Is it wrong to listen to hard rock? (a double-meaning question)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Tim

Puritan Board Graduate
How is listening to an atheist sing or play guitar sinful?

I think the point would be that you would be allowing them to deliver a message to you. The question then would be: is it a good thing for me to have this message as part of my regular 'diet'?

Edit: Of course, it is much easier to identify a problem if there are lyrics to analyse. If it is a piece of music that has no lyrics, then the question would be whether this piece of music influences me to have ungodly feelings. Personally, I know that there is music that I could listen to that if I were to have a disagreement with someone soon after, I would be much more likely to act in an ungodly manner.
 

JBaldwin

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
This is a dangerous way of thinking about music, and it is rampant in Christian circles. Parents especially are often only concerned whether the music is "Christian" rather than whether it is good. "Oh it's Christian? Well then, it's safe". That is lazy, in my opinion.
I will admit to having a very limited knowledge of the Christian music scene, but that is because what I HAVE heard is lousy. What is better--listening to a cheap "Christian" version of popular music, or listening to Mozart...the work of an incredibly worldly man? I'll take Mozart any day.

We need to get out of the habit of evaluating art by whether it is Christian or not. Christians used to be at the forefront of the arts, but those days are long gone. Sadly, many Christians have settled for taking a mirror image of what the world produces, and then giving it a splash of Jesus. Where is the creativity in that?

I agree. However--

:soapbox: I am sick and tired of people lumping the entire Christian music scene into one box and pointing fingers at everyone who doesn't listen to anything but classical music and hymns and psalms. While it is difficult to find well-written, theologically sound, good music in today's Christian music scene, it does exist and there is a growing movement to improve this sad state of affairs. So many people miss out on good music, because they are afraid they might be "poisoned" by anything that was written in the last 100 years.

If you know where to look, there is a lot of very good Christian music that has been written in the last 10 years that is now on available on the Christian music genre.

I'm off my soapbox now.
 
Last edited:

JOwen

Puritan Board Junior
Many of these posts seem to presume that art is a-moral, which it is not. Our good brother said, "Music is a medium for a message." I would agree, and go one step beyond, "the medium IS the message." The root of the genre of music cannot be separated from the message itself. I would encourage you all to listen to this sermon by Al Martin...
 

Zenas

Snow Miser
Nonbelievers deliver their message to me everyday, in everything that goes on around me. The prevailing worldview in my country is decidedly non-Christian. Should I stay inside of my home with the T.V. and radio off?
 

Tripel

Puritan Board Senior
How is listening to an atheist sing or play guitar sinful?

I think the point would be that you would be allowing them to deliver their message to you. The question then would be: is it a good thing for me to have this as my regular 'diet'?

What is wrong with hearing an atheist deliver a message? I think it is the same with movies--I watch a lot of movies that portray an atheistic worldview. Some of them are fabulous movies, and for me, they show the utter misery of man apart from God. I see this in music too--a man who is lost and in despair can pen some wonderful words and music that describe where a godless worldview takes you.

-----Added 2/17/2009 at 10:24:26 EST-----

While it is difficult to find well-written, theologically sound, good music in today's Christian music scene, it does exist

I agree that it does exist. There are a few Christian artists I occasionally listen to, but I wouldn't call them popular Christian music. I was speaking more about the bands who are trying to copy secular acts.
 

JBaldwin

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I have yet to find lyrics to hard rock music that doesn't talk about some form of free sex, rebellion, suicide, hate, lost loves or a host of other sad and miserable topics.

A couple points:
(1) I'm not sure you have looked very far. There is more out there.
(2) Sad topics can make a great theme in art. Lost love has penned some wonderful music and beautiful poetry. We are relational creatures, so we should expect that music would often center on relationships--whether the song-writer is Christian or not.

Tripel, thanks for your comments. I will add to clarify my point, I have yet find lyrics to non-Christian hard rock music that don't talk about free sex, rebellion, suicide, hate, lost loves or a host of other sad and miserable topics.

I imagine they do exist, but on any given day, I can walk into a cd section of a store or do a search on youtube, look through my husband's vaste cd collection which goes from the 1950s until the present, and I guarantee you, I will find all of the above topics discussed as a general rule.

As far as the lost loves goes, I'm not downing good poetry or well-written music, but I do find that to have a steady diet of this (and for me even two songs in a row on this topic) is not edifying but depressing. I've just gotten to the point in my life where I don't enjoy it.

This is exactly why I suggest filtering what you listen to through Phillippians 4:8. It leaves the judgment of the lyrics with God's Word.
 

