The musical talent is mediocre and the worship leader is kind of pathetic. Sunday morning a guest worship leader admittedly sang some older songs [from the 1970s and 1980s]. But he is also trained. And he had peace. Nothing felt rushed. The spirit was wonderful and free. “Where the Spirit of the Lord is there is liberty” [2 Cor 3]. Sunday night was a different story, with a different worship leader. There was no peace in the music. There was no spirit in the entire service. It felt mostly dead. There was a spiritual heaviness, almost like molasses. I don’t even know why. There was nothing wrong with the music chosen. I knew and liked most of the songs, some new and some old. There was nothing mostly wrong with the sermon, even though I’m not fond of the pastor. But the worship leader, the one with the mike, had no peace—just jangling noise. Everything felt rushed.

Yesterday morning, a Christian sang “The Longer I serve Him.” But a sinner sang “All Rise.” People say you can’t tell the difference, but you can! It matters who sings, who leads worship—whoever has the microphone. Why? Because the Spirit changes with each person. Just like a Christian can invite the Spirit and a sinner can kill it, so also a sanctified Christian can invite the Spirit and a worldly Christian [or one with unconfessed sin] can kill it. I still remember when a former children’s pastor at my church led the congregation in prayer last spring. He exhibited faith in God’s promises. As a result, the Spirit gave a message in tongues. Then God graciously this man the interpretation. And just after he gave it, he dropped to the floor – full of the Holy Spirit. I never witnessed this happen to my pastor or a featured guest speaker. Just like it matters who has the mic, so also it matters who is behind the pulpit. It’s not just a block of wood!

I think the true spirit of worship is encapsulated in songs like“All rise”, “I bowed on my knees and cried holy”, “I stand in awe of you”, and “We fall down.” What do we do when we worship God in music? We enter His holy presence. And that is a gift because we are unworthy! It is only by the grace of God, through the blood of Christ that clothes us in His righteousness, that we are even allowed to stand in God’s presence [instead of being banished from His sight like the unclean worms we used to be]. Do we have a sense of awe when we feel the presence of God? Do we bow in reverent humility? We should!

When it comes to worship, I want the music I use and enjoy to praise God. And not all music does that, whatever its origin. There’s a spirit behind the music used in worship—in every religion. And there's a strong connection between music and the spiritual world in the Bible. Consider these basic principles.

Music that pleases and praises God brings His presence, as well as spiritual deliverance and light. It draws us closer to Him.
1. When an evil spirit troubled King Saul, his servants made him request a harp player to drive it away. When David played on the harp, “the evil spirit departed from him.” 1 Sam 16:14-23 [See also 1 Sam 18:10 and 19:9.]
2. David praised God for “compass[ing] me about with songs of deliverance.” Psalm 32:7
3. At the dedication of Solomon’s temple, after the Levites praised God in instrument and song, “the house was filled with a cloud . . . so that the priests could not stand to minister by reason of the cloud, for the glory of the Lord had filled the house of God.” 2 Chron 5:13-14
4. When Ammon and Moab came against Judah, King Jehoshaphat “appointed singers unto the Lrod, and that should praise the beauty of holiness, as they went out before the army, and to say, Praise the Lord, for his mercy endureth forever. And when they began to sing and to praise, the Lord set ambushments against the children of Ammon, Moab, and mount Seir, which were come against Judah, and they were smitten.” 2 Chron 20:21-22
5. In prison, Paul and Silas “prayed and sang praises unto God. . . .Suddenly there was a great earthquake . . . and immediately all the doors were opened and everyone’s bands were loosed.” Acts 16:25-26
6. Sometimes you don’t have to sing. Just blow a trumpet. Joshua 6 when Joshua led Israel against the town of Jericho, the priests blew trumpets once a day the first 6 days and 7 times on the 7th day. What happened next on that last day? The people gave a shout of victory and the walls came tumbling down! Judges 7 when Gideon and his 300 men came against the Midianites, they blew trumpets, broke their pitchers with lamps, and gave a shout of victory. What happened next? “The host ran and cried and fled.”

Music that doesn’t please or praise God brings spiritual bondage and darkness. It draws us away from Him.
1. While Moses and Joshua were on Mount Sinai, Aaron led Israel into idolatry. Joshua thought there was “a noise of war in the camp.” But Moses recognized it as singing, and “saw the calf and the dancing.” Ex 32:18-19
2. King Nebuchadnezzar created a golden image of himself. And he told the people, “At what time ye hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, dulcimer, and all kinds of music, ye fall down and worship the golden image.” And that is what most of them did. The Babylonians knew the power of music in worship. Daniel 3:1-7, 10, 15

