Oz Fox and the Highway to Hell

[zak89]

Excellent point Brent, but wouldn't you agree that for a band that *is* at least trying to have a Christian influence and to be used by God (however few of those there may be), it should at least require a second thought before covering music by secular bands? I'd concede that it's not always that black and white - not all secular songs are actually "bad"; I've heard a few that actually have a worthwhile message. My point was concerning bands made of true believers - IMHO such a band has some obligation to put out a Christian message - at least I'm not aware of many groups that don't have a Christian message AND that don't end up promoting ungodly ideas or ideals. I mean, how can you write a full album's worth of songs and never go one way or the other as far as Christian morality goes? I suspect such lyrics would get mighty boring pretty quick.

Back to my point, if a - again, for clarity - "band made of true Christians" is promoting a Christian message, than a departure from that to cover songs by (generally) ungodly musicians seems like a bad witness to me. But I admit, this area is quite confusing, because one has to consider the fact that it is a business, there is a product, a marketplace, etc etc. Again, I just can't easily get around the fact that modern music is not quite "neutral" - these songs actually say something, and I can't reconcile Christians "saying" something they don't (or shouldn't) believe in.

Just my $0.002

[CatNamedManny]

This is really a topic I've thought a lot about, and I'm still somewhat conflicted on.

I was big into secular music most of my teenage life to about a year ago. Metallica, Megadeth, Iced Earth, Godsmack, Disturbed, Avenged Sevenfold, you name it... If it was heavy, I probably liked and/or owned it at one point. And I was certain that it was OK to listen to this stuff because I could separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak. So, sure, Metallica had a song called "The God That Failed," and sure, that song was about James Hetfield's anger at the Christian Scientist culture in which he was raised, so it was fine. "Leper Messiah" was about greedy televangelists, so it was fine, too. I could go on. I knew all the loopholes about why it was OK to listen to bands who swore in their music, sang principally about violence, death, selfishness, ego gratification, sex, etc. If they weren't promoting Satan, I could listen to it. They're singing about life, man!

I recognize, too, the argument that things aren't so black-and-white. I've used it often, in a wide variety of contexts. In fact, I still use it because in many cases, it's true. It's no surprise that I'm politically progressive, and that kind of goes hand in hand with that belief. But on this topic, sure, there's a small minority of bands where it isn't black and white. U2, Evanescence, bands like that. Where Christians make up large portions of the membership, their lyrics contain positive spiritual messages, but they aren't overtly Christian and they're marketed to secular audiences. In these small cases, I think you make your own decisions in accordance with where God is leading you.

At any rate, God woke me up to the delusion I was accepting. I sold all my secular music (except Weird Al, ), and I listen only to "Christian" music now. What is Christian music? It's music played by bands who are unabashedly Christian. I don't have a "Jesus count" that I hold songs to. I don't require that the songs necessarily be positive all the time; that would be inconsistent with the Bible itself (Esther never uses the word "God," and the Psalms are anything but universally uplifting). I also don't require that the bands be on Christian labels or marketed only to Christian radio or only tour with other Christian bands. We are not to live in a bubble; in the world, not of it, etc. I don't require they live perfect lifestyles. God's word doesn't go out void. If I find a band's members cuss like sailors (P.O.D.) or have embraced the sex-and-drug lifestyle of the world (Stryper), that doesn't change the meaning of the words they wrote. It doesn't change how I apply those words to my life. Everyone has their own struggles; I certainly have mine. In that sense, I agree, it's not entirely black and white.

All that to say, in my own life, I've seen the difference. My secular music was a big reason why I had close to zero relationship with God (there were other, bigger issues, too, but this was right up there). Now that it's gone, I can tell the difference. My thought life is a thousand percent better. Almost immediately, profanity dropped off my radar screen (it always seemed to be the first choice in my mind, even if I rarely let it out of my mouth). My desire to worship exploded.

Now, I'm sure there are others who would say, "That's great for you, but I can handle listening to secular music better than you could." And you might be right. But that's exactly what I said to my friends who made the same choice years ago. I only wish I had followed their lead sooner. Suffice it to say, I find it incredibly difficult to believe that God has a different standard for some of his children than for others when the subject is the messages they're putting into their brain.

I'll summarize all that this way: Before, I had to do a lot of rationalizing to explain away what I was listening to in light of Philippians 4:8. Now, I don't have to. That seems pretty good to me.

[bakersfieldpethead]

Before, I had to do a lot of rationalizing to explain away what I was listening to in light of Philippians 4:8. Now, I don't have to. That seems pretty good to me.

It was the same way with me. I no longer felt a need to defend myself to others, or to myself, and it was like a big stress was lifted off of me.

