Here are some great thoughts on bands and music…
ORIGINAL QUESTION:
[the band] “Creed” have written stuff which I think are mostly bible abiding, but then I’ve read about Scott S. doing something close to meditation. If he does meditate, then the Creed thing could/must have a dark agenda because it is very ‘Christ[ian] sounding’ with all the losing pride and loving selflessly talk. I just cant place them. Please help me.
ORIGINAL REPLY:
This debate has been going on for many years now and I don’t really understand it. It’s as if Christians can only feel justified in listening to music so long as the band claims to be Christian. Look, there are “Christian” bands with songs whose lyrics don’t offer anything “Christian” at all (i.e. later Amy Grant or the way Third Day has “sanctified” the Beatle’s song Come Together), and “secular” bands with great “Christian” lyrics (i.e. Extreme’s CD 3 Sides To Every Story or . . . Creed!).
A song’s value (or truthfulness) is not dependent upon the performers whether they are a “Christian band” or not. Just read the lyrics and use . . . GASP! . . . wisdom! Don’t rely on a label to determine your judgment on any piece of music or any message. It doesn’t matter whether or not the members of Creed claim to be Christians or not as far as their songs go. If the music is “Christian” it will be evident from the message - if not, then there’s your answer!
[———-DEBATE BEGINS WITH THIRD PARTY———]
True, it also counts on the fact of what you are going to suport with your money… are you going to support that for which is against God?. I like Creed, .but I am not going to spend my money on a CD that is supports beer and [un?]married sex.
Why is music given this special category where all of a sudden monetary “support” is the issue? I just don’t see how you plan to live consistently with this ethic.
Are you also going to screen the beliefs of your Landlord? Plumber? Waiter? Fireman? Police Officer? Janitor? Are you going to stop going to ALL movies out of Hollywood? Will you never again pay to go into any museum that features art by non-believers? Will you pay to go to a college that has any non-believing staff? Are you using a computer that was made by a Christian company with Christian parts? Is the phone/cable line that connects you to the internet a “Christian” line? Are you going to do a background check on every artist you “support” before buying their music? Are you going to follow the money trail past the “Christian” label to make sure they are not in turn funded by secular money?
The problem here is that you’re placing music in the same category as services provided by plumbers, cops, etc., as well as into the general category of entertainment. For myself, this doesn’t work because music is one of the main ways I choose to worship, and worship is just about all I ever use it for. When I listen to a song, I at least attempt to sing along and try to connect emotionally with the singer and with God…so you’re darn right I’m going to hold the music I listen to to a much higher standard than I do the rest of the “services” I receive. I’ve never advocated that anyone else adopt this policy towards music or anything else…I’ve just stated that this is the direction God has lead me in dealing with the stuff I listen to / worship with. If this is somehow inconsistent, then so be it - sometimes God’s direction doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, but that doesn’t make it less genuine.
Excellent response regarding the relationship of music and worship in your life. But it does not solve the question of whether or not the band determines the morality of the song or if only the words do. Let me ask you this: Do you think you HAVE to know a band’s view before you can make a moral judgment of their song - or do you think the message just gets ruined for you if you find out that the band is non- (or) anti-Christian?
To answer your question, I’d have to say a little bit of both. Let me say that I prefer to know, but if I don’t, then I go on what my “gut” tells me, which is often influenced by the Holy Spirit, until I find out something different.
For me, the music I listen to affects me greatly. I realize that some people at least claim to be unaffected by the music they listen to, and while I don’t understand how they cannot be, I can’t find fault in their opinions. So, for me, I stay away from stuff that’s from non-Christian or “questionable” sources. My preference, not law. 
I do also believe that there’s some stuff out there that’s just plain evil and I do have a big problem when people, Christian or not, accept it as anything short of just plain evil. I won’t mention any names lest I open another can of worms… True…also the Byrds song so popular in the 60’s , most of which was taken directly from Ecclesiastes. Darned if I can remember the title, but hey…it was before my time.
Regarding this topic, let me just toss out a scripture that comes to mind:
Matthew 7: 15 “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 16Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.”
The question I have is that if we’re able to discern that someone is definitely a false prophet, then should we EVER give heed to their messages, even when they are sprinkled with truth? My answer is no. A little leven levens the whole lump. Actually, this proves my point. Why do we trust the Bible when parts of it contain evil? Because the SOURCE (i/e: GOD) is true! There are some elements of the Koran that are true, but we don’t trust it because its SOURCE is a FALSE PROPHET of a FALSE GOD.