Tthere’s a biblical connection between music and the gift of prophecy. But evil spirits can prophesy just like the Holy Spirit.
1. After Samuel anointed Saul as king of Israel, he told him prophets would meet him with various instruments and prophesy. “And the Spirit of the Lord will come upon thee and thou shalt prophesy with them and shalt be turned into another man.” 1 Sam 10:5-6
2. One time when an evil spirit troubled Saul “he prophesied in the midst of the house, and David played with his hand, as at other times.” 1 Sam 18:10
3. David named specific men to “prophesy with harps, with psalteries, and with cymbals” for service in the tabernacle. 1 Chron 25:1
4. When the kings of Israel and Judah joined together to fight Moab, they traveled through Edom and found no water in the desert for themselves or their animals. So they asked the prophet Elisha for a word from the Lord. How did he discover that word? Elisha said, “But now bring me a minstrel. And it came to pass, when the minstrel played, that the hand of the Lord came upon him.” Then he told the two kings to “make this valley full of ditches,” which the Lord would fill—without wind or rain. The Lord also said he would deliver Moab into their hands. 2 Kings 3:7-18

“As water reflects a face, so a man's heart reflects the man” [Proverbs 27]. What we are attracted to and desire [hunger and thirst for] with our hearts determines what we choose to see and hear [seek, pursue, follow]. This is what we feed into our minds. And what we think about determines what we say and do. Yes, music is a grey area. But this is where we rely on the Holy Spirit, as we should in all things. He gives us discernment to know what is good and bad, true and false. I personally think some music should never have been written. You can disagree with me all you want. But some young Christians are waking up to this. They are leaving “Christian” rock and alternative behind, which they used to listen to and enjoy. They’re leaving some secular music behind. We’re told to evaluate the books we read and the movies and TV we watch. We’re told to watch our tongues and avoid people who take God’s name in vain. [If you’re not doing this, I suggest you start.] What makes music different? It enters our ears, just like foul language. It enters our consciousness, just like books and movies. It should also be evaluated! So evaluate the music you listen to, the music you use in personal and corporate worship. Ask yourself, “Does it draw me closer to God or away from Him? Does it bring spiritual deliverance or bondage?” Humbly ask God to evaluate your music. He’ll let you know if it pleases Him or not. We tell others to rely on the Holy Spirit’s guidance in grey areas, yes? But how many of us have actually done that -- with our own CDs, DVDs, and books?

1. Good music, language, books [i.e. Bible!], movies = good thoughts = good behavior...
2. Bad music, language, books, movies = bad thoughts = bad behavior...

It’s that simple! “What goes in is what comes out!”

(edited)

220, those are some great admonitions toward purity in our Christian walks.

But you completely bypassed the clear meaning of Romans 14 — that meat sacrificed to idols is not an either-it’s-right-or-it’s-wrong issue. Instead, you sidetracked into other Scriptures, and dodged Romans 14.

Please, may I encourage you to focus better? Otherwise, no one will learn anything in this discussion except personal opinions on how music should supposedly “conform” to a single kind of sound or feeling — an unsupported viewpoint not found in Scripture.

I think it’s not more “research” that’s needed, but a more solid emphasis on what is in the Bible (which could be easier or harder than just “research,” depending on how you look at it). A passage such as Romans 14 should be read thoroughly, in context, front to back, and optimally with the entirety of the book in mind, without simply adding “yes but” when someone brings it up and then pointing to other passages. Those other passages don’t contradict what Paul wrote anyway, but even if they seem to, you haven’t dealt with the plain meaning of this passage. Until we can address that, I don't see much point in moving on.

Note that this is not meant to sound rude, but encourage focus and a respect for the entirety of Scripture, not just our personal favorite verses or topics.

All the songs on Shai Linne’s album “Atonement” are that way, and they are awesome.

Though this may be a tad off topic; *wonders if Dr. has heard of/listened to Lecrae*

1. Good music, language, books [i.e. Bible!], movies = good thoughts = good behavior...
2. Bad music, language, books, movies = bad thoughts = bad behavior...

And--that doesn't really convince us of whether that kind of music is good or bad. What I'm saying is-- Sure, your statements may be true--but if we believe Christian Rap is fine and good to listen to, then those statements there won't make us "change our ways." If we think Christian Rap is good music, we'll believe that good comes out of it.

I see your points 220, but I also see flawed logic. It's fine you mention all sorts of Biblical examples of what people did from Daniel, to Joseph, etc. But in what you have said, you made a mistake of saying "this is what they did, so this is what we should do". All the stories you mentioned were historical narratives. Yes, Daniel, Shadrach, Messhach, and Abednego had excellent convictions and would not defile themselves. But the point of that story is not we should have thier convictions. The point was that we should upold the convictions we have of God to the extent they did. Are you aware they made thier stand (in Chapter 1) to the point of not only thier death but the servants' death as well? We should have convictions that we will stand for to the point of death. But if we limit ourselves to only doing what they did, we run the risk of legalism.