However, my issue wasn’t a lot of those bands, my issues was U2, The Beatles, The Beach Boys and sometimes Guns N Roses. It is important that we understand the lifestyle of the people we listen to. Music is a powerful tool that has been used both by God and Satan and it is a tool to reach inside our hearts, and it either brings forth praise to God or it can bring forth sin in some form. Our eyes and ears are windows into our souls and we can’t just allow anything to come in.

[brent]

Music is music. The words you put with the music should not be hyper niched categorized IMO. There is rock MUSIC. The lyrics are not categorized. The music is. All music should be lumped into genres. The subject matter cannot be subdivided. There just are too many topics and interpretations of lyrics to do that.

Now, if someone sings about God, that doesn't make them Christian. If someone doesn't sing about God, that doesn't mean they aren't.

[bakersfieldpethead]

That’s your opinion brent. Other people have other experiences. Music is not just Music. Music has brought up emotions in people making them Laugh, Cry, want to Dance, Feel proud about their Country, etc….There is a certain power that Music has. Classical Music (no words) has brought forth emotions in people for centuries.

“Christian” Music or “Gospel” Music has been around and been categorized long before you’ve argued your points about it. Everything was called “Gospel” Music up until the 1970s, then you had “Gospel Music” and “Jesus Music” then in the 80s, Brock Speer of the Speer Family coined the name “Southern Gospel” to make the distinction from “Black Gospel”, “Southern Gospel” and “Country Gospel”. “Contemporary Christian Music” was the marketing category that was born out of “Jesus Music” out of CCM came forth “Inspirational”, “Christian Rock”, “Christian Pop” and “Christian Country” which was a little more contemporary than “Country Gospel”. If what you say is true than none of these categories should have ever existed. Albeit it was identified this way to sale the music, it has been perceived by the general audience that this is how it is. People go to a “Christian Book Store” and buy “Christian Music”.

[CatNamedManny]

Music is music. The words you put with the music should not be hyper niched categorized IMO. There is rock MUSIC. The lyrics are not categorized. The music is. All music should be lumped into genres. The subject matter cannot be subdivided. There just are too many topics and interpretations of lyrics to do that.

Now, if someone sings about God, that doesn't make them Christian. If someone doesn't sing about God, that doesn't mean they aren't.

There is the technical split between music and lyrics. "I like the music, but the lyrics are awful." But there is the fact that when we refer to "music" in general, we are referring to the body of work, lyrics included. I agree that music on its own can be neither inherently good nor inherently bad, and its effects will vary from listener to listener. But music in the broader sense can indeed be categorized roughly into Christian and secular, and I believe there are a very few ambiguous cases along that boundary. For some people, myself included, this categorization is an integral part of our personal walks with God.

To bring it out of the Christian/secular argument and into another realm: Is the argument that there are no pro-war or anti-war songs, just songs sung by pro-war and anti-war people? I think the lyrics are a crucial factor in how people categorize the music they like.

[zak89]

I'll summarize all that this way: Before, I had to do a lot of rationalizing to explain away what I was listening to in light of Philippians 4:8. Now, I don't have to. That seems pretty good to me.

You summarize a lot better than I do. Well said.

[bakersfieldpethead]

You do have to look at the Spiritual side of things as well. Spirits and Demons are still real today, although no one wants to think about that. And if someone who is in some deep evil spiritual things is recording music, no doubt they are inviting Satan into what they do and you can’t just dismiss that for “out of sight, out of mind” reasoning.

I’ve worked with Engineers and Musicians who are unbelievers and they would respect us for praying when we felt something bad in the studio, we’ve heard of experiences of things that couldn’t be explained from artists who were in some pretty deep dark stuff. The problem is, there are those who are involved that know all about it, but there are a lot of people who don’t want to give it up that dismiss it and they want to look the other way, I know the arguments, I’ve made them all myself.

But the fact is, Christ said that you can not serve two masters (That’s Black and White), He said You are either for Me or Against Me (Black & White), and if you are not serving God, you are serving Satan, therefore Satan would be present wherever God is not invited and that goes in everything including the music we listen to.

[brent]

