John does not wish anyone to repost his articles, so you will have to refer to his page here and read my reply by the paragraph. If you think this is too inconvenient, complain to him, not me.
1 I don't have much to say concerning this paragraph, although I am glad he wore earplugs, and I recommend that to everyone who attends these concerts. The music is loud enough to cause permanent hearing damage. To allow your hearing to be destroyed by something like this is irresponsible and stupid.2 In this paragraph he condemns the "irresponsible behavior" at the concert, including moshing, body-surfing and head banging. I must admit he does have a little bit of a point here. These things can be dangerous, and people have gotten hurt doing them. But then again, people get hurt all the time playing football and baseball, but I don't hear him condemning those activities. No matter what they do, young people have a tendancy toward irresponsible behavior all the time. I'm not condoning it or saying we should ignore it, but this is just one example of it. The rock concert doesn't cause irresponsible behavior, it's just a place where it can happen. I would also like to add that at a Christian concert or festival, moshing is not really the same as at a secular one. If someone falls in a mosh pit, everyone around them helps them up before they get trampled. People aren't aggressively trying to injure others, they're just boisterously bouncing around.
As for the shirtless kid who got on the stage, he was probably rather hot and so decided to take it off. I've done that before at a concert. I've also taken my shirt off because of the heat while doing volunteer work at a summer camp. Does John condemn that too? If a man not wearing a shirt is immodest, he'd better avoid the local swimming pool. The kid shouldn't have been onstage, I admit that. But John is judging all young people at this concert by the actions of one. The same logic can be used to say that all pro-lifers are dangerous fanatics who kill abortionists. Song lyrics are usually poetry of one sort or another. One of the beautiful things about poetry is how much meaning can be packed into a few lines. But the cost of this is that the listener has to be willing to really think about what the song (or poem) means. I deal with this a little bit more in It Doesn't Say Jesus.4 Yes there was an ambulance at the door. With this many people in this small a place, accidents are going to happen, no matter what's going on. His comment on the clothes of the young people, although it never comes out and says it, is drenched in the certainty that his wearing a suit and tie makes him superior. Those people wearing "grunge" clothes are obviously moral reprobates. Or perhaps they realize that there's "more to your outer appearance than the clothes you hang on your body" (Matthew 6:25, The Message), and that "The LORD does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart" (I Samuel 16:7, NIV). But no, these stupid, unspiritual kids couldn't understand something like that, huh?
5 His derision of Bob Smiley, the comic, is unfair. A stand-up comic is someone who has a comic routine they perform for a large audience, it doesn't have to be in a nightclub. Or perhaps he is condemning laughter itself as crude and un-Christlike. It doesn't take much interpretation from Exodus 3:15 to find out that God's middle name is the God of Laughter. But maybe John doesn't worship the God of Isaac, I don't know. As for the "poor attempts at humor", most of the legalists and Pharisees who condemn rock and the NIV seem to have no sense of humor at all, and can hardly do better. I reply to another attack on laughter in Humor, It's No Laughing Matter.In John's paragraph on Third Day, he says they play "hard rock." Now, while Third Day may be louder than John's used to, they are not hard rock, he needs to get his terms straight. Don't you love it when someone who knows nothing about a field tries to act like an expert?
Then he complains that he "seriously doubt[s] anyone understood them [the lyrics] as they were drowned out." Let me correct this, it should be, "I couldn't understand the lyrics because the music drowned them out." Most of the people who listen to rock music a lot quickly learn to understand the words. Sometimes, the words are a little tough to understand, then I consult the lyrics sheet, because I care about what I hear, and I want to think about it. I personally sometimes find it hard to understand the old-style songs where a single word can be drawn out for five minutes and is often embellished with a lot of trilling and stuff, but that doesn't mean no one should listen to it, just that I don't want to.I also find it interesting that while John complains about not understanding the music these Christian rock bands are playing, he insists that everyone read the KJV only. I personally find the KJV hard to understand at times, and I'm an English major! Apparently it doesn't matter if we understand the translation of the Bible we're reading, but it's vitally important that Christian rock bands make their words clear.
His comments about the "revving up" of the crowd are interesting too. Did you know that cheering for someone and having a good time is "losing your mind"? Guess you'd better not go to that football game. Guess you'd better not clap at the end of a good performance. Even though Jesus approved of it, I guess the crowds in Matthew 21:1-17 should have stopped. Yes, let's squelch all that evil, ungodly fun.The fact that he condemns them for trying to sell merchandise is interesting too. You know, the band has to do this little thing called "eating," and to do that, they kind of need some of this stuff called "money." Maybe John is a communist, because he certainly doesn't seem to like capitalism. (Actually, I do have a little bit of socialist leanings myself, but I get the feeling that he wouldn't like that accusation.)
