Like a school girl reacting to the handsome football star, major media people gushed over Prince in their showers of praise toward a man who did not deserve such praise. According to everyone, he could play the guitar but what I’ve heard was only two steps above noise. As I listened to his music, I thought of Amos 5:23: “Take thou away from me the noise of thy songs; for I will not hear the melody of thy viols (a stringed instrument).”

His singing ability was almost as good. Of course, any death is a tragedy especially the death of a young person. It may be unsympathetic but not untrue to say that he accelerated his death by his ungodly, unhealthy, and unnatural life.

He would not permit workers at his concerts to make eye contact thus promoting his self-ordaining persona of royalty. It appears that he actually believed all his news releases and the fawning acolytes that hang around the music business.

The Washington Post declared, “With the death Thursday of Prince Rogers Nelson, you may see a strange mix on your Facebook feed of sex and religion. That’s because perhaps one of the raunchiest, steamiest pop culture figures in the past quarter-century was a conservative Christian. Religious and spiritual themes ran through a huge amount of his work.” No, the statement proves that the writer and the editors at the Post are deceptive or deceived or maybe dishonest. No informed person declares that the Jehovah’s Witness sect even comes close to being “conservative Christian.” Furthermore, “Religious and spiritual themes” may have appeared in his work but nothing resembling biblical truth.

I expect secularists to laud Prince and his ilk but when Christianity Today (CT) does so, it would gag a maggot! Mike Cosper is a pastor of arts and worship in a Louisville church and disgraced himself and CT with his ode to Prince. Cosper showed his true colors in praising anything “religious” or “spiritual,” or cultic when he wrote, “He seemed to defy mortal boundaries, but in fact, he showed us the glory of simply being made in God’s image.” No, it was very difficult to see God’s image in the way he lived, sang, dressed, etc.

In addition to contributing to the drug culture, aberrational sexuality, he advanced the new “gospel” for leftists everywhere: transgenderism. He sang, ““I’m not a woman / I’m not a man / I’m something you will never understand.” Seeking to justify his obsession with sex, CT wrote, “Sex is one of the few places that a secularized imagination maintains space for the possibility of transcendence.” What in creation does that mean?

We are told that Prince was a “wonderfully eccentric, provocative Persona” however, he was really a tragic, talented misfit who surrendered to basic instincts that eventually killed him.

The CT writer opined, “Prince’s life should remind us Christians of how truly wonderful it is to be human. He wasn’t actually more than human; but neither was he mere dust, or the product of a million cosmological accidents resulting temporary consciousness and animation. He was, instead, an image bearer, one who so clearly reflected the Creator’s own jaw-dropping creativity and power.” No, Prince was a weirdo in a silk shirt and the fawning author obviously has a Ph.D. in Gobbledy Gook.

Even if my readers disagree with everything I’ve written, surely no sane person will suggest that Prince was a good role model for young people. It distresses me to know that vast number of youth almost worshipped him and his music. It further distresses me to go into a teen’s bedroom and see posters of rock stars, athletes, and entertainers on the walls that scream, “I’m identifying with these weirdos on my walls.” How pathetic that their life is so jaundiced and empty.

I was a normal teen but when I trusted Christ my heroes became people of character. As a boy, my heroes were military men who carried the battle to Hitler, Tojo, Mussolini. My nonmilitary heroes were a few college football stars and Booker T. Washington who was one of the most principled men who walked our land. As a teenage jail and street preacher I heard about a young evangelist named Billy Graham who influenced my life; then the five missionary martyrs in Equator became a major life influence; my pastor who was a dynamic preacher, teacher, and musician became my hero; then I met a few missionaries from various nations who visited my church; all impacted my life in a positive way.

Prince squandered his talent, wasted his life, and helped lead untold numbers of people into a world of drugs, sex, and violence. He is not to be praised but pitied.

Boys’ new book, Evolution: Fact, Fraud, or Faith? was published recently by Barbwire Books; to get your copy of Evolution: Fact, Fraud, or Faith? click here. An eBook edition is also available.

You do not think Dallas Willard “strays into universalism” with his teaching but he does. Some Universalists believe even Satan will be rehabilitated while others believe that all humans, who have not been atheists, will be saved even if they have never heard of Christ. Of course that is universalism.

You mentioned that Joseph Smith, Muhammad, Mary Baker Eddy, Charles Taze Russell, David Koresh, and Kenneth Copeland “are all great examples of heretics in the past 200 years whose teachings can lead their followers toward damnation.” However, the teaching of Willard, Schuller, Graham and others can have the very same effect. Moreover, what about your earlier statement, “Perhaps God might save those who have not heard Christ simply through general revelation.” Why should your list of religious leaders not be saved especially if they were sincere—even sincerely wrong? If God would extend His grace to heathen, then surely He would do so to those sincere “Christian” leaders.