All I’m saying here is that if someone doesn’t even claim to be born again, then it’s a pretty safe bet they’re not. So, we should beware of the things they tell us, even if they sound “good” or “Christian,” even. The same goes for musicians in their songs, and anyone else for that matter.
So, my point? To some it makes a BIG difference, to others it doesn’t…for me, it does matter.
I think you are on the right train of thought but misunderstood my point. I am not saying that it does not matter what you listen to, in fact music also affects me greatly. My point is that whether or not a band claims to be Christian has nothing to do with the actual content of their songs. Recognizing false prophets has to do with their message, not their beliefs. So the verse you quoted proves my point, thanks!
Judge the music you listen to by what it IS and not by its source - the message does not become sanctified just because it’s from a “Christian” band, nor does it become evil because it’s from a “secular” band. Words mean things, and their meaning does not magically change from good to bad or bad to good because of their source. That goes for all art/literature/etc. A picture is not acceptable because the photographer was a Christian. Morality is not determined by the orientation of the actor. A simple perusal of your local “Christian” bookstore should convince you that Christian labels don’t equate to Christian content!
So when it comes to judging the acceptability of Creed’s tunes it doesn’t matter what they believe, but what they write.
Not really…I think the warning Jesus was giving there was that a false prophet can indeed deliver a GREAT message, but still be a worker of evil. I may be reading it wrong, but to me the word fruit here has meant the person’s actions, and/or the end result of their ministry (or lack thereof) - not necessarily a good message.
I think you really have to consider both aspects when “judging” the music. I can think of two different songs that counter this point. One is “King of Babylon” from [Saviour Machine’s] Legend 3:1, which depicts the Antichrist praying to Lucifer and refers to him as “lord, my god.” Not exactly a good message if you don’t realize who the artist is, where he’s coming from, and the overall point he’s trying to make with the album. The second is “Samaritan” by Candlemass - beautiful song if I remember the one time I heard it correctly, but not exactly a Christian band. Again, look at who the artist is, where he’s coming from, and the point he was trying to make with the whole album. The point I’m trying to make is that I think we have to try and discern the motives behind the music. Is this a false prophet singing a “Christian” song in order to make the rest of his false message appear more convincing? Or is this a Christian who is trying to expose evil for what it is by portraying it from its own point of view?
We have to use and pray for discernment with whatever we allow into our lives - music, books, art, TV, people, whatever - to make sure we don’t fall prey to the enemy, I have to agree there.
Anyway, I guess the overall point is that there’s no substituting guideline that anyone can write that will be as sure as a nudge from the Holy Spirit saying you should/shouldn’t really be listening to such and such a band/song/whatever…so the best course of action is to stay in tune with Him…
You are right about the test for a false prophet - but that’s not what we’re discussing. If fruit is the test for a false prophet then it still does not validate or invalidate their message. I think that is why we cannot judge a person by their message, nor a message by its person. A false prophet could utter truth, as you said, so the way we discern prophets is by their fruit (it is also their message actually, Dt. 13&17 but anyway . . .). If this is true then discernment of the message must not be able to be based on who spoke it! The very fact that the message alone isn’t enough tells me that we cannot use it alone to judge a person (unless it is obviously evil). Therefore, we also cannot judge a message by the person - for according to this test an evil person can utter truth! Isn’t that MY point???
As to your examples, I would say that the message of some of SM songs are indeed quite evil - just as the content of some of the Bible is “evil.” One cannot make true statements about evil without writing truly evil things! Accurately recording and evil act requires an “evil” message, but they ARE true.
Intent is not the issue, but rather how you will respond to the message. For example, when I listen to SM sing about antichrist I can either choose to embrace the evil they sing about or hate it even more - but the message’s goodness/truthfulness is STILL not dependant on the band’s motive. Now if there was a song just bashing Christ, using cuss words, etc. I would argue that there’s just no good response to that song except to turn it off! But that would not mean that a Christian band could sing the same song and suddenly it would be OK. Once again, it’s the message, not the band.
You make a convincing argument regarding motive, but I think that in addition to my above statements there is a sense of self-defeat in your statements. If I cannot judge a message in and of itself then how can I judge another message (of the band’s intent)? If I can’t discern a true or false message without knowing intent how could I discern a true or false statement of intent? The band could give me another message, i.e. their statement of faith. But then I’d have to know their intent for writing that . . . it would never end. Meaning must be found in the text, not the intent of the author. If this were not the case then we could never communicate for we would always be pushing back one step further asking the author what he meant by their message, and by their answer, and by their answer to that answer . . . it would never end. Does that make sense?