FenderPriest

Puritan Board Junior
I find no problem with rock music. Heart issues are always at play. Someone can have the same prideful heart towards the symphony as they could towards rock music.

I'd recommend Worldliness edited by C.J. Mahaney as a useful, accessible tool in thinking through what honor's God and what doesn't in this area. Ultimately the issue isn't "What's ok and not ok to listen to?" - that produces pharisees if it's asked alone. The ruling question is, "Does X help me treasure Jesus Christ?" If the focus is on the risen Lord and his value being known, and not the sea of other things, then one will find the path of godliness in discerning what to allow and not allow in their life of faith.
 

JOwen

Puritan Board Junior
Nonbelievers deliver their message to me everyday, in everything that goes on around me. The prevailing worldview in my country is decidedly non-Christian. Should I stay inside of my home with the T.V. and radio off?

It cannot be avoided that the reprobate speak to us, the question is, what is the context of the message. In an office, where a unbelieving superior teaches you something new pertaining to the job you preform is one thing (Titus 2:9), but to decide to put on a ZZ Top CD as entertainment is altogether different (Php 4:8). The first pertains to living in the world, the other is the world living in you. Big difference In my humble opinion.
We use this as the rule of thumb in our home. If any of the 10 commandments are broken in the entertainment we put before us, we no longer us it.
 

Tripel

Puritan Board Senior
I can walk into a cd section of a store or do a search on youtube, look through my husband's vaste cd collection which goes from the 1950s until the present, and I guarantee you, I will find all of the above topics discussed as a general rule.

That is likely true. The same themes are repeated over and over.

As far as the lost loves goes, I'm not downing good poetry or well-written music, but I do find that to have a steady diet of this (and for me even two songs in a row on this topic) is not edifying but depressing.

Good point--too much sad music can take its toll.

One band in recent years that I have found refreshing is Arcade Fire. Some might not call them hard rock, but others would say it is too hard for their tastes. Anyway, the themes of their music are wonderful, even though I disagree with their worldview. Their first album (Funeral) focused mainly on their pasts--a lot of nostalgic imagery from childhood and what they learned from the relationships with their friends and parents. Very cool stuff.
 

JBaldwin

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Many of these posts seem to presume that art is a-moral, which it is not. Our good brother said, "Music is a medium for a message." I would agree, and go one step beyond, "the medium IS the message." The root of the genre of music cannot be separated from the message itself. I would encourage you all to listen to this sermon by Al Martin...

I've been resisting the temptation of going into this, because I think I may have done it on other thread somewhere.

The basic difference between rock music (in all it's forms), and I'm speaking strictly of the music, not the lyrics and what we call classical music is the rules of composition, and this is where I tend to lean toward the idea that medium IS the message.

The elements of what we call traditional music are:
1) Melody
2) Harmony
3) Rhythm
4) Form
5) Dynamics (the loud and soft)
6) Timbre (tone personality)

Music is defined as the universal langauge, and the elements are listed in order of importance, and each element has specific rules which are followed in composition.

Today music is defined as organized sound. The elements are listed as follows in the order of importance, and the definitions of the elements are much more open-ended than in the more traditional way of defining music:

1) Rhythm
2) Harmony
3) Melody
4) Form
5) Timbre

The new order of the elements and definition of music could be considered a rebellion of the traditional and does allow for all types of "music" including rap and all forms of rock.

This is, as I see it, the root of the argument. This change was stark to me as I learned music by the traditional method. When I taught music history last year and started going through more recently written textbooks, I discovered these differences. It was shocking and explained a lot to me.
 

Tripel

Puritan Board Senior
If any of the 10 commandments are broken in the entertainment we put before us, we no longer us it.

How do you do that? How can you know (listening to music) that the artist has no other gods before him?

Also, what about entertainment that shows the consequences of commandments being broken?
 

Zenas

Snow Miser
Nonbelievers deliver their message to me everyday, in everything that goes on around me. The prevailing worldview in my country is decidedly non-Christian. Should I stay inside of my home with the T.V. and radio off?

It cannot be avoided that the reprobate speak to us, the question is, what is the context of the message. In an office, where a unbelieving superior teaches you something new pertaining to the job you preform is one thing (Titus 2:9), but to decide to put on a ZZ Top CD as entertainment is altogether different (Php 4:8). The first pertains to living in the world, the other is the world living in you. Big difference In my humble opinion.
We use this as the rule of thumb in our home. If any of the 10 commandments are broken in the entertainment we put before us, we no longer us it.

