• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Not true worship

Goat Rodeo Cowboy said:


Are you talking about (1) immams, (2) imams or (3) imans?

After chiding the other poster for bringing politics to the board... it appears you have decided to bring politics to the board.

The total hysteria in forums of all kinds today is a political issue over those folks who carry out political activities and terrorism and wrap themselves in the banner or flag or costume of the Islamic faith. But what these people are doing is not religious. It is political. So why do you bring them up here?



Maybe because they are against CCM music? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Just trying to make a point that YOUR politics isn't the same as MY politics and - nobody on here wants to hear either viewpoint. Politics is irrelevant to radio discussion.

I don't know what they call themselves - I am proudly Islam-agnostic.

Yes - CCM would have been an excellent choice at Gitmo - I would have gladly volunteered as DJ!
 
rbrucecarter5 said:
I think it would be wise to leave politics OFF of the board.
Click to expand...

That makes sense. When you think about it, the two most important things in life are the operation of society to feed, house, and clothe the people, and otherwise facilitate the operation of society to meet the needs of all people. The administration of such endeavours are all politics. The other thing is preparing for an eventual eternal after-life, is such a thing exists. If there is a heaven and a hell, determining what one must do or believe to spend eternity in the former instead of the latter is supremely important. And that determination is the province of religion.

So naturally, the two things that should never, ever be discussed are religion or politics.
 
rbrucecarter5 said:
I don't know what they call themselves - I am proudly Islam-agnostic.
Click to expand...

As i look at the title of the thread, and then read through the posts, we appear to be having a discussion about what kind of "Christian Music" should NOT be heard on the radio, and what kind SHOULD be heard.

I have followed such threads for years, usually choosing to stand in the background and just watch the parade go by. So it appears we are actually having a religious discussion... not a political discussion. And if you go back a re-read what I posted, I wasn't talking about politics, I was talking about religions. And how YOUR religion and how MY religion should probably view the issue of how we relate to (religious) Muslims and how we relate to (political) Muslims.

I'm going to use a word that is normally used in an insulting way and that is not what I am trying to accomplish. It may come across as a harsh word, but it simply fits right into what you wrote. You say you are proudly Islam agnostic, but it might be more accurate to say you are proudly Islam ignorant. If you don't know what they call themselves, how can you know who they are, what they teach, what they stand for.

Christians, Jews and Muslims lived together more or less peacefully for hundreds of years in the Ottoman Empire. The worked together, they traded together, that socialized together in Middle Easter villages.

You often post that it is essential that certain kinds of music MUST be part of Christian radio because only that music can reach young people. By that, I assume you mean "our kind of young people". But I never read where you suggest there might be a kind of music that Christian radio could play that would reach people who are descendents of an Islamic heritage. Is that a lesser calling than the need to "round up our own kind" and make sure they choose to participate in the faith system that you follow? Tell me where we get this idea that we cannot and should not share the message that Christian radio proclaims.... with people who have a brown skin pigment that is darker than we who are of Western European descent.

So.... what is the purpose of Christian radio as you see the genre?
 
Goat Rodeo Cowboy said:


As i look at the title of the thread, and then read through the posts, we appear to be having a discussion about what kind of "Christian Music" should NOT be heard on the radio, and what kind SHOULD be heard.

I have followed such threads for years, usually choosing to stand in the background and just watch the parade go by. So it appears we are actually having a religious discussion... not a political discussion. And if you go back a re-read what I posted, I wasn't talking about politics, I was talking about religions. And how YOUR religion and how MY religion should probably view the issue of how we relate to (religious) Muslims and how we relate to (political) Muslims.

I'm going to use a word that is normally used in an insulting way and that is not what I am trying to accomplish. It may come across as a harsh word, but it simply fits right into what you wrote. You say you are proudly Islam agnostic, but it might be more accurate to say you are proudly Islam ignorant. If you don't know what they call themselves, how can you know who they are, what they teach, what they stand for.

Christians, Jews and Muslims lived together more or less peacefully for hundreds of years in the Ottoman Empire. The worked together, they traded together, that socialized together in Middle Easter villages.

