Or, "This is NOT a Christian song. Period. I have decided."..?
What you see above is a false choice. The two aren’t mutually exclusive.
The fact is that the song Hallelujah by Cohen is not a song intended to communicate a Christian theology, philosophy, or worldview. Further, none of the lyrics or themes of the song explicitly references Christmas. I suspect that if Cohen were asked he’d agree. That part shouldn’t be controversial.
The question then becomes, is it wise for an individual or a church to incorporate this song in particular, but secular (not explicitly Christian lyrics, themes, or worldview) into personal or corporate worship? As far as personal worship goes, that’s pretty much up to the individual. If the song points them to God in a healthy way, then who am I to tell them no? If someone wants to enjoy a song (or any piece of art), then I say live and let live. If an individual chooses to worship or engage with God through art that isn’t necessarily Christian, that’s their choice. But pointing out the reality that the song isn’t Christian doesn’t negate or suggest criticism of the choice. It’s simply pointing out the reality that a song that uses Biblical language and stories isn’t automatically Christian, In this specific case, if the song was referred to as Jewish, I wouldn’t quibble, there’s a sense that it’s even sort of Biblical. But in either case, that’s not specifically Christian.
As far as corporate worship using secular songs or art. I think it depends on context and intent. But that doesn’t negate the reality that the art isn’t specially Christian.
I’m guessing that if the song in question was Disciple by Slayer, instead of a song that uses Biblical language, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
137 comments:
And really, that's what began the discussion...whether or not it's actually a Christian song or message within. The answer is no, it is neither. But yeah, if someone wishes to use it, or somehow finds inspiration in it that drives them toward Jesus, who am I to criticize? I don't see how it could, but that's another issue as well. It's simply not Christian, nor actually Biblical, simply because it references something from Scripture, and especially simply because of the constant refrain of "Hallelujah".
But again, I'm constantly amused when I see the song performed as if in prayer. It strikes me as hilarious and sad at the same time. I will admit that I can't know the performer's state of mind while performing it, but that's how it strikes me.
My point is, who is Stan to say "This song is NOT Christian..."? What makes a song "a Christian song" to people like you, Marshal and Stan?
Read my post, I addressed this.
Craig... But pointing out the reality that the song isn’t Christian doesn’t negate or suggest criticism of the choice. It’s simply pointing out the reality that a song that uses Biblical language and stories isn’t automatically Christian, In this specific case, if the song was referred to as Jewish, I wouldn’t quibble, there’s a sense that it’s even sort of Biblical. But in either case, that’s not specifically Christian.
As far as corporate worship using secular songs or art. I think it depends on context and intent. But that doesn’t negate the reality that the art isn’t specially Christian.
You literally did not address this in your post.
You just repeated "that's not specifically Christian..." and "doesn't negate the reality that the art isn't specially Christian..."
But WHY (to you) is it not specifically Christian?
Is it because it doesn't specifically mention Jesus? What criterion do you have before you deem something "a Christian song," in YOUR opinion?
For me? If a song speaks about justice and, believing as I do that God (and Jesus) is a God of justice and there's only ONE justice, then that's reasonably a Christian song. If a song speaks to the suffering of humanity in love lost and daily struggles, and, believing as I do that God is a God who cares about those who suffer, then that's reasonably a Christian song.
Does that mean EVERYTHING is potentially a Christian song (to me)? No, not necessarily. If you have a song that specifically celebrates wealth and guns (and not ironically or satirically, for instance), well then, there's nothing specifically Christian in that.
Why, to you, is this song not "specially a Christian song..."? Specifically.
Is this your intended answer to my question...?
"The fact is that the song Hallelujah by Cohen is not a song intended to communicate a Christian theology, philosophy, or worldview."
If a song is not INTENDED (by the author?) to communicate a Christian theology, philosophy or worldview, then that, to you means it's not a "Christian song..."?
I guess a case could be made, at least for that specific artist/author. But then, most creative types I know will regularly say that when you create art, you may have something in mind, but once you've released it to the greater world, it means what it means to the observer, reader, listener. At least, as long as the conclusion that the viewer reaches is not entirely contrary to the message of the song.
Art, I think the conversation needs to include all secular art forms and where they fit in corporate worship. If you accept the premise that worship is focused on God, then you can determine if a particular piece of are helps or hinders.
The other thing is this discussion that’s being ignored is that no one is suggesting that non Christian art is somehow wrong, or of less value. That’s being inferred, probably based somewhat on bias.
Finally, I’ve noticed that non Christian artists tend to get annoyed when people label their work Christian. I wouldn’t be surprised if Cohen would be defensive at seeing his song labeled as Christian.
Dan, if your contention is that every song is a Christian song, then you’d agree that Disciple by Slayer is a Christian song by your definition.
Yes, I’d argue that any piece of art that is intended to communicate a specifically Christian theology, message, through its lyrics would qualify as a Christian piece of art. That’s why I wrote the original post the way I did, you should have read it first.
The problem you have is that the specific context of Stan’s post is the use of songs like Hallelujah in corporate worship.
Perhaps you missed the part where Stan, Art, and I have all essentially said the same thing you said in your second comment. But admitting that we agree doesn’t give you anything to complain about.
I’d point to Creed as a great example. Their songwriter wrote a number of songs that used lyrics that certainly appeared Christian. His background reinforced this perception, yet the band as a whole insisted that they were emphatically not Christian and got annoyed when it was suggested.
As happens often with you, you’re getting outraged based on who said something, not what was actually said.
Two final thoughts.
1. I completely agree that Christians encounter God through all sorts of art whether it’s intended to be Christian or not.
2. That reality doesn’t automatically mean that an individual can impose their unique, individual experience on the piece of art that facilitated that experience. In other words, it’s one thing to say that X piece of secular art pointed you towards God. It’s another to label the piece of art as Christian, especially if the creator of the art disagrees.
What I'm speaking about, and what you don't appear to be understanding, is a choice to designate something not Christian. What specifically about this song makes it NOT Christian? This as opposed to saying "It's a Christian song."
What makes it NOT Christian?
What are your criteria for designating a piece of art NOT Christian?
Since I’ve now explained twice, it’s a bit disingenuous to claim lack of understanding.
1. The writer of the song is not a Christian and never claimed to be. “This is not to argue that Cohen was a crypto-Christian. He was no Christian choir boy. He was a mischievous spiritual pragmatist, drawn to whatever enlivened him. “Anything, Roman Catholicism, Buddhism, LSD, I'm for anything that works,” he once said”. At best he was a Jew who expanded his horizons to a utilitarian pantheism.
2. The song contains no distinctly Christian theology,themes, lyrics, worldview, or concepts.
Given those two things, the reality is that it’s not a song by a Christian, with an explicitly Christian message, that points to God.
Where you fail to understand is that you are obsessed with demanding that this song is Christian. It’s been said over and over that the song isn’t diminished (as art or as a personal experience) by the reality that it’s not a Christian song. It’s been said over and over that this doesn’t prevent people from finding meaning or value in it.
It’s not a choice, it’s acknowledging reality.
Yet you choose to insist that it’s something it’s not. It’s like insisting that the Koran is a Christian scripture.
I’ll grant that it’s a spiritual song, with some imagery from the Hebrew Scriptures, but that doesn’t make it Christian.
Some interesting things I’ve noted.
1. You haven’t engaged my example of Disciple by Slater and argued that it’s a Christian sing.
2. You’ve bitched that no one has the standing to declare Hallelujah not a Christian song, yet you assume the authority to declare it to be a Christian sing.
3. You’ve provided no evidence that the writer intended it as a Christian song or that he embraced the Christian song label.
This is just one more example of you throwing a tantrum over nothing. You just feel the need to disagree and do so without actually providing any evidence beyond your opinion.
As usual, if this is merely your opinion, you’re welcome to it. Just don’t try to force your opinions on others or demand that your opinion be accepted as anything with significance beyond yourself.
“Is ‘Hallelujah’ a Christian Song?
First, it’s unlikely Cohen would have written anything that would be “Christian.” He apparently had an interest in Jesus, but simply considered him a universal figure, as indicated by his words:
“I’m very fond of Jesus Christ. He may be the most beautiful guy who walked the face of this earth. Any guy who says ‘Blessed are the poor. Blessed are the meek’ has got to be a figure of unparalleled generosity and insight and madness…A man who declared himself to stand among the thieves, the prostitutes and the homeless. His position cannot be comprehended. It is an inhuman generosity. A generosity that would overthrow the world if it was embraced because nothing would weather that compassion. I’m not trying to alter the Jewish view of Jesus Christ. But to me, in spite of what I know about the history of legal Christianity, the figure of the man has touched me.”
I’m not sure someone who refers to Jesus a “mad”, would consider himself a Christian.
You argue that, in your opinion, s piece of art must be “specifically Christian”, yet can’t point out what is “specifically Christian” in Cohen’s song. Nor can you demonstrate that the values you look for in art are “specifically Christian “.
It seems that your just saying that Christianity in art is in the eye of the beholder and that the opinion of the beholder is more definitive than the intent of the creator.
We know that Cohen embraces Judaism and Buddhism, neither of which are “specifically Christian “.
We know that Cohen affirmed at least two things that are the antithesis of “specifically Christian”. The Jewish view of Jesus and that Jesus was mad.
We know that Cohen considered LSD as equivalent with religious pursuits.
We know that Cohen’s approach to religion was utilitarian.
It doesn’t seem likely that your going to get “specifically Christian” from someone with those beliefs.
But, this isn’t about anything other than the fact that it annoys you when someone points out a reality that you don’t like. This is such a strange issue to get this dogmatic about, especially without any hint that Cohen would agree with you.
Again, you fail to understand me on point after Point. First of all, I don't believe I've said that this is specifically a Christian song. I'm objecting to you and Stan and Marshall presuming that you have the authority to state that it's not a Christian song. Do you understand the distinction?
1.I haven't said anything about Slayer or Slater or whatever because those words are meaningless to me. If it's a band and a song, I don't know anything about either. So I have no starting point to say think about it. understand?
2. I haven't said it's a Christian song. Do you understand?
3. I haven't said that the writer intended it to be taken as a Christian song. In fact, I said that the author almost certainly did not intend that. Understand?
What I'm asking you all is on what Authority do you state that it's specifically not a Christian song? And what are your criteria for something to be a Christian song?
In other words, I'm asking what sort of little box to trying to put God in and what are the ground rules for putting God in that box?
I’ve never suggested that God be put in a box, the fact that you only have this absurd trope left after your other questions have been answered must mean things aren’t going your way.
1. This bit of cowardice is getting old, you make the argument that virtually any song can be considered Christian if someone thinks it is, then you refuse to examine whether your hunch survives contact with reality. The problem is that if you apply your standards to other songs, you’ll be forced to acknowledge that there are songs that are not Christian. Which you perceive will weaken your position.
2. Then why the hell are you arguing over it. The only way your complaint with Stan has validity is if he’s wrong. Not only haven’t you proven that, you’ve also now tentatively agreed with him.