How is listening to ZZ Top the world living in you? Are you disputing the abiding imago dei, giving to each of us a limited power to innovatively create? Or are you contending that the imago dei is tainted, and that only Christians are somehow not tainted, despite the doctrine of sanctification and the fact that glorification doesn't occur until post mortem?

Under either scheme, the contention doesn't make sense, do you have an alternate theory?
 

Theognome

Burrito Bill
I see what you're saying, but I still have my concerns. Many people tend to look at Christian musicians as the priests who usher them into the presence of God. Perhaps it's cultural, but electric guitars tend to the draw euphoric type. If a Calvinist rock band were to have a concert, and a bus load of charismatic’s where to show up, what would they do? Grab the Levites? Let them offend God with their false worship? In this case the musicians serve as enablers, even if they only intended on entertaining and not leading worship.

CD's seem safe, but concerts get sticky.

Is it the sound, or the light show and stage antics that 'rev up' the concert goers? Consider http://www.puritanboard.com/f103/our-church-made-video-43922/ this thread. Here's some folks who approached the music with sober-mindedness before the Lord. Could not the same attitude be done with rock?

Theognome

I see what you're saying, and they did a very good job. But what about my enabler concern? I'm not trying to do away with music, but I am pointing out a very real problem. Aren't Chrisitan musicians obligated to correct their erring fans, even in mid concert? Is that conducive to either worship or entertainment, whatever their aim? Are we even supposed to have worship outside of s church context? It is easier to teach people in a church setting.

Just some thoughts/concerns of mine :think:

Worship and entertainment are not the same thing and thus don't belong in the same category. Concerning enabling, correcting error during a concert is simple- don't direct the concert in an erring direction. Fans will emulate what they see on stage at any concert. Just as Paul wrote to the Pillipians, be an example. Also, keep in mind that correcting a brother or sister is initially a private matter, not a public one. So no, I don't agree that correcting a crowd during a concert is appropriate. Stopping the concert if it becomes out of hand, yes- but if that were to become neccessary it's likely because of the performers' lack of integrity.

Yes, the world does use good things poorly, but this does not make them wrong or make us enablers when we redeem them. Consider the rainbow- how long was this a symbol of God's promises to mankind before it became the symbol for gay rights? Does that mean Christians are to avoid rainbows now? I would say not- rather we should reclaim them for the Lord, just like we should reclaim music in all its forms.

Theognome
 

Classical Presbyterian

Puritan Board Junior
For me, the question of any artistic medium, music included, is the question: what does this inspire within me? This is a question that will (must?) vary for each individual, according to our personal history, sin-tendencies, preferences and the like.

The question of the intent of the author/composer is not really relevant when I, as a Christian, enjoy music. I may or may not buy into what the composer sought to convey in the music.

J.S. Bach sought in all of his works to praise God. Metallica not so much. But this does not necessarily mean that a Christian cannot find something noteworthy in Metallica I would suppose. Study your classical music and you will find some outright pagan stuff and ridiculous nature-worshipping composers too.

In the end, as others have already said, I agree that if we enjoy a form of music and it is not something that incites us to sin, then we probably should not judge our brethren who enjoy types of music that we personally despise.

That being said, a Christian who neglects the fruitful study and appreciation of Bach, Handel, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms and so many other composers in favor of modern pop music is really impoverished. I don't see how that could not affect one's soul in a negative way.
 

Denton Elliott

Puritan Board Freshman
It totally depends on the lyrics and the feelings the music invokes in the hearer.
This is surely adiopheron when it comes to music, but if the lyrics are sinful, then we must confront our brothers and sisters and show them how this is not God honoring.
 

JOwen

Puritan Board Junior
If any of the 10 commandments are broken in the entertainment we put before us, we no longer us it.

How do you do that? How can you know (listening to music) that the artist has no other gods before him?

I'm not speaking about secret motives here. Who can know them but the Holy Spirit? I am talking more about the "known" or revealed violations of the law of God in either content or form. We simply believe that if either the form or content REVEAL themselves to be a breaking of God's law, we will not give time to it. There are plenty of other ways of being entertained, so far as we see it. I know a few people who find it no problem watching R-rated movies. They justify it by saying, "I simply condemn in in my mind when I see it." But they have no problem being entertained by a movie, or a song, that violates the 7th commandment, or the 6th, or whatever. How can this be pleasing to the Lord?

Also, what about entertainment that shows the consequences of commandments being broken?
The same would apply if the "consequence" is in any way being justified by the art.
 

