Michael Sweet/Stryper

brokentulsa:
Yes, yes, I know. Free Grace theology has a refutation for every scripture that suggests it matters how we live as Christians, but I'm not interested in a debate over the merits of antinomianism. The context of the passage concerns our associations as Christians and teaches against our trying to mix the things of darkness with the things of light. A few more verses we can all chew on.

3 John 1:11
Dear friend, do not imitate what is evil but what is good. Anyone who does what is good is from God. Anyone who does what is evil has not seen God.

1 Cor. 15:33
Do not be misled: "Bad company corrupts good character."

Proverbs 24:1
Do not be envious of evil men, Nor desire to be with them

Romans 12:2
Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is--his good, pleasing and perfect will.

1 John 2:15
Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him

ChosenOne: You're kind of missing my point. My point about such songs is, if singing such songs gives Stryper street cred and that's suppose to help them spread the gospel, how does singing such songs teach anyone that there is anything wrong with their lives? If it's ok for Christians to rock to songs about rebellion and partying in Hell, just what kind of message is being sent? How does the unbeliever see the Christian as being anything different. Sure, it may make them feel more comfortable because it serves to placate their feelings about being sinners, but again how does that serve the gospel? Stryper gives off the appearance of being double minded. Are they about God or are they about the loving the world and it's ways. How would the unbeliever ever really know? I mean when you have Michael saying at concerts that they're not about preaching or reading the Bible and then they sing some Christian songs and some songs that celebrate ungodly bands, what's the message? If it were me and I was still lost in sin, all that would tell me is that I'm just fine the way I am, because these people are Christians and they love the same music I love, so I'm good. The gospel is suppose to be an offense because it makes sinners uncomfortable. Have we lost sight of that? Seems to me that Stryper is popular with unbelievers because Stryper makes unbelievers comfortable with what they are.

Stryper earned their cred along time ago when they went out an played concerts and spread the gospel to both unbelievers and believers a like. I think you may be missing the point as to why they did the Covering. They wanted to do an album of songs/bands that influenced them growing up and what not. Thats it. It wasn't like they were turning their back on God by doing it. In fact they Michael gave interviews where he even addressed fans that he knew they would have a problem with it. But it's what they wanted to do. I have yet to see proof of any kind that states that they have gone against what the believe and their faith. As far as preaching or reading the Bible from the stage, I have no issues with that. I would venture to guess that when a band like Skillet is playing a show where they are the opening band for some secular band, John isn't going to preach to the crowd or read the bible and convert them right then and there. I've seen Stryper twice (once at Sonshine Festival & the other at a club) and I don't remember Michael ever preaching from the stage.

I'm well aware of why they said they made the album and I'm not the one who suggested that doing the covering was going earn them street cred, that was Alldat. I just don't think the glorification of ungodly bands and their music does anything to advance the gospel. Now, it seems to be that there was a time that they cared about advancing the gospel and in fact they used to say that was very important to them, but from my perspective, that doesn't really seem to be the case anymore. They seem to love the creations of the sinful world and they want to celebrate an ungodly influence. I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how that's Biblical in the life a Christian, much less useful to the gospel.

As we as Christians attempt to fit in with the modern culture, I think we have been forgetting that the gospel is suppose to be offensive to the carnal mind. True salvation does not come by convincing people that Jesus is a good fit for THEIR lives, rather, it comes by showing people that without Jesus, their lives are hopeless. I just don't see how anyone is going to get that message from Stryper anymore when compromise seems to be the name of the game.

Preacherman777 wrote:

I'm well aware of why they said they made the album and I'm not the one who suggested that doing the covering was going earn them street cred, that was Alldat. I just don't think the glorification of ungodly bands and their music does anything to advance the gospel. Now, it seems to be that there was a time that they cared about advancing the gospel and in fact they used to say that was very important to them, but from my perspective, that doesn't really seem to be the case anymore. They seem to love the creations of the sinful world and they want to celebrate an ungodly influence. I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how that's Biblical in the life a Christian, much less useful to the gospel.

As we as Christians attempt to fit in with the modern culture, I think we have been forgetting that the gospel is suppose to be offensive to the carnal mind. True salvation does not come by convincing people that Jesus is a good fit for THEIR lives, rather, it comes by showing people that without Jesus, their lives are hopeless. I just don't see how anyone is going to get that message from Stryper anymore when compromise seems to be the name of the game.