3. Yet, you continue to argue that it’s wrong to consider it what You opaquely acknowledge.
What a bizarre hill on which to plant your flag and expend this much energy. Not to mention everything you’ve ignored. What a colossal waste of time.
What possible "authority" is needed to state the obvious? This is another tactic Dan employs to stifle positions, opinions and even facts with which Dan disagrees or finds inconvenient. "Authority"? Absolutely none needed.
1. You find it odd that I don't offer commentary about things I've never heard of. I find it rational.
1a. I HAVE NOT SAID THAT THERE ARE NOT SONGS THAT ARE NOT CHRISTIAN. I've said it in this very post. And I quote, "Does that mean EVERYTHING is potentially a Christian song (to me)? No, not necessarily. If you have a song that specifically celebrates wealth and guns (and not ironically or satirically, for instance), well then, there's nothing specifically Christian in that."
2. I'm not arguing. I'm asking a question about what makes a "christian song," for people like you, in your all's opinion and is there any grounds for it? By asking this, I'm hoping to help you see that you have no standards for making this declaration and no solid grounds for doing it, other than typical irrational evangelical conservatism.
3. You're still missing the point.
Do you even understand that you're missing the point?
MY point was to try to get you all to answer these questions, which you still have not answered:
A. What I'm asking you all is on what Authority do you state that it's specifically not a Christian song?
B. And what are your criteria for something to be a Christian song? (and also, inversely, for something to NOT be a Christian song?)
I think if you'd attempt to actually answer the questions I've actually asked, then that might drive you to think through what I'm asking and then you'll actually get the point that I'm actually making, rather than arguing a bunch of stuff I'm not talking about. Including "Slayer/Slater..." whatever that is.
++++++++
(Just read the lyrics to the song. Doesn't sound Christian to me, much. I guess not to you, either? But then, I'd also want to know some context. Is this parody/irony... using inverse words to make a point? Or are they seriously saying they "I hate everyone equally..."?
With ZERO context for Mr Slayer, I'd guess there's at least a bit of irony here and what he/she/they are actually making the point about is that it's wrong to blindly follow a bunch of men/rules made by men, especially hypocritical religious types... and that he/she/they reject THAT "race...," i.e., the "race" of those who abuse religion for their own human edification and power trip.
My second guess is that these are the musical equivalent of shock jocks (or Donald Trump, for that matter) who just say outrageous, stupid stuff because they know that there's no such thing as bad coverage... that they are acting out as a ill-mannered teen-aged boys for the stupid sake of acting rude.)
Art,
You are correct. Dan frequently asserts that something is reality and that in can’t be challenged. You note how he responds when confronted with reality he doesn’t like.
1. That you shy away from addressing things you don’t want to isn’t a surprise. That you make excuses isn’t either.
1a. Then you’ve contradicted yourself. The problem with this is that you need to answer your own question and explain what gives you the right, and by what standards you declare things to be not Christian.
2. You have a strange and argumentative way of not arguing. I’ve answered your question multiple times. Now that you agree with the principle, neither have you.
3. I’ve answered the questions multiple times, yet you haven’t.
I love how your ignorance shows regarding the Slayer song. You attempts to make excuses for a band that is explicitly anti Christian.
But you do you and keep up with the excuses.
What’s interesting in all of your argumentative non arguing is that I’ve agreed with you more than I’ve disagreed and I’ve gone further is acknowledging the value of secular art that I believe Stan would.
But your not arguing and your making excuses for militant anti Christians.
The problem with this is that you need to answer your own question and explain what gives you the right, and by what standards you declare things to be not Christian.
Sigh. I've also done this already. It was IN THE VERY QUOTE THAT I PASTED TO POINT OUT THAT I'D ALREADY ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION. And I quote, AGAIN...
"Does that mean EVERYTHING is potentially a Christian song (to me)? No, not necessarily.
[HERE IT COMES!]
If you have a song that specifically celebrates wealth and guns (and not ironically or satirically, for instance), well then, there's nothing specifically Christian in that."
That is, if you have a song that celebrates/honors/advocates something that is specifically contrary to Jesus' teachings or advocates AGAINST actions that are specifically contrary to Jesus' teachings, then that can be said to not be Christian.
Craig...
I love how your ignorance shows regarding the Slayer song. You attempts to make excuses for a band that is explicitly anti Christian.
What? I'm ignorant of a band/person/group about which I've already said I was ignorant of???!!! Oh LAWDY! Say it ain't so!
Yes, I'm entirely ignorant of Slayer, beyond having read the lyrics to the song. And I said that those lyrics were contrary to Jesus' teachings AND I allowed (since I am admittedly ignorant of them) that there is the caveat that IF they are using satire or other figurative idioms, then maybe that's what's happening.
As someone who is familiar with and who loves art and poetry, I am aware of something called Satire (look it up, if you're not familiar) where people may SOUND like they're saying one thing, when they are actually saying another.
But then, you know that.
And yes, I see that you've acknowledged the "value of secular art" (secular art sends their thanks). That's not my point. Which point you appear to still miss.
But I tried.
If you'd like, why not ask me about quantum mechanics or ancient early trigonometry or other matters I'm ignorant of. Then, when I say I don't know anything about them, you can mock me for not knowing something some more. That's very helpful.
“Christian music is music that has been written to express either personal or a communal belief regarding Christian life and faith. Common themes of Christian music include praise, worship, penitence, and lament, and its forms vary widely across the world.”
One more answer.
FYI, if you’re going to acknowledge that there is Christian/Non Christian music, then you’ll need to answer the questions I’ve already answered.
“Christian music is music that has been written to express either personal or a communal belief regarding Christian life and faith. Common themes of Christian music include praise, worship, penitence, and lament, and its forms vary widely across the world.”
One more answer.
If your going to hide behind one semi answer in order to dodge answering the other questions i e answered, that’s fine with me.
But condescension is always a great tactic.
"if you’re going to acknowledge that there is Christian/Non Christian music..."
That might be one difference between us is that I don't think of it in those terms. There is music (poetry, prose, art) that speaks to us (or not) and that art may or may not speak to us in ways that touch on our Christian beliefs. Wendell Berry is not specifically a Christian writer but most Christians I know in my circles consider his writings profoundly Christian. They speak to Christian values of live, family, forgiveness, community, justice, etc.
Looking at your criteria, it was NOT "written to express either personal or a communal belief regarding Christian life and faith," and yet, it does speak of Christian values, so how is it NOT Christian?
“Christian music is music that has been written to express either personal or a communal belief regarding Christian life and faith.
Your "definition" from wikipedia is very limited. It's speaking of the human tradition of separating out secular from sacred. But is there anything reasonable or biblical that insists such a difference must occur?
Also, it's still approaching it backwards from the question I'm asking. I'm not asking what "christian music" is (to you)? I'm asking, "What makes a song/poem/etc NOT Christian?" Are you merely saying that any music/art written with a purpose OTHER than specifically speaking to a belief regarding Christian life is NOT Christian? If so, why? On what authority? Says who?
What of the instrumentalist composer who is not a Christian at all - who is a pagan, in fact - who writes a beautiful piece of music in praise of creation/nature (apart from any belief in a creator). But there are no words to it, just the beautiful music. Is delightful, wondrous, inspiring instrumental music that was motivated by nature specifically "NOT Christian" because the composer didn't believe in God? Why not? Says who?
Or what of the secular writers who speak of Justice and working with/for the poor to help them out? The author's intent is not to speak to Christian themes, but Justice and working with the poor ARE Christian themes (ie, themes Jesus teaches about), so thematically, it IS Christian in nature? Or at the least, it's not specifically NOT Christian, is it?
If you think so, why? On what authority?
I accidentally deleted two comments instead of publishing them, I apologize.
This is getting really stupid. Dan's just being argumentative. It isn't a big deal to note that a song some feel is appropriate in a Christian service isn't Christian at all, regardless of themes that echo or mirror Christian teachings. As such, it's just a song with nice notions. But Christian? No. Of course not. It's almost the same as those that say all religions are equal because they speak of similar concepts. That's also false. "Nice" notions does not a Christian song make.
I would even so so far as to say that secular songs, even if they appear to touch on what the secular world would regard as "spiritual" themes are entirely inappropriate for Christian services. Cohen's song would fall into this category. It dilutes Christianity and makes it "like everything else" and there is no comparison between Christianity and everything else. There's Christianity, and then there's everything else. Superficial similarities are the most dangerous for drawing folks away from that which is essential to one's salvation, and to suppose there's no real danger in mixing Christianity with non-Christianity is naive and foolish.
Let me put it one find a way to try to see if you can understand the point I'm making...
We both agreed that this particular song is not specifically written with a Christian point from a Christian that is not the point I'm making and thus the point that y'all keep arguing. I'm saying it's not specifically NOT Christian.
I'm saying if a work of art has themes that are consistent with Christian themes or the teachings of Jesus, then you can't say it's specifically not Christian. If a writer speaks of love and forgiveness or Grace and justice, those are Christian themes and thus, you can't say it's not Christian. As Jesus noted, whoever is not working against me is working for me, or words to that effect.
Art,
I I agree that if you look at Dan’s comments, the fact that he agrees with Stan’s underlying point, and the fact the “the” question has changed multiple times, that you’ve reached a reasonable conclusion.
I disagree that there isn’t room for secular art in worship. It’s more about context than anything.
Dan,
It took this long for you to agree, I guess that’s something.
I understand what you are saying, which carries no objective weight. I’m suggesting that while Christians can find themes in secular art that point to God, and find value and inspiration from that art, it doesn’t make the art specifically Christian.
What I don’t understand is why your so obsessed with labeling things as Christian when they aren’t? Why it’s not enough to acknowledge the reality that thee was no Christian intent, yet Christian themes show through anyway.
It’s just one more reason why you appear to be a closet universalist. You have no problem trying to excuse blatantly anti Christian content, yet want the power to decide what’s Christian and what’s not.
Dan,
Here’s where the difference lies. You’re saying the same thing we are, but you haven’t given anywhere near the context that we have. You ask what standing we have to acknowledge this reality while you can’t explain what standing you have. You ask for explanations of criteria, you get plenty, yet all you offer is some vague “Jesus doesn’t like guns” pablum. Nothing unexpected, just more inconsistencies and double standards.
I'm sorry I can't get you all to understand what I'm saying. I just counsel you to go back and look at my actual words and try to answer the questions I actually asked rather than all these other questions.
I'll just say this, y'all would hate my church. We've sung the Beatles Yellow Submarine, regularly have Wendell Berry quotes and other non-religious or secular poetry and art and songs in our service. We've had Supertramp quotes in our service. I suspect that perhaps y'all's heads would just explode.
Or maybe, just maybe, you would sit through one of our services and see how deeply meaningful and profoundly Christian they are. I don't want to sell y'all too short. But given what you have said, I tend to suspect that your heads would just explode.
1. I completely understand what your saying, the fact that this is all you have left to fall back on is interesting. Given the fact that you seem obsessed with arguing about something on which we largely agree, your obsession with continuing to argue without answering the same questions I’ve answered makes me wonder.