You often post that it is essential that certain kinds of music MUST be part of Christian radio because only that music can reach young people. By that, I assume you mean "our kind of young people". But I never read where you suggest there might be a kind of music that Christian radio could play that would reach people who are descendents of an Islamic heritage. Is that a lesser calling than the need to "round up our own kind" and make sure they choose to participate in the faith system that you follow? Tell me where we get this idea that we cannot and should not share the message that Christian radio proclaims.... with people who have a brown skin pigment that is darker than we who are of Western European descent.

So.... what is the purpose of Christian radio as you see the genre?
Click to expand...

You are right about how the thread started. Those who personally do not like CCM get on here and make "pronouncements from on high" that some forms of music are not true worship. Contemptible is the only word I have for them. Who are they to judge what goes on in my heart, or how the Lord responds to my worship experience? I personally think it is a bit blasphemous to make such broad pronouncements about what type of music I ought to be broadcasting.

You are also correct in your assessment of the demographic I am attempting to reach. I care more about reaching young people than I do soccer moms. As for reaching young people of Islamic heritage - youth worldwide seem to be pretty much the same. They want to have fun, socialize with their age group, and as a whole are not interested in authority that comes down from older generations. Hence - being a young person in an Islamic country is a dangerous thing, because you are likely to cross some doddering old fool that thinks they have their god's revelation to pronounce to the world. If I were a free thinker in any Islamic nation, I would be walking over mountains (as two former Moslems I know did) to escape the Islamo-facism.

I know just enough about Islam to know they worship a false god (the moon god of the Babylonians - hence the moons on the top of mosques), they worship a false prophet because he knee didn't bow or his tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, but he did have a penchant for pedophilia. And because it is not a Christ centered religion, it offers no chance whatsoever of salvation, so its followers live a very moral, but devoid of hope, life. That is a hard thing. My heart goes out to them. But nothing stops them from tuning their radio to what Christian broadcasts are available, and since people are pretty much people worldwide - whatever works in one nation has a chance of working - format wise - in another. Radio preachers don't get ratings here, and that is all they can get on shortwave, so probably Christian radio has low ratings in Islamic countries and therefore limited effectiveness. Not because they are necessarily brainwashed, but because if its boring here in America, it will be boring to them. Christian radio needs to do a better job of making its programming compelling, or it risks being irrelevant to the very people that need it most.
 
rbrucecarter5 said:
Not because they are necessarily brainwashed, but because if its boring here in America, it will be boring to them. Christian radio needs to do a better job of making its programming compelling, or it risks being irrelevant to the very people that need it most.
Click to expand...

My compliments to you for composing a very good response to what has become (and is) a rather terse conversation.

This doesn't really fit the thread, but is an observation that does fit the overall conversation that often runs "out of bounds". There is a lot of talk in the news today about young people in this country becoming "self radicalized" and getting this youthful obsession about leaving the country to join some groups in the Middle East wiith behaviors that scare us.... that threaten us.

Self radicalized. At first if sounded like a newly coined term... and maybe it is. But after a couple of years of letting the words 'self radicalized" bounce around in my head it finally dawned on me. Though we didn't use that terminology, I have vivid memories of 50 and 60 years ago when many of us became wrapped up in the Fundamentalist cause as we reacted to something that was a new terminology to us at the time: Liberal Christianity. And we became self radicalized Christian Fundamentalists. Maybe some of us who "recovered" have a little more understanding and sympathy for youth of today who get "self radicalized" into a politics mixed with a religion of a Middle Eastern flavor.

And yes, for some young people, MUSIC is a large factor and influence. But always keep in mind... a significant part of the population is NOT music centric... some of us are legally "tone deaf" when it comes to music. Maybe you have decided that the "tone deaf" are not part of your goal, your mission, but do try to be a bit more cordial with those of us who focus on other elements of life more than we focus on music. What is your plan for communicating with youth who, when they grow up, will be fans of the news version of National Public Radio?
 
There are usually one or two religious talk stations, I suppose they fill that need. Most of them are on AM.

Here in my metro there are at least three of them, one of them half religious talk, half conservative talk.

My guess is eventually they will migrate to FM as FM vacates (maybe 50 years from now?), or they will just go online.

