This is based on my response on a discussion board on ChristianWriters.com
We need to understand that there are definitely two tracks in the American Evangelical church, in terms of music, books, and movies: 1) Artistic efforts "of the church, by the church, for the church," that we probably should not foist on the world due to their preachiness and objective lack of quality, or at least not be offended/defensive when our non-Christian friends point out their preachiness and objective lack of quality. I have plenty of books & music (and have rented lots of movies) in this category; This is what we mostly find in the "christian" industries here: christian bookstores, CCM radio, christian movies
and 2) Artistic efforts that attempt to speak to the broader culture. These will tend to be less preachy, more overtly artistic, perhaps more symbolic in their language / imagery. These are the works most likely to be criticized by the Western Church, as they might not fit our narrow definition of art that is "Christian." I am a fan of much of this stuff, too. This is space where a number of disillusioned musicians dwell -- I won't name them, because they might not agree with that characterization.
Fans of Category 1 tend to be dismissive and judgmental towards fans of Category 2 . . . . . and vice versa. This is the problem -- we need to be supportive of both, or at least recognize that both can be valid. I personally enjoy both of these types of expressions, I believe both have their places, let's just make sure we know in a particular case which one we're talking about so we can properly adjudge it.