2. There is enough about your church as you’ve described it to make me think I’d not attend there. But assuming that I’d hate it seems pretty strong and baseless. Since I’ve consistently said that things like what you list can be meaningful and profound, you’ve clearly decided that instead of acknowledging agreement you’d rather stoke imaginary division.
Just because something is meaningful and profound in a church service doesn’t automatically make it Christian. That doesn’t make it wrong or bad, but it does acknowledge the reality that Christians can take the secular and make it meaningful.
I think your problem in this discussion is that your presuming a negative aspect to non Christian that you’ve imagined and turned that imaginary construct into some sort of personal attack that isn’t there.
Your negative assumptions aside, it seems as though you might be under the impression that your church is right, and that there aren’t any other ways to do church. I’d suggest that hubris isn’t healthy and that no church is beyond mistakes.
FYI, I’ve sat through plenty of crappy church services without hating anyone or anything, and without my head exploding.
I completely understand what your saying
Do tell.
I mean it, literally... do tell me what I'm saying.
I guess you’re really just here to stir up arguments even though we agree on more than we disagree. No, I’m not going to parrot your divisive, argumentative, drivel back to you.
I guess you’re just too invested in making me out as hateful and controlling to pay attention to what I’ve actually said.
My position is that there are plenty of songs, quotes, opinions, etc., that are uniquely and specifically Christian and as such there is no point to singing "Yellow Submarine", as if there is more of a Christian message in such than there is in those songs, quotes, etc., intended for the purpose. I prefer a Christian service to focus on worship and praise of the Lord. Songs that don't do this are inappropriate for a Christian service.
As Craig said, there is much we've already heard of "Jeff St." that would convince me to avoid it. But also, I wouldn't "hate" it, but rather, as now, I feel sorry and grieved that congregants are led astray in that "church".
I paid attention. You all still don't get what I'm actually saying. I can tell you what you've said, but you can't tell me what I've said.
And that is a large part of the problem.
When you get to the point where this is all you have, it’s clear that you just want to keep bitching and have nothing of substance.
The fact that you’ve not actually dealt with the point of the original post, acknowledged our fundamental agreement, and continue to search out things to disagree about is ample evidence.
Art,
I’ve been trying to focus on the principle that there are instances where art that is not specifically Christian can be used in corporate worship in ways that point to God. In some cases they might be better in accomplishing that than a specifically Christian piece of art. Clearly discernment and context play a huge role, as does content. But I’ve seen secular art used effectively enough to be comfortable with the principle.
Clearly the same holds true for personal worship or devotional practices. Although maybe less so because you remove the community aspect of discernment.
But, I wouldn’t argue (as Dan has) that that sort of use makes then Christian.
I don’t see a problem with acknowledging that non Christian art can do an excellent job of pointing out Truth and pointing to God. But that doesn’t make it Christian.
I’d also say that simply evoking an emotional reaction or response isn’t enough, I’d suggest that it should point to God or some aspect of God. Although that’s my personal opinion.
Earlier I mentioned Creed. A band that was emphatic about not being Christian, yet the faith of the writer showed up in lyrics that definitely pointed to God. U2 is another exciting in music. Obviously LOTR and Narnia are literature examples that get used frequently. I’d suggest that films like Saving Private Ryan or any number that have sacrifice for the benefit of others as a theme would work.
Where it becomes more dicey is when it’s used for shock, or attention, or simply to try to be relevant, or when the connection to God is subtle or difficult to discern. Or when the art distracts from the message.
Schaefer, Pearcey, and others have written about this and I’d suggest checking them out for their thoughts.
As someone who is somewhat musical, this raises some broader discussions that I was going to comment on, but will probably give their own post to down the road.
Craig... "I wouldn’t argue (as Dan has) that that sort of use makes then Christian..."
I literally haven't done this. Again, I'm sorry I can't help you understand what I'm saying. I don't know how else to say it. I'm not saying art like this are literally Christian. I'm saying they're not NOT Christian. I'm asking the question, still, what makes them NOT Christian? That is the question y'all have yet to answer.
I ventured over to the intellectual black hole that is Dan’s blog and I found Art in a battle with a tar baby (on the tar baby’s home field and under the tar baby’s less than consistent rules) and these questions.
“1. Where exactly and specifically did you find the ruling on Leonard Cohen's song?
2. Can you admit that no such ruling exist?
3. What specifically makes a song a Christian song or not?
4. What are your criteria?”
I’ll ignore the fact that Dan hasn’t answered these questions and take a shot.
1. I’ve never claimed that a “ ruling” exists on any specific song. But given Cohen’s own words, I strongly suspect he wouldn’t consider the song Christian. If the writer most likely wouldn’t, then why would I?
2. Since I’ve never claimed a “ruling” exists, I’m not sure why I’d answer a question with no basis in reality.
3. Since the single primary distinctive that separates Christianity from every other religion is Christ. It seems reasonable that a non negotiable for anything to be considered Christian would be that it/they focus specifically on Christ.
4. This notion of asking the same question multiple times without an opportunity for an answer seems stupid and wasteful. Yet the alternative is the endless “you never answer my questions” load of crap, so... My first and primary criteria would be the actual specific in inclusion of Christ.
Dan spews our a bunch of pablum like, “what about forgiveness”, “what about beauty”, “what about guns being evil”, “what about poverty”, “what about simple living”. Yet none of those concerns are specific to the teachings of Jesus, So while they are worthy ideals, and ideals that Jesus talked about, they aren’t specifically limited to Christ.
So, once again, I’m forced to repeat that while secular art exists that can point people toward God (much like the general revelation points to God), That art isn’t specifically Christian.
Again we’re confronted with this false notion that not Christian is anything but a descriptive term to denote a reality.
Finally, I went back a the read your comments and I’ve concluded that the best way to summarize them is that you want to be as vague and unspecific as possible. Using double negatives to obscure your positions. Your desire is to avoid taking an identifiable, specific position on anything so as to prevent being locked into a position with no opportunity to change it.
Ambiguity is essential in Dan and feo's theology. The more ambiguous, the easier it is to do what one wants regardless of whether or not it truly pleases or displeases God.
It would be helpful for both you and Dan to provide an example or two of a secular song that would be suitable for a Christian worship service, without which this conversation is at somewhat of a standstill.
As you mention, Craig, similarities to Christian teaching, or even Christianity, do not qualify as "Christian". All religions have similarities and this is where I see the problem. Using that which has only a passing similarity to Christianity implies there is no difference between ideologies...whether using such a piece is intended to do that or not.
This is not to say that secular works cannot be referenced in order to make a point about a Christian concept or teaching. Indeed, that's what Jesus did with His parables. But that's different from incorporating secular works into the service as one would a praise song or hymn.
Since the single primary distinctive that separates Christianity from every other religion is Christ. It seems reasonable that a non negotiable for anything to be considered Christian would be that it/they focus specifically on Christ.
And is this just your hunch or did Jesus tell us this?
Is it fair to say that this is only your opinion and naught else (well, your opinion and that of Stan, Marshall and many other from the Judgmentalism Tribe)? ...that the Bible does not have teachings that sort out art and poetry in this manner?
Really, I’ll wait for you to point out one other religion that makes Jesus the central focus?
Art,
I’ve seem Streets Have No Name by U2 and Beautiful Day by U2 used well. I’ve also seen Closer to Fine used well.
Art,
This is why I’ve been trying to go bigger picture and frame it around art in general. I’ve seen clips from LOTR, Saving Private Ryan and Countless other movies, as well as multiple uses of literature to illustrate aspects of God.
Just a hint, but the name (Christianity) might give you a nudge in the right direction.
Art,
You know somebody rapping about the “loss” of his ho’s or b$$$$$s, could point someone toward Christ.
Let me clarify...
It seems reasonable that
a non negotiable for anything to be considered Christian
would be that it/they focus specifically on Christ.
And is THIS ^ just your hunch or did Jesus tell us this?
Did Jesus tell you that "IF you are talking about Justice and NOT mentioning ME SPECIFICALLY or focusing on ME SPECIFICALLY, then it is not OF me?"
? As if there was Justice and JESUS JUSTICE, which is a separate sort of Justice?
It is so hard to talk to you all. You don't understand hardly anything I write and focus on everything EXCEPT the points I'm raising.
As I was sitting in a couple of churches tonight, I realized that Dan would literally hate 2 of the 3 I regularly attend. While his head wouldn’t explode, his mouth would overflow with the same sort of expletive laden vitriol that he so often directs at me. Yet despite the hatred and expletives he regularly directs my way, I still believe that Jesus came to save him.
Ahhhhh, the I’m going to repeat myself as nauseum strategy.
I’m going to go out on a limb and say that if you accept that the justice Jesus will bring is perfect, then yes Jesus’ justice will be different.
If your claiming that Jesus’ justice isn’t perfect, or that human justice is perfect, then I can’t help you.
Maybe you think Jesus’ justice consists of violent mobs, chanting “No justice, no peace.”. When Jesus brings both perfect justice and perfect peace, and doesn’t need threats or coercion.
But it’s a well played attempt at diversion.
I'm quite certain, Dan, I understand you perfectly. Your questions suggest there I'd no secular work you wouldn't call "Christian" if it served your purpose.
And since you enjoy repeating yourself regardless of the response, I'll repeat that there's a vast distinction between using a secular work to illustrate a Christian concept or teaching versus calling that same work "Christian" because you did. It's absurd.
I would also insist that if you're going to continue with this lame "did Jesus tell you/by what authority" crap as if it's a legitimate point, then you damned well better provide the same for every goofy-assed position you express anywhere.
Art,
What’s more annoying is that I’ve addressed this issue multiple times and been ignored. There’s nothing inherently wrong with acknowledging the reality that there are differences between secular and Christian in the arts, and nothing wrong with acknowledging that some secular art does indeed point to Jesus.
By Dan’s logic he could argue that the Koran is a Christian book.
As far as Dan providing his authority, he won’t. No matter how dogmatic he gets, he’s always quick to pull out the “it’s my opinion” card. I don’t think he realizes that opinions aren’t usually framed as “reality” or stated in declarative sentences, but it’s his ultimate dodge. It’s tempting get out if ever having to provide proof card. Anything to get out of actually being brave enough to take a stand without having an escape clause when asked for proof.
I understand you perfectly. Your questions suggest there I'd no secular work you wouldn't call "Christian" if it served your purpose.
Nope, not what I said. You all simply aren't understanding my point and thus aren't able to answer my questions. But I tried multiple ways to help you.
Again, I'd suggest you just look at the actual questions I asked and the actual words I used and keep reading them and answering them and maybe you'll one day understand. Or ask a reasonable moderate friend who you trust to explain it to you.
We have, I’ve also looked at what you’ve dodged and ignored as well.
It’s quite clear that you’d like to designate any work of art as Christian as long as it touches in some way on something you perceive as being said by Jesus. It’s all nice and fuzzy and vague because it’s just too much to hope you’ll actually take a specific stand.
