To be “secular” usually means something that is not necessarily associated with what is referred to as “sacred” or in some cases referred to simply as “neutral”. For example, sand on the shore is not considered “sacred” in the same way a hymn book is considered sacred or Christian.
But sand on the sea shore is not >>inconsistent<< with anything considered sacred or Christian.
The sand analogy could well apply to types of “secular” music.
For example, the 19th century nursery rhyme, Mary Had A Little Lamb, isn’t “Christian” but it could be refereed to as “secular” in the sense the lyrics are not “Christian”. But the lyrics are not >>inconsistent<< with anything Christian.
On the other hand, somethings that are referred to as “secular” are obviously outright inconsistent with and opposed to Christianity—like Secular Humanism.
In the same way, certain kinds of secular music is inconsistent with and opposed to Christian truths.
The question is, should Christians, who claim to follow Jesus, fill their minds with words and song that oppose Jesus??
Isn’t that like “two timing God”??
How would you like it if your boy friend Jimmy always sang about making love to his other girl friend in your presence??!!
Don’t tell me you would just sit there and let him love sing that “love” song just because he likes it!!
Yet that’s exactly what “Christians” do everyday when they listen to adulterous secular types of music!!
Even to assert some of the music supposedly under the “Christian” genre is hardly Christian.
Just like we have a bunch of false miracle workers, false prophecy junkies and false doctrine dabblers, we may as well have a bunch of lying lyrics to go along with all of it.
And we do!!!
I may as well start offending more people by listing their anti-god music.
I believe in Philippians 4:8. I also believe that something can be true, pure, etc. regardless of its label of Christian or secular.
And now, dear brothers and sisters, one final thing. Fix your thoughts on what is true, and honorable, and right, and pure, and lovely, and admirable. Think about things that are excellent and worthy of praise.
One might argue that all things are sacred. By that I mean that God is the Creator of all things (your example of sand). One might also go so far as propose that even in your example of Jimmy, we find the sacred. By that I mean that Jimmy's actions are in agreement with God's truth that we are all fallen creatures in need of a Savior.
However, if we look to the Scriptures, as we should, the Greek word "hieros" is translated as sacred. It's etymology is unknown, but it generally means, "offered in sacrifice, consecrated to God." Examples include the sacrificial offerings. Thayer's Greek Lexicon has, "its primary sense is thought to be mighty."
The word "secular" does not appear in any English translations of the Bible other than the NLT where it's used where other versions have "unrighteous."
I would suggest that the issue of music should fall under the guidelines of 1 Corinthians 10. We have an obligation to do all things for the glory of God, but we do not have a right to impose specific laws upon another that God has not specified. God has not said, "Don't listen to Johnny Cash, Mozart, Neil Young, Celine Dion," etc. so we should not impose that upon another. If we are concerned that a brother's or sister's choice of music might be harmful for them, we should pray for them and allow the Holy Spirit to bring the conviction. Even music that we might consider vile, filled with messages of adultery, drug use, etc., could be used by God to move that person to participate in ministry to fight those things. We just don't know.
LIttleDavid: I’m copying your post using QUOTE and END QUOTE per section of your post above. My responses and remarks per section will follow my name.
QUOTE “One might argue that all things are sacred. By that I mean that God is the Creator of all things (your example of sand). One might also go so far as propose that even in your example of Jimmy, we find the sacred. By that I mean that Jimmy's actions are in agreement with God's truth that we are all fallen creatures in need of a Savior.” END QUOTE
LIttleDavid: yes, as you say, “One might also go so far as propose...”. Of course, one may proceed to propose anything but it’s entirely something more to propose something logically. You err logically when you equivocate the neutrality and specificity of my sand analogy by fallaciously introducing the universality of “all things”.
QUOTE: “However, if we look to the Scriptures, as we should, the Greek word "hieros" is translated as sacred. It's etymology is unknown, but it generally means, "offered in sacrifice, consecrated to God." Examples include the sacrificial offerings. Thayer's Greek Lexicon has, "its primary sense is thought to be mighty." “ END QUOTE
LIttleDavid: Here, you not only committed the “etymological fallacy” but you also overlooked the significance of contextual relevance. For example, etymological origins usually have nothing to do with determining which range of meaning the current contextual usage draws from a term. Secondly, whatever the Greek word hieros “generally means” (your words) is irrelevant especially when the context calls for specific understanding.
QUOTE: “The word "secular" does not appear in any English translations of the Bible other than the NLT where it's used where other versions have "unrighteous."END QUOTE
LIttleDavid: False argument, you undermine the logical validity of your own argument by not clearly defining your premise. The fact that many theological words are not used in the Bible, (which includes the term “Bible” BTW), does not inform your argument countering my application of the term “secular”. Your reasoning is not necessarily altogether false but it most certainly is unsound.
QUOTE: “I would suggest that the issue of music should fall under the guidelines of 1 Corinthians 10. We have an obligation to do all things for the glory of God, but we do not have a right to impose specific laws upon another that God has not specified. God has not said, "Don't listen to Johnny Cash, Mozart, Neil Young, Celine Dion," etc. so we should not impose that upon another. If we are concerned that a brother's or sister's choice of music might be harmful for them, we should pray for them and allow the Holy Spirit to bring the conviction. Even music that we might consider vile, filled with messages of adultery, drug use, etc., could be used by God to move that person to participate in ministry to fight those things. We just don't know.”END QUOTE
LIttleDavid: Quite false. This is an abuse of the clearly defined 1 Corinthian 10 guidelines. The matters raised in this and adjacent scripture are not only relevant to neutral activities such as the day to meet or foods to eat but also to examples of the kinds of sinful activities to avoid completely. In addition, l clearly discussed in sufficient detail the point you raised here. Did you read all my comments?
Apparently you’re not sufficiently acquainted with the entire chapter of 1 Corinthians 10. This chapter does not condone sinful activities like praising the kind of sin God hates.
You would do well to better inform yourself concerning the scripture you chose to post