As for religious radio (talk and otherwise) converting anyone, I think religious TV probably draws more converts. The radio stations are pretty much preaching to / teaching / entertaining (the music stations) the choir.
 
rbrucecarter5 said:
I think it would be wise to leave politics OFF of the board. Based on your comments, mine probably differ from your own. Incidentally, I am presently having the same problem with "the other guys" haranguing me for donations and to become and activist - because of one positive thing I said to them on social media.

It is a problem - to run a church or a radio station takes money. So you have to make the need for money known to your members / listeners. Where I think it crosses the line is when they try guilt trip members into a specified amount - usually 10%. They justify it because the Bible specifies "bring tithes into the storehouse". They need to read that passage again. It is plural. The actual amount specified is 23 1/3 percent when you do the accounting. They know that would be too hard of a sell to a present day flock.

I am convinced enough of the good intentions of some, maybe most on-air ministries. The government has been pretty good about getting the frauds for false advertising, tax evasion and the like. The best advice I give people is to look at the financial statements of a ministry, which they are required by law to make public, to make sure anything you contribute is used properly. And make sure you designate where the money is to go, and they are required by law to earmark it for that specific cause.

Some of these phonies have given on-air ministry a bad name, some of the ones from yesteryear are absolutely hilarious! I recall one preacher on a border blaster purporting to raise people from the dead live on air. Of course it was radio with no video. I would be happy to witness it - a worthy person resurrected in full view of cameras with medical doctors doing a "before" and "after" examination. Somehow I don't think there will be any takers.
Click to expand...

I agree with much of your assessment here. The whole tithe thing -- the notion of a preacher or church 'guilting' people into giving money, even if they can't afford to. They always have to refer to the OT, because the NT nowhere mentions tithing as a mandatory principle. Tithing is part of the OT law. NT teaching is to give, and if you can't afford to give, then others should be giving to you. Then someday they may be in need, and it's your turn to give to them.

There is an old adage coined by Lord Acton that applies here: "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

A lot of ministers just let the power that they hold over their parishioners go to their head. I have a friend who went to a church where the minister said he would not have the church pray for anyone to get a job, if they weren't tithing. I'm sure he pulled out the same verse from Malachi that they all pull out. Trying to guilt people. Doing the exact wrong thing in my view, of course, but in his own mind -- and apparently in the minds of many -- he was in line with the Bible.

As far as radio goes, I think the radio preachers, for the most part, are more easy going about it than most of the TV preachers I've seen (but I don't watch much TV, much less religious TV, so I may have an insufficient view of it).

When the radio preachers I've heard ask for money, it's to cover the costs. I've heard a few mention tithing -- mostly preachers on the SW band -- but most of the ones I've heard on the AM band just ask for whatever you can give.

After all, the radio stations themselves charge money for airtime. They can't afford to give it away for free. There's no free lunch, even in religious media. Electricity, staff time, etc. all costs money.
 
I've tried to stay out of this discussion, but my efforts are about to fail.

A couple of things, all of which are limited to the Christian church. I don't know enough about other religions to comment on nuts-and-bolts details.

The mission of the Church, as given to the Apostles was given to us and recorded in Matthew 28.19: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit". The phrase "make disciples" is fraught with meaning. It includes a wide range of activity. Worship is one such activity. Education is another activity.

In my faith tradition, we say that the only requirement for worship is, "The Gospel rightly preached, and the sacraments properly administered". Beyond that, anything we do that is God-pleasing is God-pleasing. We have worship traditions that we follow for a number of reasons. There are many things that are good things for Christians to do that are not appropriately part of a worship service, and that's OK. That's why we also have Sunday School, Bible study groups, fellowship dinners, and a softball team.

Christian radio is not an appropriate medium for worship. Worship needs to be in-person and interactive in order to be worship. But it has great potential for teaching, for spiritual renewal, and for attracting people to come to church on Sunday in order to hear the Gospel rightly preached, and to receive the sacraments, properly administered.