Still waiting on your response, I guess the google can’t find you an answer so you’ll just ignore the question.
We have, I’ve also looked at what you’ve dodged and ignored as well.
You literally have not. Marshal just said, "our questions suggest there I'd no secular work you wouldn't call "Christian" if it served your purpose." and that is NOT my point, and not true.
I've asked you to repeat back to me what my point is and you begged off and wouldn't even try ("No, I’m not going to parrot your divisive, argumentative, drivel back to you.").
When you've suggested around what you think my point was, you missed the point. For instance, this... "By Dan’s logic he could argue that the Koran is a Christian book." ...is not my point. You're missing the point.
So, again, IF you think you understand my point, TELL me what it is specifically... what IS the point I'm making/the question I'm asking?
It's not a trick question. It's right there in my post at least once and very clearly. I've stated it here several times clearly.
What point do you THINK I'm making? Because everything you're saying/suggesting is NOT the point I'm making.
Also, earlier, where you said... " spews our a bunch of pablum like, “what about forgiveness”, “what about beauty”, “what about guns being evil”, “what about poverty”, “what about simple living”. Yet none of those concerns are specific to the teachings of Jesus"
I, for one, don't think that forgiveness, simplicity, poverty concerns are "pablum" (and I never said that guns are evil, that's your invention, not my words - another sign that you don't understand the words I'm using, even though they're exceedingly straightforward and clear) and I'd argue that yes, these ARE specific to the teachings of Jesus. I think perhaps you're trying to suggest that they're not EXCLUSIVE to the teachings of Jesus, but so what?
I’ve never said those concepts were pablum, just your use of them.
Of course those are part of the teachings of Jesus, but they aren’t unique to the teachings of Jesus.
The problem is that virtually everything that we’ve pointed out is based directly on your words, it’s your points. I’m quite sure you’ve got some way you can claim that the things you’ve said aren’t your “point”. As I pointed out, it’s much more about ambiguity and not being specific than about one singular point.
“I'm saying if a work of art has themes that are consistent with Christian themes or the teachings of Jesus, then you can't say it's specifically not Christian. If a writer speaks of love and forgiveness or Grace and justice, those are Christian themes and thus, you can't say it's not Christian. As Jesus noted, whoever is not working against me is working for me, or words to that effect.”
If this isn’t your point, then why’d you say it. Here’s the problem with your point, you equivocate by the way you phrase your point, because you’re too cowardly or whatever to just be honest.
Yes, those words contain my point. But then, when you talk, you're not talking about those words, you're going off on tangents which makes me think you're not getting the point. (Hint: My point is very directly stated in my original post.)
So, SUMMARIZE what you think you hear me saying in those words.
Really...if we've somehow missed the point, it's not up to us to guess. Just state the point clearly and unequivocally as if you actually want it known. In the meantime, I see nothing concrete that demonstrates we've missed it at all...just your assertion.
Art,
You understand that it’s literally impossible that any failure to communicate the point falls on Dan. We have to sort through the ambiguity, double negatives, and crap to strain out some thing hidden. It’s clearly our failure, it can’t be his.
Dan,
Your point is that you are congenitally able to simply make a clear and coherent statement. You have to qualify, equivocate, and obscure. Your point is (at least partially) that “we” can’t label things non Christian if you consider the possibility that you could label them Christian. That “we” lack authority that you have. That you have some minute technical “point” that must be considered in complete isolation from the real world. In short, your point (unintentionally made) is that you are a hypocrite who demands from others what he won’t demand from himself and a coward who won’t let his “yes be yes, and no be no”. I think Jesus said that.
My point (at this point) is that your a coward who won’t answer his own questions, let alone one simple question I asked days ago.
Again, I was quite clear on my blog, when I said...
And so, my point is, why would anyone consider this definitively NOT a "Christian song..."?
WHAT CRITERIA do you have for deciding something is NOT a Christian message/song/words? It's not enough, apparently, to talk about Christian themes that Jesus talked about. Talking about freedom from oppression or justice is not enough, that's what I'm hearing you all say. (For instance, when Craig says, "Yet none of those concerns are specific to the teachings of Jesus..." as if these common themes from Jesus Christ's TEACHINGS are not "christian enough" to be included in your church services.)
WHY SPECIFICALLY is it "not worthy of inclusion" in a church service? Why SPECIFICALLY is the message specifically NOT CHRISTIAN? What are your consistent criteria for making such a declaration?
Do you have even ONE SINGLE Bible verse that says, "Do not use songs that weren't written by Christians... that don't mention Jesus or 'his work' specifically... that don't directly mention or praise God..."? Anything like that? IS there even one single Bible verse that demands that we eschew "secular" and embrace only "sacred..."?
What about a story written by a non-Christian Jew that never once mentions God or Jesus and is more of a justice story, about how a woman hero rises up to save her people from genocide from an oppressive government? Would that story be "christian enough" for you all? On what basis would you choose to exclude it? On what basis would you say it's definitively NOT Christian?
Your point is (at least partially) that “we” can’t label things non Christian if you consider the possibility that you could label them Christian. That “we” lack authority that you have.
Literally NOT the point. The point was to raise the question: On WHAT RATIONAL, BIBLICAL BASIS would someone declare authoritatively and decisively, "THIS song does not have a 'Christian-enough' message, therefore, it is NOT CHRISTIAN." That is the question I've been raising and that you all have not been answering.
We probably do things differently at our church. We don't ask, "Is this a Christian song/poem/story?" We ask, "What is the message? Is it one of justice (a Christian theme taught by Christ)? Of mercy and forgiveness (as taught by Christ)? Of fighting against oppression or struggling with hard times (consistent with many biblical messages)? Is it one that speaks of whatsoever things are pure, loving, grace-filled, true, etc? Does it build up or support the community of faith? Then that's probably a good message, worthy of inclusion."
What is wrong with that method, in your heads? Is there anything unbiblical or irrational about that method? (of course, the answer is no, but wondering what you all would come up with).
What "simple question" you asked days ago are you talking about?
And when will you answer my reasonable questions?
Dan,
The other thing you forget with all the narcissistic demands and yammering about “your point”, is that this is my thread at my blog. You’ve really not addressed the point of this thread at this blog, instead attempting to impose your point on this thread. Yet, I’ve allowed your comments, I’ve answered your questions and responded to your comments. You’ve not really done much of either. What you forget is that there is a reason why we’re having this conversation here, it’s because this and Art’s are the only places where comments don’t mysteriously disappear based on whims.
Just something to consider.
1. As I just pointed out, this isn’t your thread at your blog.
2. I’ve answered your questions multiple times, except the new “Bible verse” question which (given my beliefs and answers) is simply a stupid question.
Therefore your first comment has been quite the waste of time.
Since your second comment is simply a restatement of your first comment, it’s also a waste of time. It’s clear you haven’t been paying attention to the original post, my comments, or my answers as I’ve addressed everything (except the Bible verse diversion) in this thread already.
Your hybrid and narcissism are annoying, yet your comments still post.
“I guess you are probably fine with singing "Psalms...”.
I guess you don’t mind admitting that you have no problem making up what we think. It’s more and more obvious from your idiocy that you haven’t paid a bit of attention to what I’ve written on this topic.
FYI, if you’re going to address me, have the spine to do it someplace where I can respond.
My conversation in my blog has been with Marshal, who's been commenting on my blog. Although, it's a good question for you too. Presumably it doesn't have to be JUST a Christian writer before you deem it NOT not Christian.
If you address me in response to Art, then doing so where I can’t respond is cowardly.
Since you haven’t asked any questions here that I haven’t answered, am I supposed to guess which question at your blog is the magic one.
Or I could use your strategy and ignore the one significant question you’ve been asked and live in a fantasy world like you.
“Really, I’ll wait for you to point out one other religion that makes Jesus the central focus?”
Still waiting, not surprised.
I have not said that there's another religion that makes Jesus the central Focus. And so my answer is there isn't one so far as I know.
But this is obvious. I thought it was a rhetorical question since it was so stupid to assume that the answer wasn't rhetorical since there isn't another religion like that. Especially when you treated in the evangelicals manner.
So, unlike you, I never said anything to suggest that I believe that. However you and Marshal and Stan have all said definitively that the Cohen song is "not Christian" in nature. So you see, I'm responding to what you all have actually said, asking you to support your actual claim.
As opposed to you expecting to me to respond to something that I have not said. See the difference?
Re: makes Jesus the central Focus.
I'm curious. Did you really think I was going to answer yes here is a list of non-Christian religions that make Jesus the central Focus? Or did you know my answer? For my part, I still don't know your answer to the question what is your list of criteria for something to be specifically not Christian. That's why I asked. That, and to get you to think about what you're saying and see if you can answer it yourself.
I've explained to you already my answer, that we're not looking at the question is this a Christian teaching? When we consider whether or not to share a bit of poetry or song or a story... We're looking for does it build the body up? Does it help us in our Christian walk? Does it promote Justice, love, Grace, concern for the poor, and other themes common in Christian teaching? Does it challenge us to do all those things?
So, if you are saying that you first decide is this a Christian teaching? Then you're doing it differently than we are.
You probably aren't, assuming that you also look at the Old Testament. Indeed, the reality that we all look to the Old Testament for teachings shows that what informs our Christian faith is beyond just literal Christian teachings.
"The point was to raise the question: On WHAT RATIONAL, BIBLICAL BASIS would someone declare authoritatively and decisively, "THIS song does not have a 'Christian-enough' message, therefore, it is NOT CHRISTIAN." That is the question I've been raising and that you all have not been answering."
Actually, we have. Yet you've not yet supported your position in the same way.
No, you just questioned me when I pointed out that the centrality of Christ was important in determining what is Christian. So, I asked you to expand, you chose to ignore. Not surprising. You continually ask me to respond to things I haven’t said, but that’s just one more example of your double standards.
Since the Cohen song doesn’t mention Jesus, point specifically to Jesus, address explicitly Christian issues, not is it written by a Christian. It seems reasonable to acknowledge the reality that it’s not a Christian song. Again, it seems reasonable to conclude that a focus on Christ would be a good indicator of whether or not something or someone is Christian.
As to your second comment, how many times do I have to deal with this.
One question. Are you saying that a piece of art that expresses some passing acknowledgment of something you consider a Christian teaching, becomes Christian art?
It’s a simple yes or no answer. I expect that simple direct answer in the first thing you say in your next comment. If you can’t, then I’m done responding to you. You’re inability to grasp that I’ve answered your questions multiple times, doesn’t give me much incentive to continue to feed your narcissism.
Craig... "it seems reasonable to conclude that a focus on Christ would be a good indicator of whether or not something or someone is Christian..."
Says you. But can you support that using reason? Can you support that using the Bible? Is there some place where the Bible says that Christian things are only things that have to do specifically with Jesus, the man?
Why would the TEACHINGS of Jesus - themes about which he talked - why would those not also be Christian? Jesus spoke a great amount about Justice, about love, about how we need to side with the poor... These are things common to Christ-ian teaching. So how are they NOT Christian?
