Posted on 06/30/2004 3:27:30 AM PDT by RaceBannon
CCM MUSICIANS LOVE SECULAR ROCK
Updated June 30, 2004 (first published June 27, 2001) (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org; for instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information paragraph at the end of the article) -
One of the problems with Contemporary Christian Music is its refusal to separate from the world. God's Word is very plain about this matter. "Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God" (James 4:4). Separation from the world is not an option; it is a solemn obligation. Most CCM musicians ignore this warning and remain intimately connected to the world by their love for ungodly secular music.
Some parents and church leaders are of the opinion that Christian rock is safe for kids because at least they are not listening to secular rock or rap or whatever. This argument makes no sense in light of the fact that most CCM musicians are themselves not separated from secular rock. Not only do most CCM musicians listen to secular rock, but they perform secular rock on their albums and in their concerts. Thus young people who are hooked into CCM remain associated with the secular music scene.
While some defenders of Contemporary Christian Music warn about the evil in secular rock, they turn right around and say that it is fine to listen to Christian rock. Steve Peters does this in his 1998 book Truth about Rock. This is a strange position because the Christian rock musicians themselves are certainly listening to every form of secular rock.
Consider some examples of this:
***I think I'd have to disagree there. For the verses I found it seems like he gets pretty mad. ***
Do you "give everything to God that is due Him?" Including loving God with ALL your heart, mind and soul? If so, you are perfect. If not, you shouldn't be chunking rocks at others while you are in the Divine Dog House.
***The origional article and post #1which seem to be a continuation of the article do seem to say that all of the CCM musicians are bad.***
Well, I didn't post the article. And I really believe that many of the artists have good intentions and are sincere, but good intentions are not the final arbiter of determining what is right in God's sight.
My contention really is this: step back and take a look at the industry as a whole - then consider where it was 15 yeas ago, where it is now and try and project where it will be in 15 years. We have had this form of "ministry/entertinment" around for 15 years. In general, has the spiritual health of Christian young people improved from what it was 15 years ago by association with this type of music? Are our kids more holy than kids 15 years ago?
***If they do stumble in public (and I have) is not grace sufficent to cover the sin?***
It is - for them personally. But because they are a public Christian figure then Jesus' name and reputation suffer because of thier sin. Think "Jimmy Swaggart" and then the verse:
"For, as it is written, "The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you."
***The CCM has evolved into an automobile with a ithicus(? christian fish symbol) on their bumper and the driver doesn't mind flipping the bird and cutting people of on the highway.***
LOL
***Do you "give everything to God that is due Him?" Including loving God with ALL your heart, mind and soul? ***
I do not.
***If not, you shouldn't be chunking rocks at others while you are in the Divine Dog House.***
drstevej, how am I throwing rocks? I'm not throwing rocks at anybody. I'm just stating that the Bible indicates that God seems to angry, jealous, etc. in regards to what is due Him - whether it be worship, love, glory, honor.
Please help me to understand how I am throwing rocks. (sincerity)
Translation: "I'm a King James only person."
Actually, no. If one thinks about the historical context for a moment, teachers of the day were instructors and highly regarded by the Greeks and Romans. They were like mentor which would be far different from an evangelist. Paul even makes a distinction between evangelist, pastor and teacher. We place the pastor as head of the church but the scriptures seem to indicate that teachers were more highly prized and probably held greater honor. ("Let not many of you become teachers...")
I just explained I wasn't that, but go ahead, everyone else on here who supports CCM is slandering me, too, so, feel free to help them out.
You are employing guilt by association and imposing your personal convictions as a standard for others when, by your own affirmation, God is really mad at you for your imperfections.
Romans 14:5
Pardon the "throwing rocks" metaphor, since I know you refuse association with "rock" music.
IOW, the other translations shouldn't even have been written, just an occasional tweaking of the KJV. Of course you're a KJV only proponent, and I really don't know why you would pretend otherwise.
Actually, you show that you dont understand what a KJV ONLY peron is.
KJV Only is a description given to those who believe that the KJV is divinely inspired, not just the original writings, but also the translation.
Since you dont know that until now, I take back the statement that you slandered me, you just didn't know, I am sorry.
But my point still stands. There was NOTHING wrong with the KJV translation into English. And, with the MULTITUDES of new translations, and the different presentations to people causing more confusion as to whether we actually do have God's word, I stand by my conclusion.
There was NO REASON at all to create a new translation from the KJV. None at all.
The KJV is no more "God's Word" than the NIV, NASB, NKJV, or any other reputable translation you can throw at me.
IF you want what's really "God's Word" more than the aforementioned translations, I have a copy of my Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament on my bookshelf. It doesn't get any better than that.