On a Sunday shortly after Easter, my congregation is planning an evangelism/outreach event. It will consist of three separate elements, all taking place on the lawn in front of the church. The first is our regular worship service. We'll use the liturgy that Marty Haugen wrote, "Now the Feast and Celebration", which is an absolutely traditional catholic mass that follows all of the traditional steps and contains all of the traditional worship elements, albeit to somewhat contemporary sounding musical settings. We'll probably sing some traditional 19th century hymns, but accompanied by the same praise band that's playing the worship music.

Then, because we're Lutherans, we're going to have a covered dish fellowship meal. Why? Because that's what Lutherans do. Wherever two or more Lutherans are gathered in Christ's name, He is there, and also coffee and cookies. After that, we're having a CCM concert/sing-along. "Worshiptainment" is not appropriate for worship, but entertaining music with Christian lyrics and themes is a wonderful tool for fellowship and Christian education. There are some CCM songs we won't use because they teach elements of theology that is at odds with our own understandings, but not as many as some people might think.

Relating this to radio, I see no reason why any Christian should take exception to music with Christian themed lyrics played on the radio as a teaching tool, except perhaps certain songs with errant theology. Just understand that Christian music on the radio is equivalent to Sunday School, not to Sunday Worship.
 
rbrucecarter5 said:
I know just enough about Islam to know they worship a false god (the moon god of the Babylonians - hence the moons on the top of mosques), .
Click to expand...


You ever discuss this concept with a member of the Islamic faith?

The moon-god claim is most associated with the Christian apologist author Robert Morey, whose book The moon-god Allah in the archeology of the Middle East is a widely cited source of the idea that Allah is a moon-god.
 
Last edited:
RadioFan2J3 said:



Perhaps so did the people in Delaware in the late 1800s, where it appears the age of consent was age 7.

It also appears in that same time period, about 37 states had the age of consent at age 10.

http://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/teaching-modules/230?section=primarysources&source=24
Click to expand...

Funny - I don't see any records of marriages at those ages in my very extensive New England genealogy. Seldom is there a marriage under 17, even with miserable life expectancy of the time. There are phonies in every religion - the source your cited documents phonies. the difference is in who leads the religion, not its followers who can be phony or sincere. Jesus didn't sexually abuse little children. Mohammed did.
 
Avid Listener said:
I've tried to stay out of this discussion, but my efforts are about to fail.

A couple of things, all of which are limited to the Christian church. I don't know enough about other religions to comment on nuts-and-bolts details.

The mission of the Church, as given to the Apostles was given to us and recorded in Matthew 28.19: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit". The phrase "make disciples" is fraught with meaning. It includes a wide range of activity. Worship is one such activity. Education is another activity.

In my faith tradition, we say that the only requirement for worship is, "The Gospel rightly preached, and the sacraments properly administered". Beyond that, anything we do that is God-pleasing is God-pleasing. We have worship traditions that we follow for a number of reasons. There are many things that are good things for Christians to do that are not appropriately part of a worship service, and that's OK. That's why we also have Sunday School, Bible study groups, fellowship dinners, and a softball team.

Christian radio is not an appropriate medium for worship. Worship needs to be in-person and interactive in order to be worship. But it has great potential for teaching, for spiritual renewal, and for attracting people to come to church on Sunday in order to hear the Gospel rightly preached, and to receive the sacraments, properly administered.

On a Sunday shortly after Easter, my congregation is planning an evangelism/outreach event. It will consist of three separate elements, all taking place on the lawn in front of the church. The first is our regular worship service. We'll use the liturgy that Marty Haugen wrote, "Now the Feast and Celebration", which is an absolutely traditional catholic mass that follows all of the traditional steps and contains all of the traditional worship elements, albeit to somewhat contemporary sounding musical settings. We'll probably sing some traditional 19th century hymns, but accompanied by the same praise band that's playing the worship music.

Then, because we're Lutherans, we're going to have a covered dish fellowship meal. Why? Because that's what Lutherans do. Wherever two or more Lutherans are gathered in Christ's name, He is there, and also coffee and cookies. After that, we're having a CCM concert/sing-along. "Worshiptainment" is not appropriate for worship, but entertaining music with Christian lyrics and themes is a wonderful tool for fellowship and Christian education. There are some CCM songs we won't use because they teach elements of theology that is at odds with our own understandings, but not as many as some people might think.