If someone is talking about Bob Ross, the painter and painting instructor, and they referred to themes common in his teachings even without mentioning him, would not those common themes also be "Ross-ian" even though Ross, the man, was not specifically mentioned?
Also, Old Testament teachings are not directly mentioning Jesus. At least not usually. But those, I assume you agree, are Christian teachings, correct? So it's not required to be a Christian doing the teaching, nor is it required for Jesus specifically to be mentioned, for teaching to be Christian in nature, as churches normally use the Bible. Do you agree?
Are you saying that a piece of art that expresses some passing acknowledgment of something you consider a Christian teaching, becomes Christian art?
I'm saying a piece of art is a piece of art. The artist may have had an idea about what they were expressing, but generally, artists "release" their work to the viewers to be understood how they want.
IF a piece of art touches on themes of justice, or grace, or love... that piece of art touches on Christian themes... or themes common and central to Christian teaching... or the themes central to the teachings of Jesus.
I don't believe there is "secular justice" and "Jesus justice" or "secular love" and "Jesus love." There is Justice. Period. There is love. Period. Now, admittedly, our love and justice in this world will always be flawed and imperfect, but the IDEA behind these themes are the same idea.
Justice: People should not be oppressed for no reason, they should experience all the rights common to humanity and innate to humanity. Innocent people should not be killed or jailed for no reason. When human rights are honored and observed and kept for all, justice happens. And when they don't, justice is denied and that oppression should be opposed, as a matter of justice. And that is what Justice is. Period. Jesus' justice IS justice. Jesus doesn't want to see people oppressed or human rights denied, contrary to ideals of justice. He doesn't have a special "religious justice." There's just justice.
Same for grace, for forgiveness, for ideal love for humanity.
So, to answer your question again, when a piece of art deals with Justice, Forgiveness, Love, Grace... it deals with Christian themes, i.e., themes taught by Jesus.
Do you disagree?
+++++
With the caveat, of course, that there are also levels/types of love, of grace, etc. And people may use those terms erroneously or in less than ideal manners. For instance, if a piece of art shows a KKK rally lynching a black man for marrying a white woman and the KKK artist claim it's out of "love," well, of course, it isn't, and that isn't a piece of art that touches on/promotes Christian themes.
Are you saying that a piece of art that expresses some passing acknowledgment of something you consider a Christian teaching, becomes Christian art?
It’s a simple yes or no answer. I expect that simple direct answer in the first thing you say in your next comment.
I didn't see your little threat.
No. The answer is No. That's the short, but incomplete, answer. The more complete answer, I gave in a previous comment.
If your answer truly is no, then we don’t disagree on this, yet you continue to foment disagreement.
What threat. I was concisely explaining what I expected from you in terms of the firm of your answer. I guess, the fact that you didn’t see it until after making multiple comments, along with your continued attempts to sow disagreement, tells me that you re not actually reading my comment or posts before you answer. Which means there’s not much point in my investment of time and energy in things you’re going to ignore.
I just read the first of your recent comments. I’ve addresses this issue at least twice earlier in the thread.
2nd comment. Again, I’ve addressed this elsewhere. But, are you really suggesting that justice administered by humans is qualitatively equlal to the justice we anticipate being administered by Jesus? Again (ignored question warning). Is human justice administered perfectly or is Jesus’ justice administered imperfectly?
Certainly the ideal of justice is similar whether from Jesus or the government (chanting mobs don’t really want justice in any real sense), but you can’t seriously be suggesting that the administration is going to be exactly the same, are you?
The same issues apply with love. Jesus modeled a self sacrificial, servant, based love. Yet out society equates live with casual sex. Even the term love in English is problematic as it encompasses three Greek words and concepts which Jesus discussed. You can’t seriously be suggesting that humans are capable of expressing love that is qualitatively and substantially identical to the love demonstrated by Jesus.
Where this is a problem for this conversation is that none of these concepts, or at least the words,(in general) are unique to Jesus. Hell, atheists clamor for how they can ground things like love, beauty, and justice without referring to Jesus. So, I’ll repeat again, the fact that secular art references, inspires, and evokes these themes is great. I’m perfectly fine with during them in various ways (repetition), but that doesn’t make those works if art Christian.
The fact is that even the most unashamed, vigorous pagan can occasionally stumble across some of God’s general revelation and communicate that in a meaningful way.
I’m mystified by your continued obsession with fomenting disagreement where none exists.
YOU all say, "This is not Christian" speaking of pieces by people like Cohen.
I continue to disagree with your dismissal, BASED UPON your inability to support the claim and correctly recognize that themes of Justice, Oppression, Grace, etc ARE Christian in nature and that the author of a piece being "not a Christian" does not mean we can dismiss the piece or correctly identify a piece as "Not Christian."
You all COULD reasonably say, "That author was not a Christian (like the OT prophets were not Christian), nor did that author INTEND this as a Christian piece." What you can't say is that a piece like Cohen's "Come Healing" does not contain Christian themes/messages or, if you prefer, beautiful words that ring true for Christians. Dismissing it as "not Christian" is
What I object to is the practice - common amongst conservative evangelicals (as I once was), but which is found everywhere -that says "If this person is not part of OUR tradition, THEN the message of their art is not part of our tradition..."
Craig... along with your continued attempts to sow disagreement
My appealing to reason to say I think we SHOULD be able to agree on this and here's why..." is the opposite of an attempt to sow disagreement. I comment to people like you and Stan because I believe we can find some common ground. Which is one reason I ask questions... because I believe that if you answer the actual questions asked, you will better understand my point and we can agree.
For instance, when you say, "it seems reasonable to conclude that a focus on Christ would be a good indicator of whether or not something or someone is Christian..." I'm pointing to OT teachings and other very Christian-themed teachings that are devoid of a "focus on Christ" and yet, still are speaking to Christian themes.
Here's an olive branch. Can we agree that this is reasonable? That there is no biblical or rational demand for a poem to be "focused on Christ" to be Christ-ian in nature?
Look at these lyrics from Cohen...
O gather up the brokenness
And bring it to me now
The fragrance of those promises
You never dared to vow
The splinters that you carry
The cross you left behind
Come healing of the body
Come healing of the mind
And let the heavens hear it
The penitential hymn
Come healing of the spirit
Come healing of the limb
Behold the gates of mercy
In arbitrary space
And none of us deserving
The cruelty or the grace
O solitude of longing
Where love has been confined
Come healing of the body
Come healing of the mind...
What grace! What power! What a beautiful statement that reflects Christian values. Can we agree?
are you really suggesting that justice administered by humans is qualitatively equlal to the justice we anticipate being administered by Jesus?
Again (ignored question warning). Is human justice administered perfectly or is Jesus’ justice administered imperfectly?
I answered this in my comment, if you just read.
Imperfect humans will never have perfect justice. But the IDEAL of justice is the ideal of justice, whether it is imperfect human justice or God's perfect justice, the ideal is the same. An appeal to fair, just treatment for all, and especially those most commonly abused. So, NO, it is not EQUAL to perfection. But it is the same "stuff," if you will.
I can't love my wife or children perfectly, as God does, but the love I hold for them is the same Stuff... wanting the best for them, for them to be reasonably happy and safe, wanting them to be their best selves. The Love, Justice, Grace that humans, at our best, may strive for will always be imperfect, but it's not a different Thing, just a less perfect version of the same Thing.
Do you disagree? I think my position is extremely reasonable and Christ-ian. I'm thinking we can AGREE, but you seem intent on deciding we disagree.
I’m perfectly fine with during them in various ways (repetition), but that doesn’t make those works if art Christian.
I'd appeal that you look at my words and let their intent sink in, so that we can agree on a reasonable common ground:
IF a piece of work speaks to IDEALS of Justice, Love, Grace,
THEN it speaks of Christian IDEALS.
Thus, you can't truly, reasonably say "It's not Christian (speaking of these Christ-ian ideals)..." You can reasonably say, "These words didn't come from someone INTENDING Christian themes..." But they ARE Christian themes.
Consider this teaching found in CS Lewis Narnia stories (with an introduction)...
"In the final book, The Last Battle, there is a character named Emeth who has lived his whole life outside of Narnia in a country where people worship a violent and spiteful god named Tash. But Emeth seems cut from a different mold with a pure heart. In the final chapters, Narnia comes to an end, and Aslan leads all the characters who are still with him “higher up and further in” to a place that can only be heaven. But somehow Emeth shows up there. People ask how, and he tells them that he came through the doorway and met Aslan. Then he recounts the following conversation with the Lion:
‘Lord, is it then true… that thou and Tash are one?’ The Lion growled so that the earth shook and said, ‘It is false. Not because he and I are one, but because we are opposites.
For I and he are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and
none which is not vile can be done to him.
Therefore, if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath’s sake,
it is by me that he has truly sworn,
and it is I who reward him.
And if any man do a cruelty in my name, then it is Tash whom he serves and by Tash his deed is accepted.
Dost thou understand, Child?"
The fact is that even the most unashamed, vigorous pagan can occasionally stumble across some of God’s general revelation and communicate that in a meaningful way.
YES! And the SOURCE of the meaningful Truth does not negate the TRUTH of the words. The SOURCE of the Truth does not make it "not Christian."
Yes?
You talked about “love”, so let’s take a look.
Jesus talked about, “if you love me, you’ll obey my commandments”, “love your enemies”, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength.”, “Love your neighbor as yourself “, “the reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life”, (not exhaustive but representative). Paul says “Love is patient, kind, etc” and “Husbands love your wife like Christ loved the Church.”.
Bad Company says “Baby, when I think about you, I think about looooove.” “Darling, can’t live without you, and your loooove.”.
What are the chances that they’re talking about the same type of love?
Many classical choral pieces are written in languages other than English. Singers go to great lengths to be able to pronounce the words correctly when they perform. Yet that doesn’t mean they’re fluent or even understand the real meaning of what they’re singing.
Just because someone uses a word like love or justice, doesn’t mean they’re using it in the same way or to communicate the same thing as Jesus. Essentially they’re the blind pig that found an acorn. Doesn’t make the acorn wrong or invalid, or bad, it just means they got to something unintentionally.
Again, if you need the disagreement that’s fine, but it seems weird that you’ve literally ignored the title, the past, and the majority of the comments in order to manufacture disagreement.
Craig: What are the chances that they’re talking about the same type of love?
Dan: With the caveat, of course, that there are also levels/types of love, of grace, etc. And people may use those terms erroneously or in less than ideal manners. For instance, if a piece of art shows a KKK rally lynching a black man for marrying a white woman and the KKK artist claim it's out of "love," well, of course, it isn't, and that isn't a piece of art that touches on/promotes Christian themes.
I dealt with this and it IS true that some people may use the same terms but mean something different. AS I SAID.
But, just as that is true for SOME people, other people (not Christian in a way that you would accept) use Love to mean selfless, giving love that wants the best for others. They use Justice to mean an end to oppression and support for human rights and ideals.
What are the chances that they mean something different than the ideals we are speaking of?