Your next statement is astounding when you said, “I would venture to say that a person could drink a pint of beer everyday with dinner, smoke a pack a week, play poker with his buddies every Friday, go swing dancing with his girlfriend every Saturday, listen to heavy metal rock music, cover his body with tattoos and piercings, grow his hair down to his waist and dye it purple, grow out a beard to his chest, play video games with non-Christian friends, literarily use the F-word, wind-down after work each day to an hour of television, and still have a thriving relationship with the Almighty Triune God of the Bible. The big question is whether he is living a life of complete subjugation [Surely you did not mean to use this word. Maybe you meant ‘subjection.’] to God—by serving God and serving his neighbor. While I do not advocate these activities, I will also not make a list of activities not expressly condemned in the New Covenant. The question is because everything is permissible, how is what I am doing with my life glorifying to Christ?”

How in the world can you even suggest that such a person could be living “a life of complete subjection to God”? And how could such a person be “glorifying to Christ”? On the one hand, you wrote, “I will also not make a list of activities not expressly condemned in the New Covenant,” but then you stated, “everything is permissible.” It is astounding that you would consider acceptable for a Christian anything not specifically forbidden by Scripture. (Does the New Covenant forbid cannibalism?) Then your “everything is permissible” statement is contradictory. Moreover, what did Paul mean when he told the Romans (and us) not to be conformed to this world? If the above hypothetical “Christian” was not conformed to this world, then what must one do to qualify as doing so? Additionally, I cannot ignore the teaching of the Old Testament in this discussion.

God demands that His work be done in a godly way. Remember when God killed Uzzah in II Sam. 6:6-7 when he tried to do a good thing in the wrong way by reaching out to steady the cart that was carrying the ark of the Lord. I would have killed the oxen for being so clumsy but God punished Uzzah for his “error” (or rashness).

What do you think it means when Paul said in II Cor. 5:17, “Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new”? If a man is a new creature, how can he live like an old creature?

Moreover, getting tattoos and piercings are unscriptural as per Lev. 19:28: “Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD.” Is that “legalism” or is it as compelling (although not as serious) as “Thou shalt not kill”?

Furthermore, is Paul’s statement in I Cor. 11:14 still germane? “Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?” Is it legalism to expect men to obey that teaching?

Regarding music, you said, “Many of the tunes to the beloved hymns we sing (including our national anthem!) were originally from drinking songs set with Christian lyrics.” Then you listed songs that were not “drinking songs.” Surely you do not equate Beethoven’s music with drinking songs! Moreover, you did not mention any “drinking songs.” It is alleged by many that Luther and Wesley took saloon melodies and put Christian words to them but that is not true. It is believed that this misconception developed because some of the tunes used by Luther were in German “Bar form” which means a three-part stanza–not a location where the songs were performed. Luther did take some of the old Roman Catholic tunes and put Scriptural words to them. That did not make the Pope a happy camper! But Luther didn’t care and neither do I.

You wrote, “I do not find any indication of God’s musical preference in Holy Writ,” but just before Calvary, Christ and the Disciples sang a “hymn” according to Matt. 26:30 and Mark 14:26. Paul told the Ephesians in 5:19, “Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord.” He also encouraged the church at Colosse (Col. 3:16) to teach and admonish each other with “psalms and hymns and spiritual songs.” There is no doubt that the early church sang the Psalms; in fact, the Psalms were the hymnbook of the early church.

You suggested, “In many circumstances, antiquated musical styles can become a hindrance to those who desire the freedom to worship God. God provided such wonderful diversity in the Church just as he created such wonderful diversity in the world; it brings us to our knees and makes us realize that this worship is not about us.” This seems to be your justification for the use of any style of music in church services. Christians should not see how close they can get to worldliness without offending God, but how far away from worldliness they can get without unnecessarily offending men.

You opined, “It seems as though many Protestants who are against contemporary church music use some of the same reasons that the Catholics did during the Protestant Reformation.” The Catholics were offended because Luther’s new lyrics were offensive to Catholics. Of course, Catholics were offensive because the new lyrics ridiculed and opposed their false doctrine. However, some Christians today are offended by some of the new music, not because it is new, but because it is loud, raucous, unscriptural, shallow, vapid, etc. If the lyrics are so loud or garbled that no message is perceived then it is useless and out of place. If the band or orchestra is so loud that it breaks streetlights in front of the church, it is too loud and disgraceful. Furthermore, it also damages the hearing.

Bach, whom you praised earlier was right on the music issue. While serving as cantor at Thomas Church of Leipzig, Bach taught Luther’s Small Catechism. Bach stated: “The aim and final end of all music should be none other than the glory of God and the refreshment of the soul. If heed is not paid to this, it is not true music but a diabolical bawling and twanging.” That was an example of taking the correct position.