I don't get where you think they have compromised their faith. They did put the song GOD (which is the best song on the album) that re-assures where the band is at. Singing songs by non-Christian bands is not compromising their faith. I have never heard Michael, Oz, Robert or Tim ever say, you know what we don't really want anything to do with the Christian market any more so we are walking away. I could be wrong but I guess I just take issue that it seems like anything that we listen to or watch makes it harder for us to be believers or not live a Godly life. For example, so the fact that I have a tatoo (yes there are Christians who have issues with it), listen to some non-Christian movie, watch rated R actiaon movies, etc etc I can't be a witness to Gods love or be a Christian. Again, I could be off base but I kinda get that impression. And if covering secular songs is compromising their faith well then, Petra, Spoken, Guardian, Holy Soldier, and probably countless others, must've compromised then to, right?

When did I say they compromised their faith? You are arguing against something I never said. I've been talking about their witness this whole time not their faith. Also, you keep tossing things out there that don't have anything to do with what I'm saying. None of the bands you've mentioned made entire albums devoted to highly questionable bands with a least somewhat questionable songs. The other bands you mention (save for Petra) took secular songs that were very neutral or actually pro God in their content. Petra took a secular song and completely redid the lyrics to make it Christian. What I'm saying has nothing to do with being anti secular. You are trying to change the nature of the discussion.

I kinda see all in one just by some of things that you have said. I just think in a way it all goes together. You can think that they compromised their witness then and I will think just the opposite. They've been a band who has been attacked from Christians ever since they broke onto the scene and it will probably be that way until they retire for good. I personally don't see how they have compromised or that it was wrong, but to each their own I guess. All I know is they played an influence in getting me into Christian Metal and to this day still consider them my favorite band and I highly doubt anything can change that.

They played a role in me getting into Christian metal as well, but the reason they took flack from Christians in the early years is very different from the reason I'm critical of them now. Back then, they took the same kind of flack that pretty much every Christian rock band took just for mixing rock and roll with Christianity, but rock and roll in itself is a neutral thing and that's what those people failed to understand, but these bands and these songs are not so neutral and glorifying the things of darkness is a whole new ballgame. Having said all of that, I'm entirely ok that we see the issue differently. I don't mind agreeing to disagree. I was ready drop the whole issue a page ago, but folks kept it going, so here we are.

With all that has now been said about this subject and thread I would like to add this maybe final note. I respect everything that has been said I dont agree with most of whats been said. I side with P777 strongly on everything he has said.

THWTD like I had said a bunch of messages ago was the first Christain Rock song that I had heard. That was back in 93; I was saved in 98. Up to that point I didnt think music like that existed. I was pleasantly surprised and glad that it did. It was like WOW God had provided an alternative to all of what I was listening to up to that point.

God blessed me with an ear to be able to enjoy all types of music. Since 98 thou its been all types of Christain music everything from Gainther Vocal Band and Keith and Krystyn Getty to Whitecross. I think of it this way. I have become a new creation and to be honest with you it was not a burden to me not to listen to secular. My heart had changed and tastes had changed and from the time of being a new creation I wanted to listen to only Christ Centered music. Just my preference is all.

I dont question the Faith of any member of Stryper. Like P777 I question how the witness is effected.

10-4 over and out

Blessings to all my brothers and their families here in Christ.

In Christ
Rich

Preacherman777 wrote:

Why are we trying to emulate the world and it's ways? Why do we have to get down and roll in the mud in order to be relevant to the culture? Is God's Word insufficient for conversion of men's souls? Are we going help people recognize their hopeless position of rebellion and having broken God's law and being in need of salvation by teaching them to bang their heads to songs like Breaking the Law and Highway to Hell? Forgive me, but I just fail to see how that works.

You probably should quit listening to rock and metal, then, since secular artists created both of those genres, huh? Don't you think Christian rock and metal emulates the world? Christians sure didn't start those styles.

Preacherman777 wrote:

Rather, it's about who we are and what we reflect as we engage the world. Are we trying to prove that we can be just as cool and bad ass as they can be or are we trying to show those who are dying of spiritual hunger where they can be fed? I'm sorry, but all too often I think we make this about what we want and what we think is cool and what we want to hold on to and we disregard that part about not being of this world.

Hasn't Stryper done that with every album, including the Covering? The last song is God. Not to mention Michael's solo material, Robert's solo album and time with other Christian bands, Oz and Tim being in Sin Dizzy...