(Besides, I believe the Holy Spirit can, and does, work through any translation.)
The only confusion arises when someone says, "This, and this translation alone, is the Word of God -- you have a counterfeit Bible.." The website you googled, "Dial-the-Truth," is full of that non-sense.
Its seems to be the same tares that loved the "Passion movie"
BigMack
--determining what is right in God's sight.--
The only right in Gods sight is through the Blood of Jesus.
And if you have accepted what was made right by that blood then you go on and minister in his name.
But I will not condem M.W. Smith, Mercy Me, or Third Day because of thier association with the CCM.
--Are our kids more holy than kids 15 years ago?--
If you look at numbers, Yes! Less kids are doing bad things now than 15 years ago.According to Rush (too busy of a day to look it up right now bunch of family events for the Independce weekend) Young people are turning to the right and to religion at record paces but we (the church) seem to be dropping the ball when they come to us for guidance and what is right.
The problem as I see it is that the Christian Artists have no where else to go and untill they band together and demand a change from the driver of that ill fated car then they will continue to ride on in the same path while the driver continues to flip of the general public.
Yes, but I have to admit, for cinema, that was a good film, just not good Doctinally! :)
Nestle??
Uh Oh, the arguement now begins over WHICH Greek Text! :)
I have heard that the Nestle text is a corrupt text, the KJV is based on the Received Text.
***You are employing guilt by association***
Actually I've tried to limit my comments to the industry at large and refrain from singling out any one artist (excepting P.O.D.). In fact, I have gone out of the way to point out that I believe there are sincere Christian artists, (thought I may disagree with their methods).
Anyway, "Guilt by Association" is a fallacy in which a person rejects a claim simply because it is pointed out that people she dislikes accept the claim. Ex. "You think that 1+1=2. But, Adolf Hitler, Charles Manson, Joseph Stalin, and Ted Bundy all believed that 1+1=2. So, you shouldn't believe it."
***imposing your personal convictions as a standard for others when, by your own affirmation, God is really mad at you for your imperfections.***
Then by this standard no one has the right to stand up and say, "There's something wrong with the 'Word of Faith' movement", because the person who might stand to say that has sinned and falls short of perfect commitment. No one has the right to express apprehension over the direction of the 'Seeker-Sensitive' or 'Power of Positive Thinking' movements either.
And you have no right to preach against sin in your church (I take it you are a pastor) because you too have sinned.
Timothy was a sinner, and Paul told him...
"I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching,"
If Timothy was a sinner then how could he ever reprove anyone by the above standard?
***Rom 14:5 - One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.***
And there are other directly applicable verses - such as...
"And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God."
Now you may think I'm out on a limb here - but I'm not. There's something rotten in CCM and it's getting worse. The industry in OWNED and OPERATED by secular concerns. What would you think if your denomination was owned and operated by Time Warner?
Tozer saw the same thing coming in his day, (was he also just imposing his "personal convictions"?). If you didn't see it I'd like to direct you to the following...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1164094/posts
***Tozer saw the same thing coming in his day,...***
And please, no comments to the effect of,
"Sir, I knew Tozer, any you're no Tozer!"
:)
Insiders view of CCM here:
"salt or sugar? contemporary Christian music at the crossroads"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1165008/posts
The KJV was based on Stephanas' Textus Receptus. It, too, was an edited critical text. (A critical text is basically the editor's best guess what the text should read.)
The debate then rages around which critical text you want. In part because the antiquity of the KJV -- it's the English translation of the Bible people used and trusted for almost 400 years now -- it has come to be associated with the very text itself. Tamper with the beloved King James, and to many people, you're tampering with the very Word of God. But no such thing is happening: we're just taking a look at the manuscripts, including a fair number not availible to the KJV translators, giving weight to those that appear to be oldest, rather than propegated varients, and translating in modern vernacular.
I have no doctrinal objection to the KJV, nor do I really have any major quarrel with those that use it, but I fear that the archaic language unecessarily marginalizes us. The English language hss evolved from the King's English, so that it is barely comprehensible to someone not schooled in older English expressions. Sure, you can educate people so that they can understand the KJV, but why should you have to? The NT was written in the language of everyday people, not the formal language of the educated elite.
What I dont understand is people who defend the 1611 KJV as inspired, when it was edited right after that, and most likely you are reading from a KJV 1769 which has had updates!
Also, the 1611 had the Apocrapha in it!
It has to do with errorlessness. If you set the KJV up as the standard by which all other translations are judged, you cannot allow there to be any errors in the text of the King James. Thus, the KJV-only position of its inspiration is born.
I agree with your argument regarding its alleged inerrancy: the KJV fails the test, because it needed 4 revisions to get the edition we have today.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.