Wannabee

Obi Wan Kenobi
A couple of thoughts on this Bill.
Worship and entertainment are not the same thing and thus don't belong in the same category.
Are we not to be worshipful in all that we do? It doesn't change your comments much, but seems to segregate or categorize something outside of doing all things to the glory of God.
Concerning enabling, correcting error during a concert is simple- don't direct the concert in an erring direction. Fans will emulate what they see on stage at any concert. Just as Paul wrote to the Pillipians, be an example. Also, keep in mind that correcting a brother or sister is initially a private matter, not a public one. So no, I don't agree that correcting a crowd during a concert is appropriate. Stopping the concert if it becomes out of hand, yes- but if that were to become neccessary it's likely because of the performers' lack of integrity.

I agree to a certain degree, but this isn't entirely accurate. If you are offended then you are to go to them privately. But if they are openly sinning then they should be rebuked openly. If your son is dropping mud pies onto a crowd below a bridge with his buddies, and there are people crowded on the bridge witnessing it, do you tell your son, "We need to have a private conversation"? No, you make it clear in front of any witnesses that this will not be tolerated by your son, ever. This makes it clear that it's not acceptable in your home, identifies your leadership, sets a standard for his friends that you intend to uphold and makes it clear to onlookers that your family follows standards that view this behavior as unacceptable/sinful.

Proverbs 27:5 Open rebuke is better
Than love carefully concealed.​

Galatians 2:14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?​

Which is more loving, to openly confront them or say nothing?
 

Ex Nihilo

Puritan Board Senior
I know a few people who find it no problem watching R-rated movies. They justify it by saying, "I simply condemn in in my mind when I see it." But they have no problem being entertained by a movie, or a song, that violates the 7th commandment, or the 6th, or whatever. How can this be pleasing to the Lord?

Also, what about entertainment that shows the consequences of commandments being broken?
The same would apply if the "consequence" is in any way being justified by the art.

It is hard to write out what the line is between art that shows the real consequences of sin and a movie that makes sin entertaining, and maybe the line isn't even in the same place for everyone. (I don't mean to suggest that any entertainment that makes us enjoy watching sin is ever okay, but an example for me would be a good quality war film that doesn't make violence fun, but that someone more tempted to violence might enjoy too much.) I hate to be so cliche as to quote Justice Potter, but. . . We all know it when we see it. Anyone who thinks they can enjoy watching a movie that glorifies adultery or senseless violence without enjoying the sin itself is, in my opinion, self-deluded. I suppose if you could watch it and hate the sin the entire time, it might not be sin, but it also wouldn't be very much fun!
 

JOwen

Puritan Board Junior
How is listening to ZZ Top the world living in you? Are you disputing the abiding imago dei, giving to each of us a limited power to innovatively create? Or are you contending that the imago dei is tainted, and that only Christians are somehow not tainted, despite the doctrine of sanctification and the fact that glorification doesn't occur until post mortem?

Under either scheme, the contention doesn't make sense, do you have an alternate theory?

Yes, the imago dei is tainted in fallen man, it is called total depravity. The fact that man is intelligent or creative is the vestige of the imago dei in him, however when used for ill, it does not de facto make it good.

Hear Calvin,

Since the image of God had been destroyed in us by the fall, we may judge from its restoration what it originally had been. Paul says that we are transformed into the image of God by the gospel. And, according to him, spiritual regeneration is nothing else than the restoration of the same image. (Colossians 3:10, and Ephesians 4:23.)

But now, although some obscure lineaments of that image are found remaining in us; yet are they so vitiated and maimed, that they may truly be said to be destroyed. For besides the deformity which everywhere appears unsightly, this evil also is added, that no part is free from the infection of sin.

Blessings,
 

Zenas

Snow Miser
Just a thought, but it seems the argument seems to be portions of a movie or story that illustrate sin are themselves sinful, and cannot be enjoyed.

How then does this comport with our understanding of the Bible, the parts which illustrate sin? Are those parts sinful? If not, what makes the illustration in movies sinful, but not the Bible? Inspiration only?

-----Added 2/17/2009 at 12:57:50 EST-----

How is listening to ZZ Top the world living in you? Are you disputing the abiding imago dei, giving to each of us a limited power to innovatively create? Or are you contending that the imago dei is tainted, and that only Christians are somehow not tainted, despite the doctrine of sanctification and the fact that glorification doesn't occur until post mortem?

Under either scheme, the contention doesn't make sense, do you have an alternate theory?