I agree with the prophet Amos when he wrote in Amos 5:23, “Take thou away from me the noise of thy songs; for I will not hear the melody of thy viols.” (An instrument that preceded the guitar that was plucked.)

Also, much of the opposition to contemporary church music is not really about the music but all the change that goes with it, including doctrinal positions, ministry approach (entertainment vs. evangelization), attitude toward God, etc.

Then you got into deep weeds when you said, “I would not write off historical practices wholesale by the mere fact that Catholic mystics practiced it.” Of course not. Catholic mystics ate, took a bath (occasionally) and worked in their gardens. However, when the monks did things that are supposed to be religious, that is a different matter. There is no scriptural basis for self-flagellation, penance, not bathing, not cutting finger nails, sleeping on cold floors, long periods of silence, not eating meat, etc. They thought they were made good by feeling bad. It all goes back to works or seeking to satisfy a holy God. It is incredible that intelligent Christian leaders are trying to lead churches back into those days where church leaders should never have gone in the first place.

You wrote, “Too many times, however, [among Fundamentalists] the joy and love of Christ Jesus seems absent from their teaching; it becomes overshadowed by angry and harsh rhetoric lashing out against those who are not part of their community and living by their cultural expectations; it is not simply that they are loud.” I have noticed that there is more harshness, loudness, unfairness, and anger on the part of mushy evangelicals and liberals toward Fundamentalists than how Fundamentalists react to their critics. Among the Emergent Church people and megachurch people there is far more tolerance for homosexuals, Muslims, abortionists, etc., than for Christian Fundamentalists! Wonder why? Could we be a threat to them and their useless dogmas? Then again, maybe it is guilt because informed Evangelicals know that they are backslidden Fundamentalists! At least their parents were Fundamentalists.

Did you use Paul’s statement about his being willing to become all things so that the Gospel will be known to all people (1 Cor. 9:22) as a justification for fellowshipping and uniting with worldings and unbelievers? He was saying that he would not pursue something legitimate if his doing so might hinder a person trusting Christ. For example, if I am witnessing to a black man, I will not bring up Martin Luther King, Jr. as being a charlatan, adulterer, plagiarist, etc., since that is not necessary to that person’s salvation. However, after he trusts Christ and I am mentoring him, I may deal with King, Jackson, Sharpton, and other Blacks who rode to power on the backs of other Blacks. It is a matter of the uninformed Black becoming an educated person who accepts people as what they are not what race they may be. I can easily prove my contention about black opportunists but it could be unproductive, even harmful to the concerned Black, even though everything I tell him would be truthful. Paul is saying, “Why offend people when it will do no good? In matters of customs, dress, ceremony, I will conform to them, as far as I can, for the purpose of winning them.” I agree with Paul, not you.

As an aside, note that Paul spoke of saving “some.” If Willard, Schuller, Graham and Company are correct, then Paul would not have been concerned since all not “some” would be saved.

Your quotes by [Bryan Crawford] Loritts, (who chided Reformed Christians at this year’s Elephant Room conclave for criticizing T. D. Jakes for his heresy regarding the Godhead), “The goal of all ministry is transformation,” and, “Don’t ever stand in front of a group of people with a Bible in your hand and not expect change” are right on target. I certainly agree; however, if that means, as you wrote, “Christians need to be reading and interacting with books, movies, and ideas of the present age, for that is where the people are giving much of their attention,” then I disagree. When I got saved, I was not perfected but I was changed and all Christians are to be in the process of becoming in the image of Christ. Yes, it is important for Christians to be informed, but that requires discretion. For Christians to drink, share dirty stories, watch filthy television shows and movies and profess that they are becoming all things to all people and are engaging the culture is pure poppycock. They are, in my opinion, trying to justify ungodly, unscriptural living. You imply that such people should be given a religious “merit badge.”

You said that “I will engage in the corrupt culture as flavoring and savoring salt and enlightening and prophetic light by means of the Holy Spirit.” I don’t think that is Christian living as per the New Testament. I am not sure how you are using “engage.” I think your statement says you are not fighting the culture but participating with the culture. You seem to be saying you will “participate in the corruption” in order to be salt and light, i.e., to show that you are one of them, but II Cor. 6:17 tells us not to be “one of them” and to come out from among them and be separate. Paul adds also that we should not touch the unclean thing. Of course, personal and ecclesiastical separation is one of the major differences between Fundamentalists and Evangelicals.

It is my opinion that Christians should not love the world, talk like the world, dress like the world, nor act like the world. However, we should not withdraw from the world as the medieval mystics did to the extent that we are hermits and have no influence with the lost. I have discovered that those Christians who talk about being involved with the culture whereby almost anything is acceptable are simply trying to justify an ungodly lifestyle. Hence, those people can go to dirty movies, watch television (or videos) filled with obscenities and nudity, drink alcohol, read salacious literature, etc., without any feelings of guilt.

