Convicted Heavy Metal ‘Christian’ Singer Admits Being Atheist, Duped Fans

[R.D.P.]

Here's more info on this great Hymn. Taken from Wikipedia: "Morning Has Broken" is a popular and well-known Christian hymn first published in 1931. It has words by English author Eleanor Farjeon and is set to a traditional Scottish Gaelic tune known as "Bunessan". Have the Steven Curtis Chapman and Third Day versions of that song. Will play them both, once Jesus Radio is officially on the air.

Dan <><

 

[anotherguyTN]

The song Morning Has Broken in itself isn't the problem so much as the baggage that Cat Stevens' version of it has after his becoming a Muslim.

In looking at his biography in Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_Stevens it appears that while his father was Greek Orthodox and his mother was Baptist, and he was educated in a Catholic school, he was possibly brought up in a Christian atmosphere (although only God may know how committed his parents were), but he didn't stay with it in his adult life, and experimented with various religions until he became a Muslim.

I don't see why this is any different than other secular singers (in rock, pop, easy listening, and especially in country music) who don't even pretend to be Christians, but they do gospel songs or albums, or even examples like the singer who was brought up at the beginning of this topic. The problem isn't the song itself, but the fact that the person singing it doesn't have a real Christian commitment, which was probably the case with Cat Stevens as well.

I definitely think that it's still possible for a truly committed Christian singer to do the song in the correct context in worship to (the ONE true) God.

 

[landtuna]

The song Morning Has Broken in itself isn't the problem so much as the baggage that Cat Stevens' version of it has after his becoming a Muslim.

What "baggage" is that?

The problem isn't the song itself, but the fact that the person singing it doesn't have a real Christian commitment, which was probably the case with Cat Stevens as well.

Since the lyrics don't suggest any sort of religious affiliation, Christian or otherwise, just how is this a Christian song and why does its singer need a "real Christian commitment"?

I definitely think that it's still possible for a truly committed Christian singer to do the song in the correct context in worship to (the ONE true) God.

According to the world's lengthly list of gods and the lack of address of any of them in this song just how does one achieve "correct context"?

 

[anotherguyTN]

Landtuna,

Here are the lyrics to Morning Has Broken: http://hymnlyrics.org/mostpopularhymns/morning_has_broken.html

This song was written as a Christian hymn. I'm not going to turn this into a heavy theological debate because this isn't the place for that. Besides it's obvious that you don't get it, and I don't know why you're wasting your time (and ours) in this thread.

 

[boombox4]

Sure it is up for debate. I am not questioning whether or not you believe but rather whether a particular person actually lived as described in the Bible. The most educated historians cannot decide whether Jesus was an actual person or whether he was an amalgamation of Christian beliefs. In fact, there is considerable thought that because most of his life is not referenced he was not an actual person. People of his day who wrote of such things didn't write about him and surely if he had performed his "miracles" they would have. In any event, you will believe whatever you wish and I will do the same. But the fact that a theory exists in a textbook does not make it so.

True, anything is up for debate. I know people who don't believe in evolution (which actually is a theory), even though there is plenty of scientific evidence to favor it as fact.

There is as much evidence for an historical Jesus as there is for an historical Aristotle or Socrates. One could say either one of those men, whom are generally accepted as historical personages, were just fictions or composites also. The reason the historicity of Aristotle and Socrates isn't questioned is because there are no religions set up around their existence.

Whether Christ was a miracle worker is a matter of faith, but most historians agree that he was an historical person.

 

[boombox4]

So, getting back to the original subject, is it true that CCM musicians are held to a higher degree of accountability that what they sing they also believe?

And the next question is, should they?

I think they are held to a "higher standard" because of the religion they represent. But at the same time, I think some of it is a bit overblown. Christians tend to get a bit critical of other Christians over all sorts of things.

Looking over some of Amy Grant's songs -- she wasn't the only writer of them. The songs themselves are the vehicles of the Christian expression used on CCM radio. So when stations pulled her songs, they weren't just 'punishing' the artist for a perceived scandal or fall -- they were also punishing, in effect, the other writers, as well as other Christians and non-Christians who were involved in the recordings -- most of whom probably had nothing to do with the scandals themselves.