Yes, the imago dei is tainted in fallen man, it is called total depravity. The fact that man is intelligent or creative is the vestige of the imago dei in him, however when used for ill, it does not de facto make it good.

Hear Calvin,

Since the image of God had been destroyed in us by the fall, we may judge from its restoration what it originally had been. Paul says that we are transformed into the image of God by the gospel. And, according to him, spiritual regeneration is nothing else than the restoration of the same image. (Colossians 3:10, and Ephesians 4:23.)

But now, although some obscure lineaments of that image are found remaining in us; yet are they so vitiated and maimed, that they may truly be said to be destroyed. For besides the deformity which everywhere appears unsightly, this evil also is added, that no part is free from the infection of sin.

Blessings,

Then my question is being that the imago dei is tainted, why are Christians here and now special, so that their work is not sinful, but all non-believer's work is sinful?

How do you differentiate between works, where is your line? So a painting may be sinful, but the artistic portions of the automobile you drive, assuming they were designed by a non-believer, why are they not sinful? What about reprobate in the church nonetheless performing, need we repent for listening to their music?

-----Added 2/17/2009 at 12:59:05 EST-----

I think what this boils down to is some applying a cultural more to a Christian liberty, and then calling that liberty sin, based on that social more. How is this then different form the Judaizers?

(Nota bene: I'm not calling anyone a Judaizer, I'm asking for a differentiation.)
 

JOwen

Puritan Board Junior
Just a thought, but it seems the argument seems to be portions of a movie or story that illustrate sin are themselves sinful, and cannot be enjoyed.

How then does this comport with our understanding of the Bible, the parts which illustrate sin? Are those parts sinful? If not, what makes the illustration in movies sinful, but not the Bible? Inspiration only?

First, the Bible is not a form of entertainment, a Holly Wood movie, or a secular song is. Second, the Bible, by recounting sin, invariably brings it, either directly (in the reading) or indirectly (by the preaching) before the tribunal of the righteousness of God and His holy law. And this is for a single purpose, to prick the reader/hearer by the power of the Holy Spirit, in order to bring then to a knowledge of Christ. Paul says as much about the Old Testament, "For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope" (Rom 15:4).

God does not recount sin in the Word to entertain us, but to expose the sin in us. ZZ Top's Can't Stop Rockin' is not attempting to do any such thing, no matter how they might appeal to us. They have misused the image of God in them (Romans 1:21-23).
 

JBaldwin

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
A couple of thoughts on this Bill.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theognome
Worship and entertainment are not the same thing and thus don't belong in the same category.

Are we not to be worshipful in all that we do? It doesn't change your comments much, but seems to segregate or categorize something outside of doing all things to the glory of God.

Thanks for that reminder.
 

Theognome

Burrito Bill
A couple of thoughts on this Bill.
Worship and entertainment are not the same thing and thus don't belong in the same category.
Are we not to be worshipful in all that we do? It doesn't change your comments much, but seems to segregate or categorize something outside of doing all things to the glory of God.

I of course agree that we should be worshipful in all things. The distinction I was making was the difference between a worship service on the Lord's Day versus a Friday night concert. The two gatherings are for different purposes.


Concerning enabling, correcting error during a concert is simple- don't direct the concert in an erring direction. Fans will emulate what they see on stage at any concert. Just as Paul wrote to the Pillipians, be an example. Also, keep in mind that correcting a brother or sister is initially a private matter, not a public one. So no, I don't agree that correcting a crowd during a concert is appropriate. Stopping the concert if it becomes out of hand, yes- but if that were to become neccessary it's likely because of the performers' lack of integrity.

I agree to a certain degree, but this isn't entirely accurate. If you are offended then you are to go to them privately. But if they are openly sinning then they should be rebuked openly. If your son is dropping mud pies onto a crowd below a bridge with his buddies, and there are people crowded on the bridge witnessing it, do you tell your son, "We need to have a private conversation"? No, you make it clear in front of any witnesses that this will not be tolerated by your son, ever. This makes it clear that it's not acceptable in your home, identifies your leadership, sets a standard for his friends that you intend to uphold and makes it clear to onlookers that your family follows standards that view this behavior as unacceptable/sinful.

Proverbs 27:5 Open rebuke is better
Than love carefully concealed.​

Galatians 2:14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?​

Which is more loving, to openly confront them or say nothing?

Well said. In a Friday night concert situation, I wouldn't know who is or is not a brother in Christ. Just because it's music with a Christian theme doesn't mean only Christians will attend. Such a concert isn't neccessarily a gathering of the saints and thus there is far more onus upon the folks on stage to be the right example than for the concert goers to behave themselves.