For instance, the OT writers were not Christians and yet, they spoke of these ideals, right? So, an understanding of the ideals of Love, Justice, Forgiveness and Grace are not limited to Christians, right?
I keep asking for agreement on reasonable points. I keep waiting to see if you agree, but then, you keep not answering these reasonable questions.
What the hell is the point of copy/pasting 3 comments repeating your disagreements and false representations on a topic on which we essentially agree.
If you want to conflate the piece of art the contains a nugget of truth, with the truth itself you might have a point. But it seems quite adequate to say that we can pull this nugget of truth from this secular art without sanctifying the entirety of the piece of art.
Again, if you’re going to ignore everything from the title of the post throughout the post and my comments just to foster disagreement where none exist, why not just save your time and energy.
Yet you don’t acknowledge that I’ve answered your questions throughout this thread, why would I possibly be less diligent the longer you go without acknowledging my previous answers. I literally asked you one question, you danced around it but didn’t answer, yet you bitch.
As far as the OT writers, given that the OT is part of the overarching narrative of God’s story, that it foreshadows and sets the stage for the coming of Christ, I don’t see why there is a problem for Christians. Unless it’s just one more item for you the search for divisions that aren’t there.
Dan,
I’m going to continue to post your comments, no matter how divisive or full of pablum they are. I’m doing this because I’ve told you I’ll post your comments and keeping my word is important to me. Having said that, as long as you continue to look for disagreements that aren’t there, focus on divisiveness, ignore reality, and continue to ask the same questions repeatedly, don’t expect much engagement from me.
Art,
I saw your last comment over at tar baby world and appreciated it.
The problem I see is that Dan appears determined to make this about you, Stan and I wanting to exert control over other people. It’s something that is totally in his imagination, but it fits his narrative.
The reality is that what we’re really trying to focus on is what to use in worship to best focus on God. To use elements and pieces of art that draw your attention towards God, not towards people. I’d argue that whatever accomplishes that is appropriate and anything that doesn’t is not. It’s not about rules, authority, or anything except focus. Worship is about God, nothing else.
Well, it's certainly not about exerting control, except over one's self. For me it's also a matter of reverence. I'm not willing to take chances in that regard if I can help it, God being the Creator and all with the ultimate last word. And I've tried to make the distinction between using the secular to make a point related to a Christian lesson, versus using the secular for purposes of worship and praise. The latter doesn't work for me at all.
I understand, I suspect that some folx might be tempted to include some secular elements to demonstrate how clever, cool, or hip they are. To draw attention to them rather than God. Either that or they just aren’t that worried about reverence for God.
Most of the songs Dan has suggested are the musical equivalent of “spiritual but not religious”. They sound spiritually and convey a vague message that can mean absolutely anything depending on the listener.
It has nothing to do with trying to be hip. Of course.
It has to do with the question that I've already made clear to you, does this help people? Does it lift them up? Does it bolster their faith? Does it strengthen them to follow in the way of Christ?
A song like Come Healing by Cohan does that for a lot of people.
Here is a question for y'all...
Because our concern is with the people hearing the service, if someone is going to be boosted and encouraged and strengthened by listening to Cohen's Come Healing, we'll play it. And because a song like Lee Greenwood's, God Bless the USA, which is written by Christian and mentions God - but to us in leadership roles, it's not very representative of God's ways it's a song we wouldn't choose to do. However, one of the things we do regularly is encourage any and all to share songs and poetry as part of the service. And so, if someone did find God Bless the USA meaningful and asked if they could sing it, we would encourage them in that. Because it helps build them up.
There ARE lines that we wouldn't cross, but that one is one we would probably let go. We wouldn't encourage it out of the blue but if someone requested it, we would give it consideration.
My question for y'all... Would you all, if someone was requesting God bless USA or come healing, would you all support them in doing that at your church if you were in that leadership position to make that decision? Or would you use that power to nix the idea?
Another question I asked Marshal on my blog... Do you all recognize the term worship service is not biblical? That in the New Testament Church we don't see any words that speak of the meetings that were held being held to worship and praise God? Instead, the purpose given for the meetings of church were for fellowship and building the congregation up, for teaching and edification.
Given that, our purpose is not so much praise of Jesus and worship in that sense. Our goal is in the building up of the body of Christ. Therefore words and poems and songs that are meaningful and encouraging 4 people and their walk in the face, that's our guideline for church meetings. Do you see that this could be a fitting guide for What songs and poems are included in a church meeting?
Well, often times in our circles, people are spiritual without being especially religious. We view that as a net-positive, generally speaking. As to the message in a song like come healing, I'll take that as bold and powerful and strong and demanding and comforting and terrifying any day over 90% of modern so called worship music and probably over 50%, at least, of traditional hymns. That something is not meaningful to you does not mean it's not meaningful.
Personally, I probably wouldn’t be too jazzed about either of the two options, but asking the God we worship to bless the country we live in doesn’t seem like a bad thing, but there are better ways to do it.
I guess if you see a worship service as being focused on people, then there’s a certain logic in constructing a worship service based on people’s likes and dislikes.
What is the BIBLICAL (and reasonable) purpose of church meeting times?
Where is there a BIBLICAL argument that the early church met for the purpose of "praising God..."
From a rather traditional sounding Christian website...
"The entire discussion of spiritual gifts that Paul has from 1 Cor. 12-14 is centered around the edification of the church.
In fact, Paul stresses the importance of building up the body throughout chapter 14 (14:4-5, 12, 16-17, 19, 26).
This goes back to the fundamental point I made in "What is the Purpose of the Church?," which is that the church exists for the purpose of helping to change people's lives."
https://chasingalion.com/a/1082-what-does-the-bible-say-about-church-meetings
It's not an unbiblical or unreasonable position that the purpose of Church meetings is for the propping up, support, encouragement ("edification") of those people attending. Do you disagree?
Which doesn't necessarily mean it's "focused on the people," but it is, BIBLICALLY, focused upon the building up of the church community.
If you disagree, please demonstrate how this is wrong biblically or rationally.
Also, focusing on teaching, fellowship and the supporting of the church community does NOT mean we're basing the service on their "likes and dislikes..." It's based on what builds up and supports and teaches. Do you need me to explain the difference?
The “worship service” term isn’t in the Bible is an absurd, ridiculous attempt to play a semantic game. The term “simple living” isn’t there either yet you claim Jesus taught it. Idiotic.
At least you admit that you choose to worship something other than Jesus at your “christian” church. Clearly if you aren’t worshiping Jesus but instead worshipping people’s needs or simply gathering for some Oprah approved self help meetings then the content doesn’t matter at all. Why bother choosing things that are intended to focus on God, when your focusing on man.
Well, since you’re not worshipping God (one wonders what or who you do worship), of course you wouldn’t find things intended for worship of God meaningful. Quite the contrary, I can see why music intended to worship a God you choose not to worship would be offensive, perhaps it might induce feelings y’all don’t like.
Things make more sense now. You’re more interested in an amorphous, vague, self help, pantheism, than in worshiping God. So much of your comments make so much more sense now. You want the quasi respectability of the label “christian” without any of the baggage.
Got it now.
FYI, you would have absolutely hated the sermon at the funeral I was at today, your response would have been more of the expletive filled vitriol you spew at those of us you hate. However, now that I have a more accurate picture of what y’all substitute for worship, I still wouldn’t hate it. I’d even be nice a friendly.
Look, prooftecting via Google. For someone who doesn’t consider scripture authoritative, this is just an weak attempt to veneer over what y’all call worship. Maybe just watch Oprah or Dr Phil for your weekly dose of vaguely eastern feel good self help pablum.
What’s laughable is you’re trying so damn hard to shove God (or at least worship of God) into a box.
Of course you ignore Acts, and focus of Paul who you’ve historically not been willing to acknowledge as authoritative. You must be desperate.
I’ll help you out. Just stop trying. You’ve finally clarified what passes for worship in your tiny little commune. You’ve just rendered this entire conversation pointless because you’re worshipping something different from the rest of us. Just stop boxing and move on, it’s pointless.
The IDEA of a "worship service..." especially like what we see in modern churches, is not in the Bible. It's not there as a TERM or an idea.
The idea of living simply is clearly found throughout the Bible AND is reasonable from an environmental and justice point of view.
"Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will never fail, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.“
~Jesus (Luke 12)
“Take care, be on your guard against all covetousness, for one’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions."
~Jesus (Luke 12)
"Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys... for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."
~Jesus (Matt 6)
“Two things I ask of you, Lord;
do not refuse me before I die:
Keep falsehood and lies far from me;
give me neither poverty nor riches,
but give me only my daily bread."
~Prov 30
“Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share. In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life.”
~1 Tim 6
“Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles."
~Hebrews 12
"But godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it.”
~1 Tim 6
The idea of living simply, depending upon God not material wealth - indeed, to beware wealth! - is biblical and very Christian. The idea of "worship services" where the main point of what happens during the meeting is to "praise God" is not biblical. If you think you can make that argument, go for it. But simply denying my point doesn't make it so.
Of course, I have never claimed I/we "don't worship God." I just pointed to the reality of the biblical description of NT church gatherings don't fit your description/prescription of what "worship services" "should be."
Look, I don't care if others want to pray in tongues or sing silly little praise love songs to Jesus or just sing 200 year old hymns and not engage in poetry/art that is "secular," I'm just saying don't insist that it's biblical or necessary from God's point of view. Don't make up claims about what is and isn't acceptably "christian enough" for others to be inspired by.
Before you condemn a church you know very little about, I'd point to these lovely, insightful, inspiring and very Christian bits of building up the Body of Christ...
Glory Bound...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0HUPfJhO3c
World of Wonder...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6OXY4hPa9c
Ring the Bells...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OukJw3TEmMA
I Hear the Sound...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xOrwfXY7Rg
Down to the River to Pray...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRU8ktNRtKM
If Jesus Owned a Truck...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoZWfFHXPHo
...for starters. These songs are inspiring and motivating to us to follow the God we worship, walking in the steps of Jesus our Lord by God's grace. Now, if you don't LIKE them, that's fine. You don't have to, I probably don't like all your songs you engage with in your church. But you can't say that they're "not Christian" in theme, that they don't edify the church (since our church IS edified by these), or encourage us to follow God/Jesus, as they do. It's presumptuous to say that others should not include such art in their church because you don't like it or you whimsically disagree with some parameters made up BY YOU (not God) as to what is "appropriate" for church.
And who knows? Maybe you WILL find them inspirational in a Christian manner. Don't box yourself out of a "worship" opportunity.
“‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
They worship me in vain;
their teachings are merely human rules.’”
~Jesus
"Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this:
to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and
to keep oneself unstained by the world.."
~St James
What’s laughable is you’re trying so damn hard to shove God (or at least worship of God) into a box.
To be clear (and as I said earlier), I do not object to you praying in tongues or rolling on the floor or singing love-song/praise songs or worship God however you want in your church services. If you find it meaningful (as I noted already), I support you in it. I am, therefore, LITERALLY not putting God in a box.
I'm arguing AGAINST putting God in a box and defining how church meetings (or "worship services") "should" be like and what they "shouldn't contain..." or what is not meaningful and appropriate for other Christians in a church service.