6 Now he describes the Plankeye part of the concert. He claims that Plankeye and Third Day are very similar. I've heard both and know that they aren't that much alike. Again, he shows his lack of knowledge concerning the field. He only emphasizes this when he claims that Plankeye plays "heavy metal". Plankeye is nowhere near heavy metal.I'm glad that the father took his kid out and got his ears plugged, although I think that he should have been better prepared with quality earplugs. I talked about this topic above.
7 Now he doesn't like the band's claim that the people were "jumping because Jesus made a difference in their lives." I have to wonder if he's ever heard the expression, "jumping for joy." Maybe these kids were just jumping around having a good time, but maybe they were jumping as a way of praising God. After all, to praise God David "danced before the LORD with all his might" (II Samuel 6:14, NIV). It sounds like he was using physical exertion as a way to praise God. Or maybe he was wrong, and Micah was right to condemn him, I guess her infertility was just a coincidence. I wonder why the Bible mentions it (II Samuel 6:20-23)? He also doesn't seem to like the idea that laughter can be holy. I ask, why can't it be? Colossians 3:17 tells us to do everything in the name of God. That means, if we laugh, we should laugh in the name of God, and that sounds like it would be "holy laughter" to me.He also seems to dislike the "commercial" for the charity the bands were supporting. I guess that James 1:26-28 doesn't apply to a rock band, huh? I must wonder how many ultra-conservative pastors would be bold enough to put brochures for a charity at the back of the sanctuary and challenge their congregation to go take one. Probably not a whole lot.
8 Now he finally gets on to talk about the Newsboys part of the concert. His statement, "the alien encounter I was about to experience! Alien to Christ that is!" gives a good example of the substance of his arguments, namely baseless accusation, rhetorical name-calling.Again he condemns the crowd for being excited and moving around. His question, "Was this a concert for Jesus or a football game!?" actually does bring up a good point. What is the purpose of these concerts, entertainment, worship or what? The best answer I can give is to refer you to The Spirit of Revelry? by Bruce Carter.
John says the music combined with the strobe lights was bad enough to make him a little nauseous. I really dislike a lot of the music my parents listen to. Nothing against them, I love my parents, I just don't always like their music. When I hear some of these songs, it is sometimes enough to make me feel a little sick. Does that make them evil and mean nobody should listen to them? No, it just means I'm going to stay away from it.Again he whines that the lyrics are hard to understand. I've dealt with this before.
Then he accuses them of using "hypnotic" light patterns. What he describes sounds to me like it would wake a person up, not put them to sleep. Now if you want to put someone to sleep just have them listen to some old droning hymns where they can hardly understand the archaic language, I think that would do the job quite well. He doesn't seem to like the fact that they do covers of a few secular songs either. I wonder why this is? Paul quoted a secular poet in his preaching at Mars Hill (Acts 17:28). I'm not familiar with these songs, but just the fact that they're by a secular group doesn't make them evil.His comments about the close-up of the lead singers face would be amusing if they weren't serious. Here you have a grown adult in a serious essay basically calling someone else ugly. Gee, how nice of him. It sounds like he's condemning him for having a shaved head. I'd be willing to bet a large sum of money he doesn't like guys with long hair either. I guess the only Christ-like thing to do is to have hair just like his.
As for the video of the band riding motorcycles and doing jumps. Yes, those things can be dangerous, if you don't know what you're doing. Also, I see much less possibility for an accident if you let go of the bike, not more. After all, then you only have to handle your own body, as opposed to you and a large, heavy machine.9 Again he says they make bad attempts at humor, and again he seems to condemn joking an laughing as un-Christlike. If you want to see what I have to say about that again, go back here. (Boy, is he repetative.) He goes on to say that comparing their words to scripture makes no laughing matter. But, he kind of forgets to show us the Scriptural conflicts. If there's really a conflict with scripture he needs to tell us about it. If not, he should leave their lyrics alone.