David ate the bread that was dedicated to the sacrifices in 1 Samuel. Jesus ate and parties at the houses of well established sinners and tax collectors. Also, we had a guest speaker at my church on Sunday. As he was sharing a piece of his testimony, he spoke of how God told him to sell his truck, sell his motorcycle, and cut off his hair (at that time it was down his waist). God had really blessed him for that. So, because it worked for him, does that mean it should work for me? No, no, and NO!!!! That word was for him and it was not for me. So whenever we look at other people's story, we shouldn't look specifically at what they did. We should look at thier heart, why they choose to do what they did, and what happened as a result.

I now see more of your heart on the musical side of things. You revealed two things in your last post. 1) You are very concerned about not just emulating the world, but having a possible appearance of evil. This is a good position to have. As Christians we have to be very careful in what we do. Whether we realize it or not, people are watching us. They know we are Christians, whether we say anything about it or not. And they are watching us to see if we are for real or not. If we look like we are doing something wrong, even if we are not, people are going to take notice and we lose our Testimony. This is why Billy Graham will never ride in a car with another woman unless is wife is with him.
The other issue you stated to have has absolutely nothing to do with the musical genre but rather the artist and the presentation of the music. You said it yourself that there are some songs that you didn't like due to one artist that you now like due to another. This is the heart of the matter we have been trying to get down to.

I see the same thing myself. There some songs that I only like depending on the presentation. I love the song "Mighty to Save". There have been numerous renditions of the song I have heard including Hillsong, Michael W Smith, Teen Mania (Youth Camp), my church, another church from my city (they televise their sermons on a Christian station) and some other places. There are some renditions I love and others I don't. I love it when my church does it because the Presense of God stands out. But when I watched the other church on TV a few weeks ago, I couldn't sense it. Yes, it was a presentation (five singers instead of the congregation), but the accoustics is always off when I watch them, and I don't see the drive of worshiping the Lord there that I see at other places.

I can tell the differences when someone is doing thier work as a presentation vs doing it as worship to the Lord. And that is the real issue here. The genre or the song is almost irrelevant. It's the artist that's the issue. If there is a song that is clearly labeled as 'worthy of worship' for either private or corporate worship, out there that can get mixed receptions based on the artist, how much more any other songs? If we are going to rule out entire genres because a number of artists have shown enmity with God, we may as well rule out all music while we are at it because of the same reason. This is clearly faulty logic and we should by no means do this, but that is a logical conclusion to that stance. But one thing I will say. I have seen more worship of the Lord through bands like Curvine and The Fray than I have in a number of churches. The genre of music has nothing to do with it. It's all on the artist.

And this is a reason why I will have a very hard time moving to another church if God takes me out of El Paso. You can tell God is at my church during our worship services. It's not our musical talents (though they are there), the accoustics (a gifted musician knows how to set up accoustics to make it work), or the PowerPoint presentations (which I run). It's the heart. But that being said, for corporate worship, a church does need to take care of things like good voices, accoustics, and presentations. This is why. When the sound system goes bad or the PowerPoints slides are five lines behind the song, it becomes a distractant to the atmosphere. That doesn't mean you can't worship in that setting. I have been there when the equipment fails and you have to do it acapela, but not let that hinder us. But you can't help those cases. For PowerPoint, many people at my church, even my pastor, knows when I am gone. My pastor repeately tells me that they'll 'make do' when I am out of town. I'm not trying to boast about my ability to move the worship slides on cue. I am talking about my heart on the issue. Not only do I worship during the singing part of the service, I run the slides at the same time so for the congregation, following the words is a non-issue. The issue is the heart and not the song, the genre, or the presentation.

Another thank-you, Wisewoman for your insight on women teaching in church. I felt it would be awkward if I spoke up...

220, your post emphasizes the power of music, as well as our duty to use music that honors God; but you still have not offered any scripture as to what style of music honors God. You give examples, and talk about how certain music feels to you, but that's entirely subjective. I'm not being nitpicky, I hope--I'm willing to be taught. But unless you can show me from Scripture that one set of frequencies and wavelengths is more acceptable to God than another, I must remain unconvinced.

Regarding women in leadership/teaching roles, I think the Bible is fairly clear that this should not be a practice in corporate worship. Paul was "carried along by the Holy Spirit" as he wrote, and though in certain passages he says "I desire," he is saying this by the will of God, and we are NOT free to pick and choose what bits we like from his letters and disregard the rest as uninspired. That's an extremely dangerous road to start on, because you are setting yourself up as the arbiter of what parts of Scripture are God-breathed and what parts aren't. It places your opinion over the Word.