1. Woah. Where did you get serving two masters? How does that relate to a Christian playing the music of his/her preference?
Are you saying that Oz and Stryper are serving two masters by doing a covers record?
2. Music does not have to include lyrics. Songs do not need to have accompaniment. It is my opinion that there should not be a category as "Christian" music any more than there were categories like "colored music". Yes, music used to be grouped by nationality as well as performance. What I am saying is that if Christian music is piled into it's own little bitty section at Walmart, people are less likely to listen to it, if they have not been exposed to it. If they see something that looks like and sounds like another CD they might like, maybe the whole evangelism thing can work. But if it is packages as by Christians for Christians, then the world may not take a listen to it. That's the point. Crap. There was a time in the 80s that secular people knew who Petra was and listened to it, even though Petra was a Christian band. Petra used to advertise on secular stations. Petra was in secular magazines. What if they had only wished to service the church, the very organization that puked on them from the get go?
3. I see it all as an entertainment business with ministerial properties. Music is just artful (hopefully) communication. We ALL provide artful communication daily. While people are mesmerized by bands on a stage, there is nothing different from what bands do and what we do when we expose our lifestyles to people. Are we only exposing ourselves to a Christian audience with Christian lingo and church talk? Good Lord I am not. That is living in a bubble.
4. If Christians want to be cut off from the world with their own entertainment, fine. That is their choice and there is certainly no shortage of self serving material. But I don't like it. I don't buy it, and it gives me the creeps.
5. Stryper is not a Christian band and never has claimed to be one. They are Christians who play in a band. I like that. That allows them to do things that do not fit our narrow minded and sometimes bigoted mindsets. I like the fact that Stryper can get airplay and secular radio and TV, where as Petra cannot. I just wish that the Stryper guys had lived a little closer to what the Petra guys were able to live out.

[CatNamedManny]

2. ... What I am saying is that if Christian music is piled into it's own little bitty section at Walmart, people are less likely to listen to it, if they have not been exposed to it. If they see something that looks like and sounds like another CD they might like, maybe the whole evangelism thing can work. But if it is packages as by Christians for Christians, then the world may not take a listen to it. That's the point. Crap. There was a time in the 80s that secular people knew who Petra was and listened to it, even though Petra was a Christian band. Petra used to advertise on secular stations. Petra was in secular magazines. What if they had only wished to service the church, the very organization that puked on them from the get go?

Is anyone arguing otherwise here? I don't think anyone said anything about advertising on secular radio, in secular magazines, etc. Well, I didn't anyway. I think that's all great. I'm saying for me, as a Christian, I make the distinction because it's important to me, and I think it's important to God, that I do.

4. If Christians want to be cut off from the world with their own entertainment, fine. That is their choice and there is certainly no shortage of self serving material. But I don't like it. I don't buy it, and it gives me the creeps.

I'm not sure if this is targeted at people who only play for Christian audiences or people who only buy from Christian musicians. I think I've expressed my opinion on the latter clearly enough at this point to simply say that if another Christian trying to "think on these things" gives you the creeps, then that's really not my problem. If that's not what you were referring to, my apologies.

5. Stryper is not a Christian band and never has claimed to be one. They are Christians who play in a band. I like that. That allows them to do things that do not fit our narrow minded and sometimes bigoted mindsets. I like the fact that Stryper can get airplay and secular radio and TV, where as Petra cannot. I just wish that the Stryper guys had lived a little closer to what the Petra guys were able to live out.

Stryper got some secular airplay back in the day. So what? They were, and still are, perceived as a Christian band. They certainly don't get any secular airplay now. None of those bands do. But Christian bands (not "Christians in a band") like Demon Hunter, P.O.D. and Project 86 have gotten quite a bit of secular airplay, this despite being on a record label that caters primarily to Christian artists. The "Christian band" versus "Christians in a band" thing is a distinction without a difference, something created by artists trying to get away from the secular stigma placed on "Christian music." I can understand that, but I think it's pretty silly. As if some radio exec ever said, "Ohh, they're only Christians in a band. Well, sure, we'll play 'em now!"

[separateunion]

The "Christian band" versus "Christians in a band" thing is a distinction without a difference, something created by artists trying to get away from the secular stigma placed on "Christian music." I can understand that, but I think it's pretty silly. As if some radio exec ever said, "Ohh, they're only Christians in a band. Well, sure, we'll play 'em now!"

A band cannot be Christian. Music cannot be Christian. Christian means "follower of Christ". A band (as an organization) cannot follow Christ. Music cannot follow Christ. The individual members of a band can follow Christ. I think the proper terminology would be "Christian themed band" or "Christian themed music".

Several bands have gotten good mainstream radio airplay by calling themselves "Christians in a band". Switchfoot, Flyleaf and Paramore quickly come to mind. Most of the bands you've listed, such as Demon Hunter and Project 86, don't really refer to themselves as Christian bands, and besides, they're on Tooth and Nail (or a subsidiary), a label known for signing ambiguously Christian and non-Christian bands. Christians are taking over the hardcore music scene, and they sure aren't doing it by referring to their band as a "Christian" band.

[bakersfieldpethead]

If someone is truly following Christ then why in this World would they want to hide it? If Christ said that if He is in us then the World will not accept us, why are we trying to get the World to accept us? It's not going to happen, the World is not getting saved by bands who are singing Love songs, they are not getting saved by those singing about Life. No one comes to Christ lest the Spirit Draws them. And I'm talking about truly coming to Christ, Life changing, being someone completly different from the person you were type of coming to Christ.