Relating this to radio, I see no reason why any Christian should take exception to music with Christian themed lyrics played on the radio as a teaching tool, except perhaps certain songs with errant theology. Just understand that Christian music on the radio is equivalent to Sunday School, not to Sunday Worship.
Click to expand...

I actually agree with most of this post, although worship is an individual response to the goodness of God, and can occur any time - even if the believer is alone. As for Christian radio being a vehicle of worship - I hope that those listening will respond by having their faith increased by the content. If their response to the radio show is to concentrate on God and worship in the privacy of their home - so be it. I would like to think that in difficult circumstances, such as prison inmates, that worship can occur in the individual.

As for questions about "what about those who don't like any music"? Well it is doubtful that they will be listening to a Christian music station. Like others have said on here, there are plenty of preaching stations to choose from. I can't reach everybody with a single format. I no more expect a tone deaf person to listen than I do grandma Pharisee - I wish them well and that they find stations and churches to their liking. There existance does not imply that I automatically have a calling to reach them. I stick to what I know, and not what I don't, to maximize my effective use of time and resources. I suspect that the percentage of people completely tone deaf to music is rather small.

Radio preaching is usually done by preachers of dubious qualifications and quality. I would prefer that preaching stations standardize on outstanding minds in the faith, not just those who can afford to buy airtime on small stations and hear themselves preach on the radio to their 40 member church.
 
rbrucecarter5 said:
I actually agree with most of this post, although worship is an individual response to the goodness of God, and can occur any time - even if the believer is alone.

Radio preaching is usually done by preachers of dubious qualifications and quality. I would prefer that preaching stations standardize on outstanding minds in the faith, not just those who can afford to buy airtime on small stations and hear themselves preach on the radio to their 40 member church.
Click to expand...

Here's where semantics comes into play. While prayer is a part of worship, not all prayer is worship. Worship is usually defined somewhat strictly, at least in my faith tradition, as something specific. Giving praise, praying, engaging in works of charity or mercy, all of those and more are good, positive, Christian things to do. But being a good, positive, Christian thing to do doesn't make it worship.

Likewise, there is a difference between preaching and teaching. Too often, teachers (especially Christian teachers on the radio) are called "preachers" or their lessons are called "preaching" when it is, in fact, those lessons are teaching.

But whoa betide the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church if there is a requirement for "standardization" of what is taught! Trust me, the Baptists and other fundamentalists would not be happy if the world standardized on sound catholic doctrine.
 
rbrucecarter5 said:
Radio preaching is usually done by preachers of dubious qualifications and quality. I would prefer that preaching stations standardize on outstanding minds in the faith, not just those who can afford to buy airtime on small stations and hear themselves preach on the radio to their 40 member church.
Click to expand...

You may have a point here, concerning some preachers on the radio, but the ones I hear most often -- the Charles Stanleys, the Chuck Swindolls, the Hank Hanagrafs (although he's an apologist, not a preacher), the Vernon McGees -- generally seem to be fairly orthodox (with a small 'o') in their teachings.

And then you have the Catholic Christian stations, which present their position evenly -- there are a few Catholic call-in shows where Protestants and agnostics call in and they are treated fairly. I'm not Catholic but I've never heard anything on Catholic radio yet that made me feel insulted as a non-Catholic. And there have been times I've gotten some uplifting encouragement from the preaching / teaching on Catholic radio.

I have a problem with some of the preachers who overly emphasize prophecy and the 'end times'. I think they tend to go a little off-kilter more than they should. But there are a lot more of them on TV, I think, than on Christian talk radio.

I wonder just how many Christians listen to Christian talk radio, as opposed to Christian music radio?
 
rbrucecarter5 said:
Funny - I don't see any records of marriages at those ages in my very extensive New England genealogy. Seldom is there a marriage under 17, even with miserable life expectancy of the time. There are phonies in every religion - the source your cited documents phonies. the difference is in who leads the religion, not its followers who can be phony or sincere. Jesus didn't sexually abuse little children. Mohammed did.
Click to expand...