Preacherman777 wrote:

We can be all things to all men in order to save some by being a rocker to rocker, but not by glorifying the those who glorify sin and evil. But you know, we could debate this til the end of time, but it really boils down to what does the Bible say. I've offered up some scripture and I could offer up a lot more to make my point, but if you all really believe this approach of Stryper's is just fine, then please make a Biblical case for Christians being that way. Otherwise, it's all just talk.

Okay, so where does the Bible say we can't listen to or perform secular music? As far as making a Biblical case, you made it for me. 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 tells of Paul emulating the culture he's in in order to win souls!

If you're convicted by this or feel you shouldn't listen to it, that's fine and I respect that. However, your convictions on this issue are not the Bible. Remember earlier when I talked about Romans and the sacrificial meat that Paul says some can eat but others stumble from it? That's what this issue is. If it causes you to stumble, flee from it brother! It doesn't cause me to stumble (though I don't care for a couple of the songs so whenever I get a copy, I'm sure I'll skip those) so allow me my liberty, please.

So, to the issue at hand - did this album hurt Stryper's witness? I doubt it. I never saw more stuff about them on Blabbermouth than when this album came out. Sure there were bad reviews and people trash talking, but who knows how many seeds got planted just by the talk about this album? Who knows how many unsaved people will buy one of their other albums after hearing this one?

On a side note - do you have a copy of this album? Have you listened to it? If you do have a copy, yet feel so strongly, why do you still have it?

Quote :

You probably should quit listening to rock and metal, then, since secular artists created both of those genres, huh? Don't you think Christian rock and metal emulates the world? Christians sure didn't start those styles.

Missing the point in massive, massive way. Music is a neutral thing, but to be sure, rock and roll evolved from blues, which evolved from gospel. Metal evolved from rock and in some ways classical, which was also very often religious in nature.

Quote :

Hasn't Stryper done that with every album, including the Covering? The last song is God. Not to mention Michael's solo material, Robert's solo album and time with other Christian bands, Oz and Tim being in Sin Dizzy...

With their other albums sure, I've never been critical of any of their other albums. With the covering I have to say no. They glorified the world with the vast majority of it and glorified God with one song.

Quote :

Okay, so where does the Bible say we can't listen to or perform secular music? As far as making a Biblical case, you made it for me. 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 tells of Paul emulating the culture he's in in order to win souls!

It doesn't and I have never tried to make that case. This is not about whether or not it's ok to listen to or play secular music. I've stated that over and over again. This goes beyond that and into celebrating and/or mixing with the things of darkness and the Bible most certainly does address that and those are the scriptures I offered. I also addressed being all things to all men in order to save some, which again, does not mean that we emulate or celebrate that which is evil, it means we relate to them according their position in life.

Quote :

If you're convicted by this or feel you shouldn't listen to it, that's fine and I respect that. However, your convictions on this issue are not the Bible.

I disagree.

Quote :

Remember earlier when I talked about Romans and the sacrificial meat that Paul says some can eat but others stumble from it? That's what this issue is.

Really? Now isn't that convenient? So we can celebrate the the old life, the things of darkness all we want, so long as we chalk it up to meat sacrificed to idols? Let's take a good look at the case you are trying to make. What does Paul say? For one thing, what he's talking about in Romans is a matter of food, or a holy day and what someone believes about such matters. It has nothing to do with the glorification of evil. But aside from that, what else does it say? For those who are boldly declaring their right to do as they please in these matters and to heck with the consequences of those who are offended, is says in verse 15 "15 If your brother or sister is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy someone for whom Christ died." So Stryper, when they openly and boldly offend the senses of many of their brothers and sisters in Christ, are they acting in love? And what else can we learn about this whole meat sacrificed to idols thing? Let's go to 1 Cor. 10

"27 If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. 28 But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, both for the sake of the one who told you and for the sake of conscience. 29 I am referring to the other person’s conscience, not yours. For why is my freedom being judged by another’s conscience? 30 If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for?

31 So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. 32 Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God— 33 even as I try to please everyone in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved."

Now this is interesting, we are told that what we know has something to do with whether or not we should eat. If it's possible to eat without knowing about the evil, then it is of no consequence, but if we know, then it is of consequence to those around us. The witness is what matters here, get it? And then it goes on, "whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God." Do we celebrate these ungodly bands to the glory of God? And why? We are not suppose to cause anyone to stumble, no matter who they are. Thus agreeing with Romans by informing us that we are not acting in love when we take advantage of such freedom to the detriment of others.

