Foxyscholar,
In response to your comment about us being just “humans” I totally disagree with the how religious people always want to throw that term around to justify sin. As people of God we are not just humans, the word of God clearly states that we were created in His likeness and image (Gen 1:26) and Psalm 8:5 says He created us a little lower than Himself. If Christians are just humans who are susceptible to living a life of sin then what separates the light from the darkness?
1 Peter 1:16 (NIV): Be holy because I am holy—this is not an option it is a command.
1 Peter 2:9 (NIV): But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to the God that you may declare praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His wonderful light.
As ministers of the gospel, people entrusted with such a mantle must conduct themselves in accordance to the Word of God period. The Word of God is and will remain the final authority for the true believer.
Shandell: let me be VERY CLEAR on what I DID NOT SAY.
1. I did not say "just human". I said "first human", which I now see as problematic but for different reasons, not to:
2. JUSTIFY any sin WILLINGLY COMMITTED BY ANYBODY.
3. The PROBLEM with your premise that comprises this thread is this: one so called "religious person" attempting to LABEL and CONFORM another (possibly) "religious person" to their own interpretation of appropriate standards of conduct.
What exactly is a "religious person", by the way?
Please reread my post again and address the questions I put forth:
--Should a gospel artist/gospel entertainer (depending on which title is most convienient for them at the time/situation) be judged for their ENTIRE BODY of music or just one song?
--Was it that the particular record was about sex or that it had profanity in it?
--Is it alright/acceptable if the song was about sex with his wife?
EXACTLY WHAT is the sin being claimed to have been committed here? The profanity? The erotic gospel record? What?
What has Canton Jones said or did to indicate that he is saved and/or a religious person that permits the scrutiny of scripture? 'Cause he made a gospel record? Seriously? Is that the only criteria?
I repost EXACTLY what I said:
We need to understand that these gospel artists are first HUMAN and they are not apologetic for doing what they want to do, whether it pleases their audiences or not. So instead of us wondering if their music is gonna be confusing, we need to see their music for what it is and govern ourselves accordingly. If it is not godly or has an underlying spirit of lust/perversion, then we need to AVOID IT and guard our hears and minds and ears and eyes (and those of the vulnerable among us, e.g., young people). Period. No more explanation needed.
In other words, I'm not waiting for Canton Jones or Kirk Franklin to TELL ME who they are or what they believe or if they are saved. I'm looking at WHAT THEY DO. Now Kirk hasn't come out with any CDs with profanity on them. But apparently Canton Jones did and he didn't ask you for your permission to record it. You, Shandell, a previous buyer of his music, he didn't even let you know he recorded it. Why? Maybe because he didn't want you to hear it and he has made NO APOLOGIES for making such a record. That's why I'm saying that we should see the so-called gospel music thing for what it is and govern ourselves accordingly and I REFUSE to apologize for that.
So let me restate for the record again that I am not using the HUMAN statement to justify nobody's mess. Hear/read me very clearly on that.
He did a concert for my old church here. He was amazing. But this? 