Funny, I don't think men/boys in Delaware who were having sex with 8 year old girls were recording these events either, so your lack of records regarding marriages basically means nothing. Frankly, ages of consent laws don't necessarily track age of marriage, so I am not sure you can draw a parallel in that regard.

Unless the age 7 age of consent information for Delaware is inaccurate, that state adopted that legislation for a reason - have no idea why, but it is what it was. There must have been some reason that a fair number of states in the late 1800s had age 10 as the age of consent. Again, no idea why, but it is what it was.

We also cannot compare the norms of today with the norms of over a thousand years ago. As noted, the ages of consent in many states in the United States just 100 years ago were several years younger than what is the current standards across the country, so even in the US, we changed our norms.

Yes, by today's standards, Mohammed molested a child, considering most sources indicate the girl was age nine when the marriage was consummated, but again, based on Delaware's laws in the late 1880s, even that sexual relationship would not have violated that state's age of consent laws.
 
Last edited:
RadioFan2J3 said:
Yes, by today's standards, Mohammed molested a child, considering most sources indicate the girl was age nine when the marriage was consummated, but again, based on Delaware's laws in the late 1880s, even that sexual relationship would not have violated that state's age of consent laws.
Click to expand...

There is a legal principle at play here, described by two different terms. There is malum prohibitum, which means (roughly) "Evil because it is against the law" and malum in se, which means (roughly), "Evil because it's evil". By way of illustration, an example of "malum prohibitum" might be selling a bottle of beer on Sunday morning before the hour when it is legal to sell beer on a Sunday. The action is not a fundamentally "evil" action, but it violates the letter of the law in a particular jurisdiction, hence it is illegal and therefore "malum". On the other hand, evicting an old widow from her home because she cannot pay her taxes is legal. Doing such an evil thing might not break any laws, but that doesn't change the fact that doing so is a despicable, evil action.

Worrying about what the specific age of consent laws might say is worrying about trivia. It doesn't matter if the prevailing laws at a given time permit an action that is fundamentally evil and loathsome. An adult man engaging in sexual intercourse with a child is wrong. Period. It doesn't matter if there happens to be a formal law against it at the time. It is always an evil thing to do.
 
Avid Listener said:
Here's where semantics comes into play. While prayer is a part of worship, not all prayer is worship. Worship is usually defined somewhat strictly, at least in my faith tradition, as something specific. Giving praise, praying, engaging in works of charity or mercy, all of those and more are good, positive, Christian things to do. But being a good, positive, Christian thing to do doesn't make it worship.

Likewise, there is a difference between preaching and teaching. Too often, teachers (especially Christian teachers on the radio) are called "preachers" or their lessons are called "preaching" when it is, in fact, those lessons are teaching.

But whoa betide the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church if there is a requirement for "standardization" of what is taught! Trust me, the Baptists and other fundamentalists would not be happy if the world standardized on sound catholic doctrine.
Click to expand...

I have to stop you there. I don't know of very many denominational stations that make a go of it, with the possible exception of Catholic stations. I list Catholic as just another denomination, because that is all it is to me. There is such a thing as Catholic doctrine, but I couldn't judge how sound it is to another Catholic, because it means nothing to me. It may be sound Catholic doctrine, but that does not necessarily equate to sound Christian doctrine. My programming is completely devoid of denomination baggage from anybody, Catholic or otherwise. In that way, I cast my net widely - a Catholic or a fundamental Baptist will find nothing to object to, because the doctrine is: (1) Inerrancy of the Word of God (2) deity of Jesus from the beginning of time (3) the substitutional sacrifice of Christ on the death for the sins of man. Anything else - liturgies, baptisms, bible translations, bible interpretation, etc. is left OUT of the programming. Non-believers are not interested in our petty differences. They need a clear, concise, simple, and accurate representation of the faith, in our case through music. If a caller calls in asking for a church referral, we will refer them to what I call "starter" churches - where they, too, keep things simple and easy to understand. Good Bible based preaching, heavy on the basic tenets of salvation and how to start a life of faith. A lot of people stick around for life. To others, like me, it is a starting place where I left to join something that focuses on the deeper things of the faith. like what are the responsbilities of a believer, what authority and power do we have, and what do we not have. And I give referrals to callers in those situations, too. Personally, I never recommend Catholic because there is just too much extra- Biblical baggage based on merely human authority. But - if somebody called in and wanted to reconnect with that faith because it is their family's tradition, and they seem to have a sound Christian faith, I'd go ahead and send them there. It just isn't for everybody, There are churches for everybody, there is a place for them, but no more so than any other denomination. Sectarianism - "we are the only true church" is the same thing as saying "we are better than you"and is reprehensible, not love for other believers, and not scriptural. On the air - it is the KISS principle. Not the secular group - "Keep It Simple, Stupid!" NOBODY wants to hear denominational stuff when they aren't even saved, it is nonsense that confuses and distracts from the true message of salvation. I also keep creationist junk off the air - for the same exact reason. It is NOT a salvation issue! Simple, fun, upbeat music, projecting a positive, inviting, non-threatening environment for kids and young professionals that probably gave up on church in childhood - precisely because of denomination baggage, or guilt trips, or judgement: all the things a lot of Christians are masters at doing. And all things harming the faith. I put anti-CCMísm into the same category. Perpetrated by small Christians of small faith and small minds - wanting to dominate and control other people to make their own insecurities seem less.
 