However, guilt is present whether felt or not and sin needs to be confessed and forsaken.

Thanks for writing.

No, I have not apostatized nor have I joined the “rush to Rome” as have some Anglicans, Lutherans, Evangelical groups, and Mennonites. However, I find myself agreeing with the pope about bad church music. One headline screamed, “Pope to purge the Vatican of modern music.” It is not bad music because it is modern but because it is “atrocious” especially in Italy, including the Vatican. Benedict wants a return to “traditional sacred music.”

I’m concerned with the atrocious music in many Bible-preaching churches that have deserted traditional hymns and Gospel songs. The Christ-honoring hymns have been replaced with twangy, ear-assaulting, mediocre, non-memorable chorus that are usually without meaning.

The Pope has already started “cleaning house” by no longer using “rotating” choirs from all over the world to sing in St. Peter’s. Well, one does not have to be too bright to know that it is difficult to know what you are going to get with a different choir each week.

Some musicians have already been sacked by Pope Benedict and have been replaced by men “closer to his heart.” Others are expected to go. Well, the Top Honcho has the right to have people around him that reflect his philosophy, doctrine, etc.

The International Church Music Review recently criticized the St. Peter’s choir, saying: “The singers wanted to overshout each other, they were frequently out of tune, the sound uneven, the conducting without any artistic power, the organ and organ playing like in a second-rank country parish church.” Sounds as if they are describing the music in some independent Baptist churches where singers often sing without any preparation—and it shows!

Mgr Valentin Miserachs Grau, the director of the Pontifical Institute of Sacred Music, which trains church musicians, said, “How far we are from the true spirit of sacred music. How can we stand it that such a wave of inconsistent, arrogant and ridiculous profanities have so easily gained a stamp of approval in our celebrations?” The director added: “Due to general ignorance, especially in sectors of the clergy, there exists music which is devoid of sanctity, true art and universality.”

The Pope hopes to solve the problem with a return to the Gregorian chant although that is not much of an improvement, in my opinion, but my opinion will not be considered by the Pope. He wants to use music by 17th century composers, etc., in St. Peter’s and his reformation musical message has gone out to all Catholic Churches.

Damian Thompson, editor-in-chief of the Catholic Herald opined: “The next generation of choir directors have been charged by the Pope with the task of reintroducing beautiful music into church. If they succeed, then at long last the pews may begin to fill up again.” But that won’t happen without a major battle and while the Pope can control the music at St. Peter’s, he cannot control it in thousands of churches worldwide. He will have a major fight on his hands since many music directors in Catholic churches are highly paid and some musicians write and publish their own music so it is in their self-interest to stay with the music that produces additional income for them.

Damian Thompson, declared, “There’s something troubling about diocesan composer-liturgists advising churches to use liturgical material in which they themselves have a commercial interest. This already happens a lot in America, where the coziness of the relationship between dioceses and composers is little short of scandalous.”

Thompson reports that music composers attended a summer school for Catholic musicians “who may not know how to write music, but they hold the right ‘progressive’ (c. 1968) political views and are fluent in the vocabulary of ethnic sensitivity and ‘empowerment.’ ” It seems they ended their summer sessions last year by producing an outdoor performance of “dancing, drumming and singing in African that ‘Satan has had it.’” Sure sorry I missed that. Evidently, Satan did also.

Thompson, dripping with justified sarcasm said of much of the Catholic Church music: “There are few more terrifying sounds than the fumbled guitar chords that herald a Gospel number sung by arthritic Christian hippies.” Wish I had said that.

So Catholic Churches have major problems with music as do many evangelical and fundamental churches although the generational perpetrators are reversed. In Catholic Churches, the bad guys are older, more mature, well ensconced musicians who are supported by rebellious priests. They won’t surrender without a fight.

In Bible-oriented churches, the perpetrators are usually young men who like trendy, light music that compares to Kumbaya. Often the lyrics don’t offend but neither do they teach, inspire, or motivate us to godliness. But what is lost in value they make up for it in volume. As Rick Warren says of his church music, “It is loud, very loud.” Scuttlebutt says that sometimes it is so loud, it breaks street lights a block away!

Music is not an end in itself. It is preparatory to the preaching of God’s Word. If the music detracts from that or does not enhance that end, then it is out of place. It may be all right in other environments but not in a worship service.

The Apostle Paul wrote in Eph, 5:19, “Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord.” Then in Col 3:16, he wrote, “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.” Note that the music should be Scriptural (if not actual Bible verses then at least Biblical in content); melodious (that would eliminate about half of modern music); and admonishing.

Evangelical and fundamental churches have come a long way baby–in the wrong direction. We are being led into the swamps of this world by the pied pipers of second-class music, often followed by feel-good messages.

I’m with the Pope. Let’s have a musical reformation.