Just to be clear about what I've already been clear about.
You’re more interested in an amorphous, vague, self help, pantheism, than in worshiping God. So much of your comments make so much more sense now. You want the quasi respectability of the label “christian” without any of the baggage.
Just to be clear about the facts of the matter (since you're so far off from reality in your false claims about me)(thou shalt not, you know...)
I want to follow the Jesus of the Bible, not human traditions.
I want to embrace the grace exemplified and taught in the Bible, not bow to human ideas about "religion."
I want to worship God in spirit and in truth, not in shallow cowing to the ideas of humans, I want my religion to be pure and undefiled, as demonstrated in acts of justice and love.
That I disagree with you about what is inspiring to me or what is "worship" as I find it in the Bible and just good reasoning does not mean that I don't worship God. The "baggage of Jesus" IS potentially a burden. If you try following his teachings, Pharisees will try to defame you and maybe even kill you. But I embrace that "baggage."
I just reject the baggage of human religion and embrace the teachings of Jesus, my Lord. Or strive to, by God's grace.
What part of stop digging the hole deeper don’t you understand.
You were quite clear that y’all don’t “worship Jesus”, and music designed for worshipping Jesus just doesn’t appeal to you.
I get it.
You were quite clear that y’all don’t “worship Jesus”, and music designed for worshipping Jesus just doesn’t appeal to you
This, of course, is a stupidly false claim. I have not said that and we are followers of Jesus. Of course.
Of course, I suppose some could say that we (at Jeff St, and those who are like-minded) have spent our lives and collectively hundreds of thousands of dollars all to FAKE being followers of Jesus all for the benefit of... what? Fun? To have our names and beliefs maligned and falsely accused by people like you?
Yeah, that's reasonable.
The only one digging a hole is you. I'm offering facts and truthful representation of what we actually believe. You are offering false claims about people you don't even know. Shame.
“Given that, our purpose is not so much praise of Jesus and worship in that sense”
Given that we are talking about two completely different things, I see absolutely no point in continuing to invest significant time in this thread. Why would I care what music you choose when your “purpose isn’t so much praise of Jesus”.
I’ll post your comments because I’m honorable. But I’m really not interested in you trying to proof text your decision to not “praise Jesus”.
“Given that, our purpose is not so much praise of Jesus and worship in that sense”
In case you missed it, I’m quoting your exact words.
This sounds pretty much like "worship" services in the early church to me:
https://www.laudemont.org/a-witec.htm
http://www.thetransformedsoul.com/additional-studies/miscellaneous-studies/-worship-in-the-early-church
https://www.seedbed.com/corporate-worship-discipleship-early-church-2/
Much of what articles like these present is form of worship that is really not all that different than what I find in my own church, or even in churches I no longer attend. That is to say that any "building up" was in the form of the sermons and other teachings that may have been associated with Sunday service (some would have classes for different groups of people according to age before or after corporate worship---long day for sure).
In the above examples are references to spiritual songs, which at that time may have included hymns from their former temple services (as some Christian services were held in Jewish temples). But songs, teachings...whatever was used for "building up"...were distinctly focused on God/Christ...unambiguously, unequivocally and with all attendant reverence.
Our purpose WHEN WE MEET together is, as was described in the Bible, to teach, for fellowship, for the edification of the body of Christ, the members of the church.
THAT is how the Bible describes Church meetings going. There are no flighty whimsical "let's sing praise songs to Jesus" mentioned in the Bible.
That does not mean that we don't worship God. It means we meet For the purpose as described in the Bible. You would think that you "biblical literalists" would understand us doing this. Instead, you're relying upon human Traditions that are not found in the Bible. You're just making up stuff and saying this is what we want to do, let's sing lovely little praise songs to Jesus.
I'm talking about getting beyond little personal religious practices to the meat of what Jesus taught. At some point we have to grow up in the faith. That is what we are striving to do, AS IS TAUGHT in the Bible.
Quit making up false claims. This is such a sad, sad shame.
It's truly a shame when the so-called "biblical literalists" just have much less use for the literal words of the Bible than those who don't take the Bible literally. I guess that's because we take it seriously.
And in case you missed it, I know you're quoting my exact words. But you're not understanding them. That's on you. Not me.
Art,
One of the great things about the Church as it was established in the NT is that it isn’t prescribed in detail. There are some very general guidelines and that’s it. This allows great latitude for differences in time, place, and culture, while still keeping worship focused on God. The very term worship presupposes something or someone deserving of worship. Beyond the God who created and saved us, who else is fit to be worshipped. Remember, this was a time where the only allowed worship was that of the emperor. We also see Pliny the younger describing something that looks very much like a modern worship service as well.
This is one more instance where Dan is comfortable dismissing thousands of years of Christian worship as being wrong and his commune of being right.
After this, so much of what he’s said previously makes more sense.
A. I just looked through your links, Marshal. There is not a single verse quoted that supports your hunch that the primary purpose of "worship service" was to "praise God." There is NO MENTION of a "worship service" OR WORDS THAT SUGGEST THE SAME IDEA. If you find them, then do as I've been asking and SHOW THEM to me. I don't believe that exists in descriptions of early church meetings where THE PURPOSE was always the edification, support, promotion of the Body of human believers and fellowship and prayer.
Can you admit the reality that the descriptions of early church meetings in the Bible do not call OR describe them as "worship services" for the purpose of "praising God..."?
As I've been clear, I'm not opposed to "praising God," I'm just pointing out that, IN THE BIBLE (you literalists) that is NOT given as the primary purpose of the church gatherings (more biblical than your term, "worship service") (and to be clear, we also call our meetings worship services, but that's more from tradition than from any biblical reason for calling it that... further, your apparent definition of "worship service" is more limited and restrictive than what I would call worship service.)
B. FURTHER, none of your sources cite any support for "rules for art/songs/poems" that include "must be written by Christian, must cite the Bible or God, must praise God..."
Where do you get your rules from?
Can you admit the simple reality that they are a human construct, and not found in the Bible? They just aren't.
C. Craig... "This is one more instance where Dan is comfortable dismissing thousands of years of Christian worship as being wrong"
Can you cite ANYWHERE where I've said that thousands of years of Christian worship are wrong? Please cite the quote.
I have been abundantly clear - AS YOU YOURSELF JUST SAID - that the descriptions of early church meetings are not specific and are fluid, allowing the possibility under grace for a variety of interpretations on what to do during a church meeting.
If you want to sing back to back Amazing Grace, throw in a prayer from Psalms (but not Esther!) and do a collection, I'm fine with that. If you want to do that every week, go for it. That's not a church that I would find edifying, but if you like it, go for it.
The point is, grace. Grace in how we worship. Grace in what songs/poems are found to be inspiring. I'm supportive of grace and you all appear to want to provide rules where none exist in the Bible, much like the Pharisees. And IF those rules are just for you and your church and everyone there's cool with it, fine. Just don't conflate your human tradition with God's realm or rules.
Marshal... "But songs, teachings...whatever was used for "building up"...were distinctly focused on God/Christ...unambiguously, unequivocally and with all attendant reverence..."
Please support this with a scriptural citation. I don't believe you can. If you can't, can you admit that this is not a biblical rule?
Craig... "This is one more instance where Dan is comfortable dismissing thousands of years of Christian worship..."
This is another example of the guy who takes the Bible seriously but not literally asking the biblical literalist to support the position was something from the Bible and them not doing it. And then, them being surprised the Dan does not accept their human or their rules that they are making up out of thin air, and Dan prefers the biblical example and tradition.
I doubt he truly perused the links I provided. He's too invested in being right, much like the troll.
Art,
I suspect you're right. The problem is that it's personal now. He's claimed that the commune uses secular songs in worship, but now it's out that it's not worship of God. It's all about self help. Once you remove God (I'm using God as a shorthand for all three persons of the Trinity) from worship, then who cares what music you use. If you don't "praise Jesus" but rather focus on "the people", then it makes complete sense that you throw out music that's focused on praising and worshiping God and replace it with music that's focused on making "the people" feel better about themselves. Given the very definition of the word worship, it's safe to say that the gatherings at the commune literally are not worship. As I said, I have no reason to indulge his increasingly verbose descent into semantic niggles and off topic blather. It's a waste of my time. I've got two posts that I need to finish (one hit early and unfinished), and other things that are more important than arguing over his proof texts and having him dismiss anything that might go beyond the box he's trying to fill. I'm sure it's amusing to watch Dan all of a sudden pretending like He's taking scripture literally and how he's all of a sudden a huge fan of Paul. But as you pointed out, it's more about him imposing his box on us and winning, than about actually looking at scripture and trying to discern what God might want. If I have to err, I'm going to err on the side of thousands of years of Church history, instead of some random dude on the internet who's figured out that we're all wrong and his little commune down south has it all figured out.
I'll say this. If the OT is the foundational support for Christianity and if the OT points towards the fulfillment of God's plan for humanity, then it might be worthwhile to look at how God regarded worship in the OT. But that's just me.
He's claimed that the commune uses secular songs in worship, but now it's out that it's not worship of God. It's all about self help.
How long with you continue with this stupidly false lie?
ANYONE can see that I didn't say we don't worship God. I said, rather, that THE BIBLE says that the purpose of the church meetings was to edify the church members and so, with our songs, we seek to do that.
Is there something wrong with that?
Is there something in that that somehow FAILS to worship God? If we're meeting and teaching and fellowshipping together, is that NOT a way of worshiping and honoring God, by doing what edifies God's body?
How about talking about the arguments that I'm ACTUALLY making rather than making up stupidly false claims that anyone can see are false and misleading and slanderous?
Do you not care about the command to not bear false witness? Do you not care that slander is not part of the realm of God?
And, speaking of stupidly false claims, I have never said I'm not a fan of Paul. You can't find a quote from me where I've said anything like it because it's false and stupidly false. I'm a huge fan of Paul. But Paul is not my God. Doesn't mean I'm not a fan of his writings (or the writings credited to him).
I also didn't say we focus on music that makes people feel better about themselves. I said that which EDIFIES which is the biblical term for what should happen in church meetings. Sometimes, that edification takes the form of challenge, sometimes of comfort, sometimes of encouragement. And ALL of that is biblical and reasonable.
But go ahead, keep lying. See where slander and false witness gets you (hint: The biblical authors consistently tell you that it's not in God's realm... you'd think a biblical literalist would be concerned about the fires of hell he's courting by engaging in these stupidly false attacks.)
Art,
I just skimmed the mess over at the cesspool. I can’t believe you've gone to so much effort to satisfy the unsatisfiable constant barrage of ridiculous questions.
It’s amusing Dan seems obsessed with demonstrating that worship service isn’t a thing, while simultaneously trying to insist that what happens at the tiny southern commune is a worship service. Despite his acknowledgement that they don’t “praise Jesus” or do anything beyond self help and making people feel good. I’m not sure what you hope to accomplish, but have fun. It’s clear that he’s determined to control the conversation and isn’t above hijacking a thread far from its topic.