Bruce, you have just demonstrated how difficult it is to have a discussion about the proper use of radio and the use of radio programming when it comes to "faith based radio".

You have just made the point that YOUR concept is the pure, non-polluted version of "the message" but just about every one else in the world is tied to some polluted, denominational view, thus they are wrong. Bruce, it is your variation in the "I am holier than thou" mentality that keeps mankind all riled up around the world.

You can bellyache and moan about the errors of Catholic theology, but it was the Catholic church that kept the fire burning, brought "the light forward" during the earlier centuries. They developed some "excesses" over time and revolt broke out thus we entered the era of Protestant and Reformed theology.

We have all this bravado in this country about our heritage as a "Christian Nation" but if you will go back and study the condition of the "church" during the colonial era and the time of the founding of our nation, there was a lot of Christianity that left a lot to be desired.

Simple starter churches are like the products in the grocery store. They have a "use by" date. They either mature into an organization that digs deeper which involves adherents in the current time sorting through all the minutia of the Scriptures and giving them a 'ranking importance'. If you doubt that, study the history and development of the Willow Creek model that began in Chicago and reached out across the nation with church plants. They tried for years to do it your preferred way. I first heard of Willow Creelk from a co-worker who explained to me that the model made for a great incubator, where after three years or so people who had "found the faith" found it necessary to move on to some other congregation where they preached 'meat and potatoes'. A few uears later it made bit news when the founding pastor apologized one Sunday morning because their model did not offer a path for 'believers growth' and the time had come to remedy that problem.

Bruce: It looks to me like you find fulfillment in the simple "seekers fellowship" which finds music very, very critical to the seeker atmosphere. But please, please, please: quit throwing rocks at those of use who have looked for answers to share when life dumps doubts and problems on you. I don't think you would have been happy being in a church that was waist deep in the civil rights movement. I don't think you would be happy being in a church up to it's armpits in connecting religious faith with the conditions of agricultural migrant workers. You don't demonstrate any concern for exploring how the faith should deal with the issues of sexual equality when it comes to defining the place of females in the current society. I don't get the idea you are excited about wrestling with how the church will deal with the topic of homosexuality.

Apparently your place, your "calling" is playing catchy music for teenagers and introducing them to the bare-bones elements of the Christian faith. That's fine. When one of your teen age converts grows up, starts a family, and comes unglued some Thursday afternoon when he learns his teenage son is gay, thats o.k. Over at my liberal reformed congregation we have a place for your guy AND his son. We have a theology that makes room for your guy and his daughter when she comes home as says: "Dad... I feel called to the ministry. Why do you keep telling me women can be in the ministry?" And we can deal out some understanding and comfort to a parent when they announce: "My oldest child has "outgrown Christianity" and now meditates with the Buddhist folks."

Someday when you have stood eye-ball to eye-ball with a lot of issues like this, let's have this conversation all over again. :cool:

(But you still won't like OUR music!!!!)
 