I don’t need to ask if Marilyn Manson is a Christian in order to discern the evil in their music, and I don’t need to know Steven Curtis Chapman’s beliefs to know his messages are good. If a message is ambiguous - well, then it’s ambiguous and you are free to assign whatever referent you want [see referent / meaning distinction below].
Let me give you a scenario and tell me how you would answer. Queen has the song “We are the Champions.” OK - the song says nothing about homosexuality yet that is what it’s about - gay pride. What if Third Day covered that song? Would that make the song “about” Christian victory? If you say “no,” then I am right because the (second) band’s intent did not change the meaning of the song. If you say “yes,” then I have to ask - what if Queen read the passage in Scripture where David “loved” Jonathan? Would the Bible then mean David was gay? If you say “yes,” then I rest my case! If you say “no,” then you’re being inconsistent, because the intent behind the words changed. Meaning is found in the text, not the author, not the reader.
All right. I have to agree here that one can get carried away with this, and there’s no real way of even knowing a lot of people’s intent. In those situations, I pretty much have to “follow my nose.” I believe God has given me the gift of discernment from time to time (when it’s needed), and over the years I’ve learned to give heed to those “funny feelings” I sometimes get about people, bands, etc., because they’ve never been wrong. I digress. The point I’m trying to make is what I said earlier: If you KNOW someone or some band is false, then I don’t think it’s a good idea to give heed to any of their messages, regardless of whether they contain truth or not. Does God work thru false prophets who proclaim some amount of truth? Absolutely…I knew a kid who came to Christ because of the message of a false prophet…but a few months later, God called this kid completely out of fellowship with the guy after He was able to make him realize the guy was messed up. No, it’s not really inconsistant. Although, I have traditionally had difficulty with Christian musicians who “sanctify” a secular or outright anti-Christian song or tune, but that’s a WHOLE other can of worms I’d rather keep closed right now. Anyway, why is the “david and johnathan” quote scenario and my response (which is “yes - sort of” to the first in light of the above paragraph, and “no” to the second, BTW) not inconsistant? Because of the motive of the speaker! If Queen were to quote that scripture in order to infer that david and johnathan were gay, then they are twisting the scripture to mean something that was never intended by the author/speaker of the scripture! Remember, the devil quoted scripture when trying to get Christ to sin - does that make the scripture itself evil? Of course not! But was the devil’s over-all message evil, despite scriptural content? Absolutely.
I also think we’re probably a little closer than it might seem in our views. My main concern is that we must not get the idea that a message is true or false or good or bad because of who said it. Meaning determines these things, and meaning is contained in the words - not the speaker. If Queen says, “David loved Johnathan,” it is every bit as true as if Jesus said it - because it MEANS the same thing.
I think a helpful distinction that we have not brought up yet is this: there is a difference between meaning (which is objective and singular) and referent (which can change). This is a Biblical distinction as I will demonstrate below.
When Matthew quotes Isaiah regarding the virgin birth he is changing the referent but not the meaning of the words. Isaiah was referring to a son of the king being born to a virgin in the king’s lifetime. Matthew is referring to Christ. In fact, Matthew adds the phrase “…and she (Mary) remained a virgin,” in order to show that Messiah’s was a special birth. The words MEANT the same thing but they REFERRED to two different events - two different people. But the meaning did not change. “Virgin” still means “virgin” etc.
OK so what the heck does all this philosophy of language have to do with our conversation? I think it is this: If I am driving down the road and “We are the Champions” comes on, am I free to sing along if I am referring to Christian vicory? I think so, because the words have the same meaning either way. Any specific referent MAY only be known by the author (and we might never find out who the author is!). So if I use the words “we are the champions,” and I am not referring to gay pride, then it’s OK. If it’s not, then we become trapped - every time a non-Christian uses any sentence for evil we could not use those words anymore! Whether the words are sung or spoken is irrelevent.
Now it may be the case that I cannot get past what I know the song refers to and psychologically I won’t make the jump in referents - but that doesn’t make the message itself objectively wrong - it only makes one person’s referent wrong and me unable to ignore it.
What think ye?
Wow! Very good! I think we’re there, actually…I understand where you’re coming from, and I think I can see my personal view in light of yours. I’d be the one who would turn off “Champions” because I’d know it was intended to be about gay pride and wouldn’t be able to get by it. By the same token, I’d shut off the afore-mentioned “Samaritan” because I know Candlemass doesn’t exactly seek to further the kingdom of God, even though the story told is a perfectly good one.
Phew! That was rough but fun, thanks for the lively discussion!