I can’t believe you've gone to so much effort to satisfy the unsatisfiable constant barrage of ridiculous questions.
Answering questions is how adults converse. Being ABLE to answer reasonable questions is how adults make their case. Dodging questions and making stupidly false claims and misrepresenting is how children and scoundrels avoid adult conversation and defend irrational positions.
And STILL, you can't support your hunches with biblical support. And STILL, you're not willing to admit you can't do this.
Dan,
You’ve literally never supported your hunches with Biblical support. The fact that you choose now to demand someone you’ve never provided and don’t usually care too much about, surely tells us something. As do your endless questions, the answers to which you regularly ignore or deny, which are just a different way to divert from the topic.
I'm saying that the term "worship service" is not biblical and there are no verses in the Bible that I'm aware of that describe NT church holding "worship services" described as "primarily for praising Jesus."
I am literally NOT AWARE of a single verse that talks of "worship services" as you describe them in the bible. Now, at this point, if a person knew of verses that supported their view of "worship services," what they would do would be to provide them.
I can't "prove" a non-existent Thing. The onus is on you to support its existence. I'm pointing to ALL the Bible and particular the verses dealing with NT church meetings and saying your terms/ideas don't show up anywhere.
On the other hand, I AM saying that the verses that speak of early church meetings say they met for the purpose of the edification of the believers, for teaching the believers, for fellowship of believers, for prayer and songs from the believers, but none of it describes "praise songs to Jesus." What we see are terms like found in Ephesians 4...
"So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers,
to equip his people for works of service,
so that the body of Christ may be built up
until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and
become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ."
What happens in those church meetings? The apostles and prophets preached and taught SO THAT the body of Christ can be built up. SO THAT we reach maturity in the faith.
No mention of singing praise songs to Jesus.
Again, I don't have a problem with people who find it meaningful for them to "worship" to sing praise songs to Jesus, but i'm just saying it's not specified as a requirement in the NT church, not in the bible.
Or, another instance of a brief description of a church meeting, from Acts 14...
"On arriving there, they gathered the church together and
reported all that God had done through them and
how he had opened a door of faith to the Gentiles."
And again, in Acts 15...
"So the men were sent off and went down to Antioch, where they gathered the church together and delivered the letter. 31 The people read it and were glad for its encouraging message. 32 Judas and Silas, who themselves were prophets, said much to encourage and strengthen the believers."
They shared about what happened in Paul's trips. They shared the contents of a letter with an encouraging message for the believers. No mention of "praising Jesus."
Cont'd...
Or, from 1 Cor 14...
"Since you are eager for gifts of the Spirit, try to excel in those that build up the church. ...
You are giving thanks well enough, but no one else is edified.
I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you.
But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words
to instruct others
than ten thousand words in a tongue. ...
What then shall we say, brothers and sisters?
When you come together,
EACH of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation.
Everything must be done
SO THAT the church may be built up."
Why were the teachings and revelations offered? To praise Jesus? No, but SO THAT the church may be built up.
Now again, I'm not saying I have a problem with "praising Jesus," just noting that there is nothing in the descriptions of the early church meetings that says THAT is the primary purpose of those meetings. Rather, the more typical reason for the meetings was SO THAT the church (the believers who were meeting) may be built up, encouraged, strengthened, engage in fellowship, have news shared with them.
Maybe it's the case that, like me, you think the edification of the church (the body of Christ) IS a way of praising Jesus, that fellowship and unity DO serve to praise Jesus... you tell me. But it sounds like you're talking more about the "love songs for Jesus" style of "worship." You tell me.
I could go on more, but if you're familiar with the Bible, then surely you are aware of the various descriptions of the early church.
So, I'm left with two guesses as to what's happening with you...
1. You are well aware that "worship services" for the "primary purpose of praising Jesus" is never described in the bible and you're just trolling; or...
2. You have been so caught up in your human traditions that you are having some cognitive dissonance... you're unable to find A SINGLE verse that supports what you truly believed was what happened in the early church and yet, you can't NOT assume it's there, somehow, somewhere... and in your inability to support your traditions with biblical support, you are opting for attacks and false claims and slander and twisting of what I've said to dodge the question so you don't have to face that you can't support your traditions.
This is not some weird "revelation" that I'm claiming to have. It's found in plenty of traditional conservative websites where they're just reporting what the Bible does and doesn't say.
"Most Christians assume that the purpose of church meetings is to worship God. That assumption is understandable when we consider that most churches refer to their meetings as "worship services." It is important to note, however, that
the New Testament
never speaks of a worship service..."
http://www.solidrock.net/library/anderson/essays/discovering.the.purpose.of.church.meetings.php
"No where in the New Testament are church activities such as singing, praying, observing the Lord's Supper, or preaching explicitly described as "worship...
All church meeting actions and activities should be done for the purpose of edification."
https://chasingalion.com/a/1082-what-does-the-bible-say-about-church-meetings
"I believe that Scripture clearly points out that the church should assemble (whenever believers get together)
for the purpose of “mutual edification.”
https://www.biblestudytools.com/blogs/alan-knox/mutual-edification-and-the-church-principle.html
For example. I'm just pointing out how the NT describes the early church meetings.
3 more comments trying to argue a position that I’m really completely uninterested it. You all of a sudden deciding that a google search of proof texts will be effective after years of not accepting scripture as authoritative. It’s almost like your just looking for rulings or something.
And STILL the dodge, the non-answer, the obfuscation and NOT ONE SINGLE BIBLE VERSE to defend your positions. This is, of course, because you can't because there are literally no bible verses that say what you have suggested.
As to "proof texts" and "not accepting Scripture as authoritative, just more lies.
I do NOT treat the Bible like a rulings book - the ONE source for authoritative answers, by finding a verses/verses that suggest something to someone. However, when I'm making a point like, "Worship services where the 'main focus' is 'praising Jesus' are not found in the Bible," in THAT case, I'm just pointing out what is and isn't in the Bible. I sometimes do that when biblical literalists make a claim about a ruling (like, "Songs in church should praise Jesus"), I ask them WHERE it says that, because I don't see it.
Thus, me referencing my pretty familiar knowledge of the early church (always one of my favorite topics in the Bible to read up on), is not "proof texting," it's me asking a very reasonable question (WHERE in the Bible does it give you these rulings? WHERE in the Bible are "worship services" as you describe them found?), it's me pointing out what I see and letting you know that I don't think it's in there, what you claim.
And that's where we sit. The guy who takes the Bible seriously asking the people who say they take it literally to support their claims or clarify that they recognize that these are just their opinions, not biblical rulings.
Dan,
What part of “I’m done with your off topic”, ridiculous (once you started in with “worship service isn’t in the Bible.”), it became clear that you were more interested in trying to salvage your position after your don’t “praise Jesus”, admission.
What you want to portray as cowardly, or negative, is simply me saying that I’m bored with a conversation about Christian worship with someone who doesn’t “praise Jesus”. It’s a pointless conversation. You’re trying to dress up a 12 step, Oprah/Dr Phil self improvement hour as something it’s not. You’ve abandoned any pretense of staying on the topic, from what little I scan when I publish your comments, your just proof texting frantically as if anyone is going to take you quoting scripture seriously.
I’ll give you a couple of hints though.
1. In your favorite proof text passage, Jesus was participating in a worship service.
2. Acts contains multiple instances of believers gathering for worship.
3. Pliny the Younger described Christians gathering to worship together.
Arguing that the concept of Christians gathering to worship God on a regular basis isn’t Biblical is just silly. Arguing that a specific English term isn’t used is playing semantic games. Either way, I’m not investing time in something you’re going to either ignore, misrepresent, or deny the existence of. If it makes you feel good about yourself (like your commune gatherings), go for it.
All I’m asking is that you don’t continue to lie about why I’m not playing your games.
You don't want to talk about your unsupported claims about the Bible? Fine, then at least admit your unsupported claims about my words. Have the human decency to admit you misspoke (several times) and made false and slanderous claims about my position, twisting my words to claim something I didn't say. Can you be mature enough to do that much?
1. YOU claim (falsely) that I "don't praise Jesus." I never said that and of course, I do. It is a false claim and a stupidly false claim, as anyone can see in my words that I didn't say that. Rather, you are twisting what I HAVE said (that the Bible doesn't portray church meetings as "worship services" and doesn't suggest/require that songs be strictly to "praise Jesus."
Can you admit that this is a false claim and apologize for that slander?
Come on, mistakes happen and you've made one.
2. You false claim that I'm trying portray our church meetings as a place where we "dress up a 12 Step Oprah/Dr Phil self improvement hour," and this is a stupidly false claim. I never said that and it's not what our church services are like. It is a vicious attack upon people you don't know based on a false representation of what I've never said.
Can you admit that this is a false claim and apologize for that slander?
3. You keep stupidly raving about "proof texting," as if it's something I've done. I haven't. It's a stupidly false claim. I've spent decades now reading about the early church and when someone like YOU makes false claims about what the church services were like, I cite the texts in question to demonstrate why I don't view them to be best described as "worship services" and point to the ACTUAL WORDS of the Bible to show they were church gatherings for the fellowship and edification of the body of Christ.
Me pointing to the texts in questions is not "proof texting."
Can you admit that this is a false claim and apologize for that slander?
4. Likewise, me pointing out the REALITY that the early church meetings were described as meetings and gatherings, not as worship services using EITHER THAT TERM or any other phrases is not playing a semantic game. Me asking you if you HAVE verses that you think argue in favor of calling them "worship services" is a question, not playing semantic games.
YOU opting to not support your unsupported claim and instead, acting like I'm saying something outrageous, might be called obfuscation and a semantic game, but not why I've done.
Can you admit that this is a false claim and apologize for that slander?
It IS cowardly to make false claims and refuse to acknowledge your false claims and instead, doubling down on the BS slander... what else could it be called but, at the very least, intellectual cowardice?
Can you admit that this is a false claim and apologize for that slander?
Seriously, bub, I worry about you. You seem to be going off the deep end. You keep spewing these vile BS attacks from your lips to God's ears and I wouldn't want that excrement on EITHER of those places.
Come on, if you can't act like a Christian, then at least act like an honorable human and admit you've misspoken and made some false claims.
Dan,
I’m not reading your off topic comments for the reasons I’ve outlined above. I’m posting your comments because that’s who I am.
You're bearing false witness and slander because that's who you're choosing to be.
Dan,
Just in case you’ve misunderstood. When I refer to your community as a commune, or your gatherings as self help/Oprah/Dr Phil episodes or the like, I’m merely using exaggeration/sarcasm to point out the difference between what y’all do and what most consider worship. I’m sure you’ve worked your panties into a wad and have probably pulled out the “slander” trope by now. Just chill out, accept the reality, and stop trying to prove something that probably can’t be proven.
I guess I’m choosing to be prophetic. I posted the last comment before I saw your short BS comment.
Dan does far more "slandering" than either of us, do. His representations of conservatives in general, Trump in particular and traditional Christians are rarely representative of reality.
Post a Comment