I have never run a radio station, much less a Christian radio station. So I can't say with certainty what I would have done when these scandals surrounding Christian artists occurred, if I had been in these station owners' and managers' shoes. But I think that dumping an entire catalogue of otherwise good songs representative of your station's Christian message -- to me, that seems a bit extreme.

To me the songs themselves are more important than the failings of the people performing them. Just because I have the Rolling Stones' Exile On Main St. doesn't mean I endorse heroin use, for example.

 

[rbrucecarter5]

Stevens didn't write that hymn. It was first published in 1931, 16 years before Stevens was born!

Maybe you should spend more attention to the message instead of condemning messengers.

I am actually a fan of him as well. I really enjoy his music. I was simply saying playing his music on a Christian station is not a good idea, because he is not a Christian artist. He can go worship the moon god of Islam if he wants, I don't care as long as he isn't trying to kill me in the name of El-Ah, the Babylonian moon god. What gets played on the air on a Christian station, though, is very different from what the staff enjoys personally, away from the station. I had DJ's who ran the gamut from being fanatical about "Christian music only" to teenage girls that listened to top 40 to a Mormon. As long as they adhered to the format, and had standards I did for the musical content and artist lifestyle, I was happy to have them. It wasn't like I had options for who did the show - they were volunteers, there because they believed in the mission of the show.

 

[Avid Listener]

I am actually a fan of him as well. I really enjoy his music. I was simply saying playing his music on a Christian station is not a good idea, because he is not a Christian artist. He can go worship the moon god of Islam if he wants, I don't care as long as he isn't trying to kill me in the name of El-Ah, the Babylonian moon god. What gets played on the air on a Christian station, though, is very different from what the staff enjoys personally, away from the station. I had DJ's who ran the gamut from being fanatical about "Christian music only" to teenage girls that listened to top 40 to a Mormon. As long as they adhered to the format, and had standards I did for the musical content and artist lifestyle, I was happy to have them. It wasn't like I had options for who did the show - they were volunteers, there because they believed in the mission of the show.

Your post implied that the Cat Stevens version was the only recorded version of the song, that the song was "his" song. Choosing to not play the Cat Stevens version is one thing. Refusing to play anyone's version of the song is another. I was addressing the latter point.

 

[CTListener]

I am actually a fan of him as well. I really enjoy his music. I was simply saying playing his music on a Christian station is not a good idea, because he is not a Christian artist. He can go worship the moon god of Islam if he wants, I don't care as long as he isn't trying to kill me in the name of El-Ah, the Babylonian moon god. What gets played on the air on a Christian station, though, is very different from what the staff enjoys personally, away from the station. I had DJ's who ran the gamut from being fanatical about "Christian music only" to teenage girls that listened to top 40 to a Mormon. As long as they adhered to the format, and had standards I did for the musical content and artist lifestyle, I was happy to have them. It wasn't like I had options for who did the show - they were volunteers, there because they believed in the mission of the show.

Or to get experience in radio. What if a young Buddhist or Jew or Muslim with great pipes and a naturally comfortable and convincing delivery showed up and asked to volunteer at the station? He'd be getting the message across to your listeners, probably a lot better than the mechanical-sounding, flat-toned Christian who was on before him. So would his religion automatically disqualify him for this purely volunteer job he was seeking to better his chances of landing a paid radio gig down the road? And if he really liked the music and could really sell the message, would such a talent have a future in commercial Christian radio?

It's your right not to play a Muslim's rendition of "Morning Has Broken." I don't expect you play any of the traditional carols Neil Diamond, who is Jewish, has recorded on his three Christmas albums, although I'm sure that to his many Christian fans, his interpretations of "Joy to the World" and "O Come, All Ye Faithful" remind them of the true meaning of Christmas just as much as any Christian artist's would, maybe even more. But to refuse to put a capable DJ on the air for religious reasons? I don't know ....

