Christianity, Religion and Philosophy, Episode V!

[Warrior 4 Jesus]

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

[Pattertwigs Pal]

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

[220chrisTian]

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 3:12]: "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 66:18]. "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 1:15]. 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 [1:6], and Daniel [9:18]. 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...

[FencerforJesus]

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.

[The Old Maid]

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.

[Pattertwigs Pal]

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.

[Mother-Music]

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.

Warning: some or all of the following may or may not have been typed while holding my tongue in my cheek. Your mileage may vary.

You say: “I don’t like the music. Too much worldliness for me.” Great. Please define worldliness so that we can listen to that music and reply “Yes, indeed, 220 is right. That is definitely worldly.” Please define worldliness Scripturally as it applies to music.

You say “I also strongly believe some types of music are not Christian, no matter what lyrics are put to them, including alternative, rock, and rap.” Wonderful. Please use Scripture to teach us what defines Christian music. This information is needed so badly! Especially at my Christian Baptist University where I am enrolled in a class that is actually discussing the definition of music. It would be lovely to be able to walk in there with a solid, biblical definition that encompasses all music, indeed, all sound, and makes us able to make a distinction between Christian music and music that is of the devil. I particularly want to know if John Cage and Xenakis’ music stand up to your Scriptural definition. In fact, now that I think about it, we’ll be able to dismiss that class entirely, and never meet again.

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

[The Black Glove]

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

[Warrior 4 Jesus]

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.

[Mother-Music]

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.

2:9–15 Women in the church were living impure and self-centered lives (cf. 5:6, 11–15; 2Ti 3:6), and that practice carried over into the worship service, where they became distractions. Because of the centrality of worship in the life of the church, Paul calls on Timothy to confront the problem.

2:9 adorn … proper clothing. The Gr. word for “adorn” means “to arrange,” “to put in order,” or “to make ready.” A woman is to arrange herself appropriately for the worship service, which includes wearing decent clothing which reflects a properly adorned chaste heart. modestly and discreetly. “Modestly” refers to modesty mixed with humility, which carries the underlying idea of shame. It can also refer to a rejection of anything dishonorable to God, or refer to grief over sin.

“Discreetly” basically refers to self-control over sexual passions. Godly women hate sin and control their passions so as not to lead another into sin. See notes on 1Pe 3:3, 4. braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments. Specific practices that were causing distraction and discord in the church. Women in the first century often wove “gold or pearls” or other jewelry into their hair styles (“braided hair”) to call attention to themselves and their wealth or beauty. The same was true of those women who wore “costly garments.” By doing so they would draw attention to themselves and away from the Lord, likely causing the poorer women to be envious. Paul’s point was to forbid the preoccupation of certain women with flaunting their wealth and distracting people from worshiping the Lord.

2:10 Those women who have publicly committed themselves to pursuing godliness should support that claim not only in their demeanor, wardrobe, and appearance, but by being clothed with righteous behavior.

2:11 A woman must … receive instruction. Women are not to be the public teachers when the church assembles, but neither are they to be shut out of the learning process. The form of the Gr. verb translated “receive instruction” is an imperative: Paul is commanding that women be taught in the church. That was a novel concept, since neither first century Judaism nor Greek culture held women in high esteem. Some of the women in Ephesus probably overreacted to the cultural denigration they had typically suffered and took advantage of their opportunity in the church by seeking a dominant role in leadership. quietly … submissiveness.

“Quietly” and “submissiveness” (“to line up under”) were to characterize the role of a woman as a learner in the context of the church assembly. Paul explains his meaning in v. 12: Women are to be silent by not teaching, and they are to demonstrate submission by not usurping the authority of the pastors or elders.

2:12 I do not allow. The Gr. word for “allow” is used in the NT to refer to allowing someone to do what he desires. Paul may have been addressing a real situation in which several women in Ephesus desired to be public preachers. to teach. Paul used a verbal form of this Gr. word that indicates a condition or process and is better translated “to be a teacher.” This was an important, official function in the church (see Ac 13:1; 1Co 12:28; Eph 4:11). Thus Paul is forbidding women from filling the office and role of the pastor or teacher. He is not prohibiting them from teaching in other appropriate conditions and circumstances (cf. Ac 18:26; Tit 2:3, 4). exercise authority over. Paul forbids women from exercising any type of authority over men in the church assembly, since the elders are those who rule (5:17). They are all to be men (as is clear from the requirements in 3:2, 5). remain quiet. See note on v. 11.

