woe to the world because

I'm not surprised that Christianity Today would have an article like this. Nor am I surprised that their overall point is that the label and style don't matter. CT is, after all, symptomatic of the larger problem with the faith -- acceptance, tolerance, and an embracing of the larger culture.

I'll save you the wasted time. The last paragraph is enough to tell you where they stand:

But the question persists, because in evangelical circles there's a lot of chatter and concern over whether particular music is "Christian" or "secular." Well—here's a fool's axiom: Both inside the parallel universe of Christian music and in every other universe, the only one who can make music Christian is Christ. No matter what we make of Bazan or Crowder, Rebecca St. James or Michael W. Smith, Mute Math or Newsboys—or, for that matter, U2, Bob Dylan, Johnny Cash, Sufjan Stevens, and a million other acts—when we're talking about music, we'd do well to remember our categories are too simple, too inflexible, and too earthy to contain the truth.

Is that your way of playing both sides, CT? Of condemning some believers while also praising some of the world? Yes, the Lord can use any music to His glory, even the ones not meant to praise Him. Not disagreeing there. But if you think that groups that seek the secular are as noble as those that forsake the world, you are wrong on so many counts, it's not worth discussing.