 

[anotherguyTN]

Your post implied that the Cat Stevens version was the only recorded version of the song, that the song was "his" song. Choosing to not play the Cat Stevens version is one thing. Refusing to play anyone's version of the song is another. I was addressing the latter point.

That was my point. There's nothing wrong with the song, and if Cat Stevens is still doing it that's up to him. But it makes sense on a Christian station to play the version that was done by a Christian artist.

 

[landtuna]

Landtuna,

Here are the lyrics to Morning Has Broken: http://hymnlyrics.org/mostpopularhymns/morning_has_broken.html

This song was written as a Christian hymn. I'm not going to turn this into a heavy theological debate because this isn't the place for that. Besides it's obvious that you don't get it, and I don't know why you're wasting your time (and ours) in this thread.

I wasn't aware we were having a theological debate. I was merely inquiring as to why a board member feels Cat Stevens carries baggage because he chose to sing a specific song that might be on the fringes of being considered by some to be Christian. I really doubt you would find this in any hymnal I am familiar with.

If you feel I am wasting your time then move on. I don't recall mandating your interest in this thread.

 

[landtuna]

I know people who don't believe in evolution (which actually is a theory), even though there is plenty of scientific evidence to favor it as fact.

Except that the difference between theory and fact is not whether people believe one or the other but whether one can be proven and the other can't. I will leave you to sort out the specifics.

There is as much evidence for an historical Jesus as there is for an historical Aristotle or Socrates. One could say either one of those men, whom are generally accepted as historical personages, were just fictions or composites also. The reason the historicity of Aristotle and Socrates isn't questioned is because there are no religions set up around their existence.

The absence of religious overtones does remove a certain amount of conflict in Aristotle and Socrates but from what I have read there is much from both surviving to this day to prove them real. Even the most Jesus-educated scholars cannot make that claim - and, it always seems to be that the people trying to prove he was a real person have a vested interest.

 

[landtuna]

Looking over some of Amy Grant's songs -- she wasn't the only writer of them. The songs themselves are the vehicles of the Christian expression used on CCM radio. So when stations pulled her songs, they weren't just 'punishing' the artist for a perceived scandal or fall -- they were also punishing, in effect, the other writers, as well as other Christians and non-Christians who were involved in the recordings -- most of whom probably had nothing to do with the scandals themselves.

I have never run a radio station, much less a Christian radio station. So I can't say with certainty what I would have done when these scandals surrounding Christian artists occurred, if I had been in these station owners' and managers' shoes. But I think that dumping an entire catalogue of otherwise good songs representative of your station's Christian message -- to me, that seems a bit extreme.

I agree with you on these points and, matter of fact, it is one of my personal criticisms with organized religion - in inability to forgive as they constantly preach in their various sermons.

I am not familiar with Amy Grant's transgressions but that probably means it wasn't severe enough to make the headlines. If she was originally accepted as a genuine CCM artist and fell off the wagon so to speak how is it that the same community can now toss her under the bus and not allow her the redemption that their religion provides? Makes no sense to me (along with a huge list of other religious hypocrisy). It almost seems as if there are believers waiting on someone to commit some form of sin so everyone can then pick up rocks and beat them to death.

To me the songs themselves are more important than the failings of the people performing them. Just because I have the Rolling Stones' Exile On Main St. doesn't mean I endorse heroin use, for example.

Again, we agree. I tend to look at musicians as just another skill set. Just as I do not question the devotion behind my local druggist neither do I question the devotion behind a singer of songs.

 

[rbrucecarter5]

The absence of religious overtones does remove a certain amount of conflict in Aristotle and Socrates but from what I have read there is much from both surviving to this day to prove them real. Even the most Jesus-educated scholars cannot make that claim - and, it always seems to be that the people trying to prove he was a real person have a vested interest.

Wrong. There are secular authors from the same time like Josephus who record Jesus as a real historical person.

 

[rbrucecarter5]

I am not familiar with Amy Grant's transgressions but that probably means it wasn't severe enough to make the headlines.

She got a divorce. That runs afoul many fundamentalists who think all divorce is wrong. I've talked with Amy. Her reasons are valid, and any reasonable person hearing the details would be on her side. Lovely lady - inside and out.