Quote :

If it causes you to stumble, flee from it brother! It doesn't cause me to stumble (though I don't care for a couple of the songs so whenever I get a copy, I'm sure I'll skip those) so allow me my liberty, please.

It doesn't cause me to stumble, though I do find myself distressed by it because it gives me great concern about the welfare of the body. Having said that, I am not trying to take away your liberty. I have told no one here that they are bad for not agreeing with me on this. I am just expressing my opinion.

Quote :

On a side note - do you have a copy of this album? Have you listened to it? If you do have a copy, yet feel so strongly, why do you still have it?

No, I don't own a copy. Yes, I have listened to it. I own two songs from the album. God and Carry on my wayward son. The rest I have no interest in.

This is another good section of scripture that really speaks to the issue. 1 Cor. 10. And this one addressing our own well being in the matter.

14 Therefore, my dear friends, flee from idolatry. 15 I speak to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. 16 Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all share the one loaf.

18 Consider the people of Israel: Do not those who eat the sacrifices participate in the altar? 19 Do I mean then that food sacrificed to an idol is anything, or that an idol is anything? 20 No, but the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to be participants with demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too; you cannot have a part in both the Lord’s table and the table of demons. 22 Are we trying to arouse the Lord’s jealousy? Are we stronger than he?

And perhaps Romans 14:22 is the cap for my position.

22 So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God.

If Stryper or anyone else felt they had the liberty to enjoy such music, perhaps, in keeping with this verse, that should be kept between them and God, but by making a public spectacle of the matter, they lose any appeal to what these verses are teaching.

Well, preacherman777, you've given me lots to read and think about.

Given your first post, I wonder how you feel about eating at Applebee's or a restaurant with a bar. Isn't eating at an establishment that makes most of their cash on liquor celebrating the darkness? But I digress.

I'm not trying to be harsh with you, but your view of what the Bible says isn't definitive. You are not the authority on the Scriptures. I disagree with you and have made it clear why. On that point, I will still read this discussion but I fear that any further conversation between us may cause dissension and I don't want that.

As much as I want to take it point by point, the only thing I will say is your quotation of Romans 14:22 is interesting. How often have you kept the things you believe about this situation to yourself in this discussion?

My suggestion that we should refrain from parading our liberties on controversial matters is not something that might cause someone to stumble, it's exactly what Paul says. All I'm doing is quoting him. So while I can see why you'd like to have it work both ways, it really doesn't. The context of the passage deals with how we handle our liberties.

With your question about eating at Applebees, again, I feel you are trying to change the discussion. Is alcohol necessarily evil? No, and there is nothing in the Bible to suggest that it is, only the abuse of it. However, if I know I am with someone who knows I'm a Christian and might be offended if I were to drink. I would not drink, for it would not be the loving thing to do. I will not willingly offend others for the sake of asserting my liberty.

Finally, I really get the feeling that you are taking all of this very personally, as though I were attacking you. Again, not my intention. I have never claimed to be THE authority on scripture. I have been discussing my own opinions on the matter and my own conscience on the matter and as I have said, those opinions seem to really bother some people, who have taken great issue with me over them. Again, I have tried to let the issue go and I have done my best to be respectful, but people have kept it going and asking me to answer for things I have said. For that sake, I do not like to leave a discussion unfinished. So as long as people question me, I will do my best to give an answer. If you all want the discussion to stop, then stop asking me to defend my opinions.

Preacherman777 wrote:

My suggestion that we should refrain from parading our liberties on controversial matters is not something that might cause someone to stumble, it's exactly what Paul says. All I'm doing is quoting him. So while I can see why you'd like to have it work both ways, it really doesn't. The context of the passage deals with how we handle our liberties.

With your question about eating at Applebees, again, I feel you are trying to change the discussion. Is alcohol necessarily evil? No, and there is nothing in the Bible to suggest that it is, only the abuse of it. However, if I know I am with someone who knows I'm a Christian and might be offended if I were to drink. I would not drink, for it would not be the loving thing to do. I will not willingly offend others for the sake of asserting my liberty.

Finally, I really get the feeling that you are taking all of this very personally, as though I were attacking you. Again, not my intention. I have never claimed to be THE authority on scripture. I have been discussing my own opinions on the matter and my own conscience on the matter and as I have said, those opinions seem to really bother some people, who have taken great issue with me over them. Again, I have tried to let the issue go and I have done my best to be respectful, but people have kept it going and asking me to answer for things I have said. For that sake, I do not like to leave a discussion unfinished. So as long as people question me, I will do my best to give an answer. If you all want the discussion to stop, then stop asking me to defend my opinions.

pm77 I apologize if I came across harshly. I didn't take it personally - we just disagreed. It felt (at least to me) that when you countered my disagreement on what the Bible says and how it applies, you came across more like "I'm right, you're wrong" and less "This is my opinion and what I believe". No worries though.