He has a problem with the fact that Jesus's name isn't made. The book of Esther never specifically mentions the words "God" or "Lord." "Amazing Grace" doesn't have any specific mention of God in it either. As far as I can recall, C. S. Lewis's Chronicles of Narnia only contains the word "Jesus" once, and I don't think they ever mention "God" or "Lord." His excellent book The Screwtape Letters only refers to God as "The Enemy." I guess we'd better scrap those. The Newsboys often don't talk specifically about God, true. But they do deal with issues important to people my age, such as dating, not being ashamed of the Gospel and moral relativism. Maybe if his music spoke on these issues, we'd listen more, as it is when John and his fellows bother to speak to us, rather than about us, it is generally by condescending or insisting that we think and act just like them. Hmmm, and they wonder why we have trouble respecting them.In John 14:6 Jesus said "I am the Road, also the Truth, also the Life" (The Message). If Jesus is Truth, then to talk about truth is to talk about Jesus, and to glorify Truth is to glorify God. I think the Newsboys do this.
10 I think what he said about the drum solo is wonderful too, "As an unsaved teen I’m sure I would have cheered them on as this crowd did." The implication, if you were there cheering, or if you enjoy a good drum solo, you're obviously not saved. Gee, I didn't know there was such a simple tool to look inside a person's heart and test for salvation. I wish Paul had known about this when he wrote I Corinthians, then he could have verse 5 of chapter 4 out. Aren't you glad we have John Beardsley here to reveal the truth to us, and that we don't have to rely on the Bible? Again he complains about not being able to understand the lyrics.11 Here he quotes the chorus of "Shine" from Going Public. This chorus is by the way directly based upon Matthew 5:16, but I guess that doesn't matter much considering John never bothers to mention it. He dismisses the rest of the song as nonsense. I know the song quite well, and I would say that much of it is giving, in a humorous way, examples of a drastic change of lifestyle, showing how different we as Christians should be from the rest of the world. The lines "But out of the glare with nowhere to turn/you ain't going to learn it on what's my line" say that it's not just a lot of talk, you've got to live differently. I guess this is just another example of him whining because now he has to think, another thing I've dealt with before.
12 Now he comes down on the Newsboys for not having a clear gospel message to much of their music. I'm assuming by this he means that they don't tell how to be saved in every song. I would like to ask him, does his pastor talk about how to be saved every week in church? If not, I think he needs to be quiet. He says similar things about the Newsboys' preaching time. But, from his description, they were speaking mainly for the benefit of believers. If you're talking to Christians you don't have to tell them how to know Jesus, they already know him. Instead, you encourage them to dedicate their lives to Christ and live whole-heartedly for God, which is what they were doing.He says that the speaker then, "then gave his version of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, saying these were people just interested in 'doing their own thing.'" I wonder if he means that the people of S & G weren't trying to do their own thing. If you want to get at the essence of what sin is, that's it: doing what you want regardless of God's commands. Basically, the guy was saying these people were sinners. John insists that the guy was wrong in saying that God destroyed S & G due to a lack of righteous people. But, if there had been 10 righteous people there (Genesis 18:32). So what the speaker was saying was not incorrect. Also, a lack of righteousness and a lot of sin are basically two different ways of saying the same thing.
13 (For simplicity's sake, I am including the scriptural references with the next paragraph) Now he says the Newsboys claimed God is soft on sin. I wish I had heard this myself, and not just his second-hand version of it, but as I understand it, they aren't saying that God loves or tolerates sin, they're saying that we as Christians need to live a life worthy of the name. This is a message a lot of Christians need to hear.He also seems to dislike the fact that the Newsboys didn't actually preach the Gospel, but told the unsaved to talk to the people they came with. I think this is a great idea actually. That way, people hear about God personally, from people they know. Another thing, in the Gospels, you see a pattern in the way Jesus talks to people, with the large crowds, he mostly spoke about righteous living. It was one-on-one that he talked about salvation and knowing God. Maybe the Newsboys are just following that example.
He closes out this paragraph with the ridiculous assertion that the Newsboys are promoting the New Age movement. I can only assume he is referring to the Star Trek quotation. However, I really question the relation of either this quote or Star Trek in general to New Age. I've watched Star Trek before, both the original and the Next Generation, and I've never really noticed any New Age propaganda. I admit, I have seen some things I disagree with, but nothing either New Age or outrightly blasphemous. I can only guess we're dealing with the whole quoting secular sources issue again.14 I don't see what relevence Ephesians 5:19-20 has here. It has almost nothing to do with what he's talking about. He condemns the Newsboys for leaving out quotations of scripture, but it's clear from his description that they used Biblical references even if they didn't quote them directly. Like I said earlier they were preaching mainly for the benefit of those already saved, which is a perfectly valid ministry. If you're talking to those who already know Christ, you don't have to tell them how to get to know him, and doing so would be a waste of time.