 

[rbrucecarter5]

Sorry for the confusion folks! I never meant to criticize "Morning Has Broken" the hymn. I just could not in all good conscience play the Cat Stevens version on a Christian station when he abandoned the truth of God through Jesus Christ for a lie from satan. People might have taken that as an endorsement of the false religion of Islam.

 

[CTListener]

She got a divorce. That runs afoul many fundamentalists who think all divorce is wrong. I've talked with Amy. Her reasons are valid, and any reasonable person hearing the details would be on her side. Lovely lady - inside and out.

Valid? She got a divorce so she could deepen another relationship, with a married man, no less: Vince Gill, the country singer, who subsequently got one of his own and now is her second husband. But that's their business, and while I'd keep her on the playlist if my listeners still wanted to hear her music, you obviously had every right to pull her from yours if your reading of your audience was that they couldn't countenance Christian lyrics coming from the mouth of a divorcee.

 

[rbrucecarter5]

Or to get experience in radio. What if a young Buddhist or Jew or Muslim with great pipes and a naturally comfortable and convincing delivery showed up and asked to volunteer at the station? He'd be getting the message across to your listeners, probably a lot better than the mechanical-sounding, flat-toned Christian who was on before him. So would his religion automatically disqualify him for this purely volunteer job he was seeking to better his chances of landing a paid radio gig down the road? And if he really liked the music and could really sell the message, would such a talent have a future in commercial Christian radio?....

I really don't know. It would be very unlikely. The lyrics would soon make a Jew or Muslim very uncomfortable. I am not sure about Buddhists - they probably would be more open to Christ's message than Jews or Muslims. I'd have to talk with them, get to know them as a person. I guess it would be down to what their motivation was. I never lied to a listener, who probably just assumed all the DJ's were Christian. If somebody had called and specifically asked the religion of the announcer, I would have been honest. Like I said - it wasn't like I had any choice at all in the matter. These people were the ONLY choices - if somebody had promoted a false religion on the air, I would have pulled them. But they didn't. They were there to play the music, announce the titles, be personable and give the station a personal touch just like any other radio station. I really didn't look at it as being any more strange than the secular top-40 DJ down the street who turned down the monitor on his own show to listen to US! And - he tried to hire one of our DJ's. She declined because it seemed creepy to her a 40 year old would want to actually hire a 14 year old. Yep - our best DJ at that time was 14! Who better to understand what kids wanted in music? Our Mormon was actually approved to be on the air by the bishop in her church, who understood that she was not allowed to promote mormonism in any way whatsoever. And they were OK with that. I thought that was really sporting of them. Contrast that with the "Christians" who came before and after us on the air. Breaking a door to get to a teenage girl in the restroom. Almost burning down the station - twice - because they were total SLOBS who left the coffee maker go dry around a bunch of empty paper food wrappers. Or the preacher who smoked so much it made you sick to smell his breath. Or the preacher who beat the _____ out of his wife all the time. The list goes on. Yep - I probably would have given a sincere, motivated person from another faith a shot on the air as long as they were submitted to the rules I set down about it being a Christian show, and only Christian messages in the songs or what the DJ said.

 

[johnbasalla]

Those "Christians" (who really aren't) are the biggest problem for Christians. Your horror stories reminded me of a short,
5-minute, most likely, brokered program that ran during afternoon drive time on a Gospel station back in the 1970s. The guy, (note that I'm not calling him a Preacher), was asking all ladies to call him to get in touch with Christ. It hit me as rather creepy as he mentioned a number of times that only ladies should call the number he gave out over the air. I thought, right away, that if I was a woman, there would be no way I was going to call this guy.

I hope that, in the end, the teenage girl was not harmed. Why was the teenage girl there to begin with. Were charges pressed? I also wonder how the guy who beat his wife squared that with the Gospel he was preaching on-air. Wasn't he listening to his own sermons?

 

[landtuna]

Wrong. There are secular authors from the same time like Josephus who record Jesus as a real historical person.

Well, here are 126 authors, including your example Josephus, who apparently never heard of him.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...historical-texts-says-mythical-character.html