2:13, 14 A woman’s subordinate role did not result after the Fall as a cultural, chauvinistic corruption of God’s perfect design; rather, God established her role as part of His original creation (v. 13). God made woman after man to be his suitable helper (see note on Ge 2:18; cf. 1Co 11:8, 9). The Fall actually corroborates God’s divine plan of creation (see notes on Ge 3:1–7). By nature Eve was not suited to assume the position of ultimate responsibility. By leaving Adam’s protection and usurping his headship, she was vulnerable and fell, thus confirming how important it was for her to stay under the protection and leadership of her husband (see notes on 5:11, 12; 2Ti 3:6, 7). Adam then violated his leadership role, followed Eve in her sin, and plunged the human race into sinfulness—all connected with violating God’s planned roles for the sexes. Ultimately, the responsibility for the Fall still rests with Adam, since he chose to disobey God apart from being deceived (Ro 5:12–21; 1Co 15:21, 22).

2:15 women. That Paul does not have Eve in mind here is clear because the verb translated “will be preserved” is future, and he also uses the plural pronoun “they.” He is talking about women after Eve. will be preserved. The Gr. word can also mean “to rescue,” “to preserve safe and unharmed,” “to heal,” or “to deliver from.” It appears several times in the NT without reference to spiritual salvation (cf. Mt 8:25; 9:21, 22; 24:22; 27:40, 42, 49; 2Ti 4:18). Paul is not advocating that women are eternally saved from sin through childbearing or that they maintain their salvation by having babies, both of which would be clear contradictions of the NT teaching of salvation by grace alone through faith alone (Ro 3:19, 20) sustained forever (Ro 8:31–39). Paul is teaching that even though a woman bears the stigma of being the initial instrument who led the race into sin, it is women through childbearing who may be preserved or freed from that stigma by raising a generation of godly children (cf. 5:10). through the bearing of children. Because mothers have a unique bond and intimacy with their children, and spend far more time with them than do fathers, they have far greater influence in their lives and thus a unique responsibility and opportunity for rearing godly children. While a woman may have led the human race into sin, women have the privilege of leading many out of sin to godliness. Paul is speaking in general terms; God does not want all women to be married (1Co 7:25–40), let alone bear children. if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint. The godly appearance, demeanor, and behavior commanded of believing women in the church (vv. 9–12) is motivated by the promise of deliverance from any inferior status and the joy of raising godly children.

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

[perspicacity]

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.

[Mother-Music]

Thanks, persp for your quotes. I do think they carry truth, because I can think of many scriptures to support the statements.

FWIW in this discussion (which is not much), I am a woman, and I am directing the music at my church, which I disagree is scriptural. I knew and the pastor and deacons knew that it was a stop-gap measure at the time they hired me: they had had the word out for months for a male music director with no takers. Since I am a single mom at their church with a need for income while I finish school, they suggested I apply (I was already filling in) and I did, and they hired me. God's grace is sufficient. I am on the lookout for another job that can replace that income now that school is winding down. I couldn't be out of this job soon enough to suit me.

But I never was and never will be a worship leader. Not made for it, even if I was of the opposite gender. And I will be one of those musicians who won't be "using my talents for the Lord" in a church or evangelistic setting. It's my vocation. What God usually asks of me in church and evangelism are my mothering and teaching abilities, and I will happily do that. My music will be somewhere else.

Most likely I won't even sing "special music" on a volunteer basis. I have had my talent so totally questioned and slashed to pieces through this ordeal, apparently simply because I have it and others don't, that I will not in the future display it before the Body for fear that it will cause them to stumble.

mm

[The Black Glove]

Persp,

For once I have to say I agree completely (ok, I'm not a hip-hop fan). I do think that too many in the "Christian Music" industry (whatever "Christian Music" means) have sold out their artistic integrity in order to make money by speaking platitudes.

I also have to say that you may be the only person (other than myself) who has ever quoted Mark Heard on this message board. So I'm curious as to how you heard of him?

TBG

[perspicacity]

I actually heard of Mark Heard from you, TBG. You made some passing reference to him in the old thread, and I looked him up. His lyrics are amazing, and I'm hooked, though the production is usually awful.

[Gandalfs Beard]

All this discussion of Christian Music really got me thinking. One of my all time favourite Rock groups is widely considered a Christian band . That would be U2 . Apparently many of their songs are even used as hymns in some Christian Churches (mostly Episcopalian). Of course not all their songs focus on Christian themes, but albums like October and The Joshua Tree have Christian references. And Pride (in the Name of Love), one of my particular favourites, seems to be a direct reference to Christ. Bono is a life-long self-professed Christian.

I know that some don't consider him very Christian because of his occasional use of language and political views. I was wondering what many of you thought about U2 in terms of the current discussion.

Peace and Long Life
GB

[The Black Glove]

. . . .

Have . . . I . . . actually . . . made . . . a . . . convert?

As an aside, quite a few artists have done covers of Mark Heard songs including Phil Keaggy, Randy Stonehill, Rich Mullins, Kevin Max, and (of course) Pierce Pettis.

GB, I probably should start listening to U2 at some point.

TBG