Christ will use those who seek him in what they do. But if someone sits there and says, I don't want to sing about Christ because I don't want to scare away the fan base, then they are doing it for their own personal gain and therefore is rejecting God in what they are doing. Christ didn't say go forth and entertain the world, he said go forth and preach the Gospel.

I talked about Demon Hunter and Staple, but I didn't say I listen to those bands these days now did I. There was a time I was listening to them but I've been turned off to them. I tossed my Blindside DVD when I heard them cussing in a clip of them back stage. I don't want that in my life.

[Jonathan]

If a certain song causes me to stumble, or think or celebrate unclean thoughts, I punt it. Regardless of the intent of the band, for evil or for good. I don't know where I'd land about demons supposedly being attached to a recording, but I think being proactive like that helps in the renewing of my mind, and taking captive every thought. It's not boasting or being contrary, it's just a testimony of a practical course of action that has helped me spiritually.

I said "I" a lot.

[brent]

First of all, lets lock down this conversation to specifics, because it is going all over the place. The OP was talking about Oz, and maybe Stryper, as they have released a secular covers CD.

1. Stryper's past speaks for itself. It is a FACT that Stryper has REFUSED to sign with Christian labels, REFUSED the title "Christian band" because of the attached limitations, and even devoted a whole album and tour to showcase Stryper's rebellion.
2. Stryper was made up of newly converted party animals that reverted to live that lifestyle.
3. They were shallow. There was no meat in their music. It was entertainment.
4. They mixed topics. Some of the songs dropped the J word and told some truths. Some songs were horizontal love songs. There was nothing wrong with that. God made us. God made love. Love songs are scriptural.
5. They have selectively chosen when to call themselves Christian.

Is Oz a Christian? He has chosen to do covers. I think God's grace is large enough to cover that. Nothing can pluck us out of God's hand. God can deal with us when we do something that other people do not like. Is it for me to determine? Hardly.

As for me...
I could never write or sing about anything other than what is in my heart and mind. I can't do it. I have tried. I have a burden for specific people in specific situations, people who have been abused in church, by church and have maybe walked away. I like to show that there are other ways of thinking other than our pop-church-i-fied-culture thoughts. No matter what I do, lyrics come out addressing my calling. So, I cannot relate to anyone doing covers.

Personally, I think doing covers is a no win situation and it sucks. It's one thing to tip the hat out of reverence. It is another thing to lack originality. Either way, I never want to be a living juke box band. From a musician's point of view, it's hard to decide whether to put a new spin on a tune and hack people off, or play it note for note and be compared to the original artists. It's a hard call.

As for the comment that against me, because I do not like some of the sappy Christian entertainment...I would pay more attention if it was real world and had less cheese. So much of it is unrealistic. It presents a perfect dreamworld. Sometimes it is watered down and bland. Often, as the well versed Tod Agnew points out, this music makes liars out of people. It is not REAL. Some of it is unscriptural. I like music that is real. How dare you judge me and think that I do not "think on these things". I do...daily. It doesn't mean that I must sing about them in a way that you agree with. There is more than one way to say something and different people need to hear it different ways to relate to it.

There are some Christian musicians making an impact on people's lives, living out their faith, working out their salvation, in front of their piers. That is scriptural. Some of these people are not the voice of their band. Some of them are. For me, I must say it like it is. I cannot waste the chance. We all have different giftings and callings. To say that some musician MUST say certain things a certain way and MUST perform "Christian" music that fits your formula is absurd.

Go didn't make any of us the same. We all have different preferences. All of us were approached by the Holy Spirit in different ways, under different circumstances. All of us have different spiritual, emotional and physical requirements. The bible says that our understanding is about as clear as a reflection in a dirty pond. I bet God can use some band like Stryper if he wanted to, even if they play covers.

[brent]

If a certain song causes me to stumble, or think or celebrate unclean thoughts, I punt it. Regardless of the intent of the band, for evil or for good. I don't know where I'd land about demons supposedly being attached to a recording, but I think being proactive like that helps in the renewing of my mind, and taking captive every thought. It's not boasting or being contrary, it's just a testimony of a practical course of action that has helped me spiritually.

I said "I" a lot.

I hear ya. In the morning rush I listen to secular radio because the Christian stations are gay. The talk/banter is boring, forced and mindless. Plus I need traffic reports and reliable weather forecasts. The music makes me sick. Being where I am and doing what I do, I get to meet a bunch of the hard modern rock bands on the charts. Most of them only care about sex, drugs, etc. They aren't even good musicians in some cases. All their music sounds the same, and says the same thing. It does one thing well. It is indicative of their spiritual death and mental state. It is a look into their souls, which I find sad, sickening and boring.