>>>The mission of the Church, as given to the Apostles was given to us and recorded in Matthew 28.19: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit". The phrase "make disciples" is fraught with meaning. It includes a wide range of activity. Worship is one such activity. Education is another activity. <<<


Discipleship is a choice; redemption is not.
 
rbrucecarter5 said:
I have to stop you there. I don't know of very many denominational stations that make a go of it, with the possible exception of Catholic stations. I list Catholic as just another denomination, because that is all it is to me. There is such a thing as Catholic doctrine, but I couldn't judge how sound it is to another Catholic, because it means nothing to me. It may be sound Catholic doctrine, but that does not necessarily equate to sound Christian doctrine. My programming is completely devoid of denomination baggage from anybody, Catholic or otherwise. In that way, I cast my net widely - a Catholic or a fundamental Baptist will find nothing to object to, because the doctrine is: (1) Inerrancy of the Word of God (2) deity of Jesus from the beginning of time (3) the substitutional sacrifice of Christ on the death for the sins of man. Anything else - liturgies, baptisms, bible translations, bible interpretation, etc. is left OUT of the programming. Non-believers are not interested in our petty differences. They need a clear, concise, simple, and accurate representation of the faith, in our case through music. If a caller calls in asking for a church referral, we will refer them to what I call "starter" churches - where they, too, keep things simple and easy to understand. Good Bible based preaching, heavy on the basic tenets of salvation and how to start a life of faith. A lot of people stick around for life. To others, like me, it is a starting place where I left to join something that focuses on the deeper things of the faith. like what are the responsbilities of a believer, what authority and power do we have, and what do we not have. And I give referrals to callers in those situations, too. Personally, I never recommend Catholic because there is just too much extra- Biblical baggage based on merely human authority. But - if somebody called in and wanted to reconnect with that faith because it is their family's tradition, and they seem to have a sound Christian faith, I'd go ahead and send them there. It just isn't for everybody, There are churches for everybody, there is a place for them, but no more so than any other denomination. Sectarianism - "we are the only true church" is the same thing as saying "we are better than you"and is reprehensible, not love for other believers, and not scriptural. On the air - it is the KISS principle. Not the secular group - "Keep It Simple, Stupid!" NOBODY wants to hear denominational stuff when they aren't even saved, it is nonsense that confuses and distracts from the true message of salvation. I also keep creationist junk off the air - for the same exact reason. It is NOT a salvation issue! Simple, fun, upbeat music, projecting a positive, inviting, non-threatening environment for kids and young professionals that probably gave up on church in childhood - precisely because of denomination baggage, or guilt trips, or judgement: all the things a lot of Christians are masters at doing. And all things harming the faith. I put anti-CCMísm into the same category. Perpetrated by small Christians of small faith and small minds - wanting to dominate and control other people to make their own insecurities seem less.
Click to expand...

Apparently, you aren't aware that the phrase "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" applies to all Christian faith traditions that confess the Apostles Creed. That's not just Roman Catholics. That's also Evangelical Catholics (aka "Lutherans") and English Catholics (aka "Anglican" or "Episcopalian"). It is also used by Presbyterians, Methodists, and Congregationalists. The Apostles Creed, it also states what that church is. It is "The communion of saints". It is the body of all believers who share the catholic (meaning "universal") faith God revealed to us through the Apostles. It even includes those whose understandings aren't as accurate they should be. So, even though those faith traditions I mention recognize the concept of the "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church", even those Christians who reject the name are also part of it!

It appears that the concept of "being saved" is also understood very differently by Christians in many, many faith traditions. I'll wager the concept of Simul Justus et Peccator or the concept of sola fide, which precludes the work of "accepting" Christ isn't part of your background. To many Christians, the understanding of salvation is not that we accept Christ, because that accomplishes nothing. What matters is that Christ accepted us.

Not that I'm trying to convince you to change your mind about your understanding of what is or isn't Christian. But you need to understand that a great many of us Christians do not agree with your faith tradition's understanding. In particular, we are often dismayed to hear anyone attempt to tell someone that "being saved" requires them to perform some sort of action, as if salvation can be earned.
 
Last edited:
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.
Back
Top Bottom