Theognome
 

JOwen

Puritan Board Junior
Yes, the imago dei is tainted in fallen man, it is called total depravity. The fact that man is intelligent or creative is the vestige of the imago dei in him, however when used for ill, it does not de facto make it good.

Hear Calvin,

Since the image of God had been destroyed in us by the fall, we may judge from its restoration what it originally had been. Paul says that we are transformed into the image of God by the gospel. And, according to him, spiritual regeneration is nothing else than the restoration of the same image. (Colossians 3:10, and Ephesians 4:23.)

But now, although some obscure lineaments of that image are found remaining in us; yet are they so vitiated and maimed, that they may truly be said to be destroyed. For besides the deformity which everywhere appears unsightly, this evil also is added, that no part is free from the infection of sin.

Blessings,

Then my question is being that the imago dei is tainted, why are Christians here and now special, so that their work is not sinful, but all non-believer's work is sinful?

Calvin says why the regenerate are now special, "Paul says that we are transformed into the image of God by the gospel. And, according to him, spiritual regeneration is nothing else than the restoration of the same image. (Colossians 3:10, and Ephesians 4:23.)" After the restoration of that image, our works are not now pure. I would never contend that. However, now our works are being sanctified, and as much as they are done in true faith, are mediated by Christ to the Father.


How do you differentiate between works, where is your line? So a painting may be sinful, but the artistic portions of the automobile you drive, assuming they were designed by a non-believer, why are they not sinful? What about reprobate in the church nonetheless performing, need we repent for listening to their music?

Who preforms in Church? We do not have performers, but sing the Psalms as a congregation with no solo's, choirs, special numbers, leaders, etc. I don't think I understand your question.

As far as the the artistic portions of the automobile I drive go, yes, they are tainted by a fallen image of God in man, and thus a part of the sinful world, built by sinful minds. Whatever is true, is a reflection of the Divine. Whatever is defective is a result of the fallen condition. In my 12 seater van, there are many imperfections in design as well as engineering!:)



I think what this boils down to is some applying a cultural more to a Christian liberty, and then calling that liberty sin, based on that social more. How is this then different form the Judaizers?

(Nota bene: I'm not calling anyone a Judaizer, I'm asking for a differentiation.)

Ouch. I don't know if the nota bene removes the implication of your statement, considering this is sentiment is not taking place in a vacuum. I do not believe that we are applying "a cultural more to a Christian liberty", I thought we were talking about the law of God, which transcends all culture.
 

MrMerlin777

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
in my opinion and granted it is hardly worth mentioning, there are only two kinds of music.

Good music, and Bad music.

And I know Bad music when I hear it... :p
 

AThornquist

Puritan Board Doctor
The question shouldn't be "what are we allowed to listen to," but "what should we listen to" to maintain a worshipful heart and mind. Thank you, whoever brought that point up. My initial instinct was to talk about fundamentalism, Christian liberty, how every genre has been used sinfully and thus bringing up the "evils" of certain genres is pretty stupid, etc., but the aforementioned point really impacted me. Whoever said it is absolutely right, and I need to repent of self-indulgence, for not listening to music, using my time, etc. to fully worship and glorify the King.
 

etexas

Puritan Board Doctor
My:2cents: Listen to some good Jazz (Davis ) good Blues, little classic rock (some Steely Dan). Throw in some Bach and Mozart. I Ieven like some EARLY rock....I like some Buddy Holly! (Texas Boy!):)
 

Denton Elliott

Puritan Board Freshman
if the lyrics are sinful, then we must confront our brothers and sisters and show them how this is not God honoring.

Can you explain this a little more?

Yes. If the lyrics in music are clearly against God then we must tell any fellow believer who may be listening to these lyrics that they should stop. You could easily line up the lyrics with Galatians 5 for example and see. There are many other verses in Scripture that if we took seriously, most of the music, movies, and books of this world we would avoid...

We should even go as far as to place someone under church discipline if they refused to stop listening to certain music. For examples, I know of music that constantly blasphemes God, promotes the abuse and rape of women, killing, stealing, etc. If I confronted a christian and he was adamant about being able to listen to this sort of lyric, wouldn't it be most loving to place this person under church discipline?

When I got saved, God immediately dealt with this in my life as I was a huge fan of "death metal" music. I had a desire to listen to the music still, but when I started reading the lyrics, in the trash it went!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top