I really wish Paul had been clearer. Sometimes he is so clear, such as saying, “I say – I and not the Lord” and “I give this command – not I but the Lord.” They letters are so hard to understand. There are parts that seem in complete contradiction to each other. I know there are great risks in trying to pick and chose in the Bible and worries me. However, there is an indication that some things in the Bible were written only to apply for a certain timeframe / situation. (That sentence isn’t exactly saying what I want it to). We are not longer expected to follow the rules of sacrifice yet they are still in the Bible. (That might be a bad example). Moses, inspired by God, gave the Israelites a long list of rules. Yet, some of those rules God gave only because the situation demanded them and not because they were they way he preferred the Israelites to live. For example, Mark 10:5 But Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote this commandment for you.” This is in regards to divorce. Jesus clearly indicates that once married a woman and man should stay married. It is very hard (at least for me) to make since out of all of what Paul says different places. My version of the Bible has Phoebe being called a deacon of the church. A footnote says “or minister.” A deacon is clearly an official of the church. According to my German Bible, it is unclear a. exactly how the early churches were run (it sounds like they were evolving even during the time the letters were being written). There seems to be some confusion in translation about how the hierarchy worked and what Paul meant when he was writing to certain people. B. whether or not deacons were also involved in teaching, etc. When a man and a woman marry, they become “one flesh” as Jesus says. In 1 Cor 7: 3-4 it says “The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.” This seems to be a relationship where each of the parts is equal. Neither the husband nor the wife has complete control of the relationship. Yet, several other places the husbands are put over the wives. (for example Ephesians 5:22-24). According to my Bible, 1 Tim 2:12 can read either “I permit no woman to teach or have authority over a man” or I permit no wife to have authority over her husband.” The second one is clearly different from the first.

Galatians 3:28 “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Jesus Christ.”
This seems to say that all are equal in Christ and considered one. This limits the class of people into “Christians” and “Non-Christians.” However, when we look at how the church is apparently supposed to run, suddenly male and female matter again?

Basically, I just don’t understand. I want to understand. I want to do God’s will and follow his Word. However, there are parts of the Bible I can’t reconcile to other parts and seem to me to be telling me two different things.

None of us will ever completely understand God and Bible. I think that everyone who reads the Bible holds some misconception about what it is trying to say. (The inaccuracies in translation can’t help. Any translation is going to have some errors.) I’m pretty sure complete understanding is not a requirement for getting into heaven. That is as unlikely to happen as people completely following the laws in the Old Testament.

I still wonder if the writers of the letters intended them to be read for generations. The letters were clearly directed to specific people and spoke to specific situations. We can learn from them the same as we can learn from the Old Testament, but some parts will completely apply to us. (There isn’t a whole lot of meat out there that has been offered to idols).

Something that came up briefly in Sunday School yesterday was how we need to learn to submit to the Word of God. And submission doesn't mean much unless it is a sacrifice. Are there things in the Bible that are difficult for me to comprehend and/or accept? Definitely. But they are opportunities for me to submit myself and my preferences to God and what He says. I have to love His Word because it is His Word, not because it complements my life or aligns with my cultural paradigm.

This makes a lot of sense. Right now, I’m trying very hard to determine if what my church culture and secular culture says about women aligns with the God’s Word and Will or not. As I said before my church has a female pastor. I don’t know for certain if God forbids women pastors or not, but I do know that this pastor has better theology than one of male pastors. She might be in error in the sense that she should not be a pastor but at least God is able to use this pastor to reach people and spread his Word. (I’m not saying that if good is coming out of what people are doing wrong it means it doesn’t matter that it is wrong. It just shows how God is able to work with imperfect subjects.)

My Bible is The Student Bible with notes by Philip Yancey and Tim Stafford and is a NRSV.
P.S. I've been working on this post most of the day so I didn't have time to catch up on all of the posts that happen throughout the day, so if I'm repeating something or not taking something into account that's why.

Wondering if there were many different views about this here, and thought I'd drop this, but don't feel like you have to reply. eustacegirl posted in the Town Square.

God has shown em over and over that Baptism is required for Salvation, along with, believing, rpeenting and remaining stead fast.

I believe that (apart from infant baptism for babies of believing parents), when you believe later in life, baptism is something you do because you believe.
Acts 18:8
"Then Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized."
When they heard, they believed and were baptized. If you become saved and say "I'm not going to be baptized, it's not required" then it's pretty silly. I mean, you become baptized because you were saved. Because you were "told to."
Are you saying that if you're on your deathbed and you are converted, you have to quick be baptized before you die or you're not saved? I'm sorry, but I sure don't believe that. ("Quick! Pour water on my head or I won't go to heaven!")
Mark 16:16
"He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned."
This verse doesn't say "He who is not baptized will be condemned." It says "he who does not believe will be condemned."
Baptism is a step you take after you are converted, but definitely not something that saves you!!!