15 Now he tries to claim that Christian rock is just imitating the world and it is useless as a ministry tool. When the Bible talks about imitating the world, it says there are three problems "wanting your own way, wanting everything for yourself, wanting to appear important" (I John 2:16 The Message). I don't see any of these things shown in the behavior that John viciously condemns here. But, then again, maybe the Bible accidentally left out "Jumping around, having a good time and enjoying yourself." I guess maybe we should add that, since Mr. Beardsley seems so sure it belongs there. He calls us to repent of something that he has not really shown to be evil. In my mind, to repent before God of something that I don't truly believe to be evil would be a horrible hypocrisy. He also judges them for trying to justify their "sin" (which he still hasn't shown to be sin at all). I wonder if he's ever tried to justify lying, or cheating just a little bit, or gossiping. After all, these are sins just as bad as homosexuality. I guess the main difference is that those ones are socially acceptable. He also accuses those of us defending Christian rock of distorting the Bible when, in reality, I have a wonderful example of those who condemn it doing so right here.Then he makes a reference to a group of letters whose validity is seriously in question. He also claims that "One of the known side-effects of this music is rebellion against parents and God!" but gives no proof, nor real, substantial evidence. I have one thing to say to this, prove it! I listen to Christian rock music and I love it. If you asked my parents, they would say I'm not rebellious at all. I admit, neither my relationship with them, nor my relationship with God is perfect, but I'm trying, which is all the best of us can honestly say.
He then goes on to make the absurd claim that the less you mention Jesus, the more popular you are in Christian music. The best argument against this foolishness is The Supertones. Their songs are explicitly evangalistic, they mention God by name just about every other line and they are one of the most popular bands in Christian music today. The Insyderz song "Sacrifice" is a clear, no-punches-pulled description of the crucifiction of Jesus, with the acknowledgement that "this is all for my repentance" and it's one of their most popular songs.John then claims to know of scriptures clearly reproving both rock music and "holy laughter" (which I defended above), but he never give us these references. He says these two have the Spirit of the Anti-Christ. I John 4:3 clearly points these people out. They are people who "do not acknowledge that Jesus" (NIV) is the son of God. I have yet to see any Christian band fail to acknowledge Jesus as God's Son. I can't say much about the "Holy Laughter" movement, since I haven't personally encountered it, but I really doubt that they deny Jesus either.
16 (Again, for simplicity's sake, the scriptures are counted with the next paragraph.) I wonder if he means we're supposed to talk to ourselves, I guess the archaic English just makes this tough for a normal person to understand, but I'll deal with that issue somewhere else. Anyway, he claims that Christian rock musicians and listeners behave exactly the opposite of these scriptures, but never says how, another example of generalizations without evidence. I honestly think the word of Christ dwells in me richly, considering I have over 300 verses memorized and I do my best to understand and live by them. He also claims that Christian rock induces acts of the flesh, and gives the example of body-surfing, head-banging (which by the way does not actually involve hitting your head on something), moshing and jumping. I fail to see how any of these acts are sinful. If jumping is sinful, maybe we should have the high jump and long jump removed from the Olympics, probably the hurtles too. I guess jumping jacks have got to go too. Any other jumping activities we must now eliminate?I checked his scripture references. II Corinthians 6:14-18 talks about not being partners with the world, to me it sounds far more like it is talking about personal relationships than styles of music. Exodus 32:17-19 talks about the idolatry of the Hebrews with the golden calf, I don't see strong evidence that Christian music is idolatry. Romans 12:1-2 is all about not conforming to the world, but again, I don't hold with his definition of conforming to the world. An excellent refutation of this claim is made by Bruce Carter here. II Timothy 3:16 declares the divine origin and usefulness of the Bible. Jermiah 10:2 is more about not conforming to the world. II Corinthians 5:15-17 is about being made a new creation, which I do not think means getting rid of things which weren't sin in the first place. Mark 9:42 is about causing people to sin, I don't believe that Christian rock does that. James 4:4 is about friendship with the world, which I dealt with talking about II Corinthians 6:14-18. Who's twisting Scripture now?
Now by the endof this, you may be asking, "But John, what about individuality, and personal taste?" Don't worry, he leaves plenty of room for these things, as long as you dress the way he does, style your hair the way he does, read the translation he does, listen to the music he does and enjoy yourself the way he does. Ummm, then again, maybe he doesn't like individuality that much. Guess God was wrong making us each different, he should have talked to John Beardsley first.