I would like to point out that you said "I feel you are trying to change the discussion. Is alcohol necessarily evil? No, and there is nothing in the Bible to suggest that it is, only the abuse of it." What I'm saying is that music isn't evil - but the motives of those who play it can be.

Be blessed.

Right, and I've never claimed that any style of music is evil. But what you said is exactly it. The bands in question, the songs in question, what were the motivations in all of that? That's where I run into a problem. There is much ungodliness in what's being celebrated and honored on "The Covering" and that is what gives me great pause and reservation about it. When Oz goes out there and sings Highway to Hell, a song that celebrates a Hellbound life style and glories in the dream of partying with all your friends in Hell, what's the motivation there? How do you do that to the glory of God?

Then you should ask him for clarification rather than call his character into question publicly. If this site were big enough to catch Oz's or Michael's or any of the rest of the band's eye so that they could see this and answer, I'd give this conversation merit. But, to call them out and question their characters, motivation, and their ability to witness in a place where they cannot answer for themselves, to me, is slanderous.

So, having a discussion about personal opinions about the wisdom of making such an album amounts to slander, eh? I guess Paul and other apostles were slanderous as well when they called into question the behavior of certain people who did questionable things in the name of the faith. You know, I got to be honest. I've been able to have pretty decent and respectful conversation with everyone here for the most part, except it seems for you. You seem to insist on consistently talking down to me because of my opinions and treating me like a bad person. I have to say that I'm beginning to understand why you would defend the behavior of the mods over at the Realm. I'm sorry to see it. I really am. You're the guy running the show and it would seem, you are the most judgmental and intolerant of those who hold such opinions because of their conscience before God. I have condemned no one. Not even Stryper. All I did was respond to rich's question and have conversation with those who questioned me about my opinions. You on the other hand have been very condemning and I can't figure out a reason why except that I am trying to be true to the Word of God. That's the way it looks to me anyway.

Pm777.. hiway to hell is not about partying in hell..its about life on the road touring. That comes straight from the author. Its a metaphor..music is full of them. I believe scripture is to. Things sometimes have different meanings than they seem. I really look at the songs on the covering and just don't see anything offensive in them...enlighten me, but remember I am not conservative so I may not see or find offense in the things you do. Have you read any of michaels interviews concerning the covering.

I grew up listening to Highway to Hell. I don't care what they say it's about, I know what the lyrics say and what I got out of it.

Yes, I've read many of the interviews with Michael about the Covering.

Also I have to say that I agree with aldat...I feel you are being judgmental towards strypers choices and witness. If you believe their witness has been compromised then I can just imagine what you think about me and those who support secular metal bands. You say all music is neutral and I agree..its all metal. I really don't see christian metal and secular metal as different. Its all just music and in my eyes its just entertainment.. neither evil or holy.

As far as hiway to hell is concerned believe what you want. I am sitting here wearing my hiway to hell tshirt and I don't feel evil.

Interesting topic.... And if I can chime in on a couple of things

1. Pray for Stryper that God lets HIS will be done
2. Ok Stryper played secular songs or Ox Fox is in a secular covers band.
Some of those "other" bands have personal issues that don't line up to
The word of GOD. Does that make any more anointed or right because
You just don't know or care to find out.
3. Is stating " Nothing more really needs to be said about that right. We know were Oz Fox stands. Look where he is. Its about the Love of God and singing music that uplifts, honors, and glorifies God.
Vinyl Tattoo, doesnt do that." Really an example of the believer you want to portray
In person or the Internet ? Do you truly know where oz stands.... And if you do shouldn't you
Be praying and edifying instead of condemning ????
4. Everyone is entitled to there opinion but we are all accountable For our words
5. Love is what we are called to do

My 2 cents while babbling on my iPhone

Ps go buy the new liberty n justice "the cigar chronicles"
at www.libertynjustice.net

Two things…

1- My mom wouldn't let me get the album, for reasons that have been discussed amply.
2- I'm not familiar with the originals, nor am I a big fan of the "slick" Stryper style (not that I dislike Stryper, just not my thing). So not something major (to me) I'm missing either.