Ccm

[Aaron]

The fact that someone would be described as being after God's own heart dismisses your position that the heart/emotion is corrupt. God doesn't make decisions based on emotion, yet David is after God's own heart.

I've yet to come across a more convoluted reasoning, unless it was Eric's. You're assumption that David's heart for God was a natural disposition is not only fallacious, but diabolical.

However, it once again illuminates the fact that one's understanding of Christ and the nature of His Atonement will determine what he thinks is an acceptable form of worship. This debate is never about music, but God and man.

Your assertion to condemn CCM based on the notion that it evokes emotion just doesn't line up logically or scripturally.

That's not my assertion.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

"Jesus, I am so in love with you..."

That's kind of creepy.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Some of the Psalms in the Bible are repetitive.

But are they meaninglessly repetitive?

When I was in the WoF cult, we would often sing things over and over again in order to get us all hyped up on emotion and worked into a state of hyper-suggestability. Really, no different than a Buddhist or a New Age person chanting to work themselves into an altered state of consciousness.

But in the Psalms, that's not what we see. You have to understand that in the grammer and idiom of that language and culture, repetition is almost always for the purpose of emphasis, not simply to be repetitive.

For instance, the Bible says "Holy, Holy, Holy" but we don't say, "Alright already! We get it: He's Holy" because we understand that in the Hebrew language and idiom, it isn't simply repeating the words, but is repeating the words Holy, Holy, Holy to emphasize that there is a quantitative superiority in Christ's Holiness. There is no qualifying word to say "Christ is really Holy" or "Christ is very Holy", so this is the way the authors say that Christ is so Holy that mere holiness doesn't describe Him. He is thrice Holy.

Repetition in CCM tends to be repetition just for the sake of repetition.

 

[sag38]

So, there is some repetition but to associate it with cultic activity is a stretch!

 

[Trotter]

That's kind of creepy.

Here's the song Spinach was talking about:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMzEZBoseC0

I may not agree with PCD's theology, but their music is an offering to the Lord.

Knocking CCM because of a bad experience (not knocking you, JDF... your experience is still your experience) or personal taste is just wrong. I could bash southern gospel, classic hymns, and chorals for the same reasons.

Not all CCM is shallow repetition. Yes, there is a fair share of it out there, but most call that "praise" music (not really sure why other than it is simple and can be used as praise choruses in church). CCM encompasses several sub-genres.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

I may not agree with PCD's theology, but their music is an offering to the Lord.

That may be but God tells us how He wants to be worshipped. I'm not sure that includes amatory love songs.

 

[Johnv]

That may be but God tells us how He wants to be worshipped. I'm not sure that includes amatory love songs.

Then be sure to rip "Song of Solomon" out of your bible.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

For instance, the Bible says "Holy, Holy, Holy" but we don't say, "Alright already! We get it: He's Holy" because we understand that in the Hebrew language and idiom, it isn't simply repeating the words, but is repeating the words Holy, Holy, Holy to emphasize that there is a quantitative superiority in Christ's Holiness. There is no qualifying word to say "Christ is really Holy" or "Christ is very Holy", so this is the way the authors say that Christ is so Holy that mere holiness doesn't describe Him. He is thrice Holy.

Repetition in CCM tends to be repetition just for the sake of repetition.

As in this CCM song?

 

[rbell]

OK, so if I'm getting this...

A CCM song that repeats is "meaninglessly repetitive."

A song of another genre, or Scripture, is not.

Is that about it?

 

[drfuss]

Nodak writes: "I believe quite firmly this is something for the local church to decide. However, whatever type of music the church chooses, it should not be surprised if some leave to find an atmosphere more conducive to worship for them. And the leavers should not be criticized for doing exactly what the stayer's did: worshipping in a way that fits them. I get really bugged when someone comes into a traditional church (and it would work the other way round), works hard to get it changed to contemporary, then basically calls those that leave heathens for taking their tithe with them."

I agree with the above.

I find that many who like CCM are bored with traditional Christian music (TCM) because it does not have a dominat beat. Many who like TCM are irritated with the CCM with the "jungle" beat because of the beat dominating the song.

Personnally, I like TCM and I like CCM without the dominat drum beat. The repetitions do not bother me near as much as the dominat drum beat, which irritates me. I like the words to be dominat and the music to be supportative rather that the other way around.

I tend to be musically inclined; I find that those not musically inclined and like TCM, are not bothered by the CCM dominat beat as much as by the repetitions.

What I really dislike is for someone to sing a good TCM song and contaminiate it by changing it to a CCM style and having trouble staying on the correct pitch be wavering from note to note.

 

[Eric B]

I've yet to come across a more convoluted reasoning, unless it was Eric's.

What's that cheap shot supposed to mean? You never could answer any of the points I make, and in many cases (which you might be referring to), I cut to the heart of this anti-CCM crusade (whether you want to admit what it stems from or not).
It's your side's reasoning that is convoluted, where citing verses on "flesh/carnal/natural" prove CCM is wrong. You have to SHOW where a particular beat by itself makes people sin, or whatever it is supposed to cause us to do in "feeding the flesh". (And I don't mean extreme examples, where people are rolling around on the floor, or whatever they do). You never did prove this as you were challenged on ealier threads (no, we did not forget!)

 

[Aaron]

The heart of your arguments are revisionist history, wresting the Scriptures and playing the race card. I've trumped you each time with quotes from experts of your own race and quotes from classic, time-honored Christian commentators.

The issue in arguments about CCM is not racism or nationalism. It is the nature of God, the nature of man and the nature of the Atonement.

 

[Johnv]

Yet none of the arguments Aaron has raised make any sort of objective opposition to CCM. At best, the only argument that can be made so far against CCM is "I don't like it".

 

[Trotter]

Exactly, John.

The same "arguments" were raised against what we now call great hymns of the faith. At one time they were the contemporary Christian music on the scene and they too were vilified. If you stop and think, at one time music was not even allowed in Baptist churches at all.

No one here will dare say that all CCM is great or that it was written with the sole purpose of uplifting God or that it all has great theology. Of course, this could also be said of the classic hymns from back when.

So... what's the difference between CCM and the great hymns? Time. Whether Aaron or anuone else is willing to admit it, it was time that made the great hymns great. Some people picked them up from the get-go and used them, but others would not touch them; once they aged and were no longer contemporary these same people picked them up and used them. The same will happen to the CCM of today.

All the crap about "jungle beats" is just that, crap. A beat is nothing. Some don't want anything to change in their church. funny part is that God is not locked into a 1950's mentality, or a 1900's or 1850's one either. Gos is alive and well and speaking to people every day through various means. One of those means is through song, and He uses more than an organ and songs wrote 60+ years sgo when doing so.

If anyone doesn't like CCM that is their prerogative. To condemn some one else because they won't conform to their own mold of "spirituality" and legalism is plain wrong in and of itself.

 

[Johnv]

If anyone doesn't like CCM that is their prerogative. To condemn some one else because they won't conform to their own mold of "spirituality" and legalism is plain wrong in and of itself.

Amen! Preach it!!!

 

[Aaron]

The same "arguments" were raised against what we now call great hymns of the faith. At one time they were the contemporary Christian music on the scene and they too were vilified.

This is not true.

If you stop and think, at one time music was not even allowed in Baptist churches at all.

This is not true.

So... what's the difference between CCM and the great hymns?

Style, depth, theology, you name it.

 

[Aaron]

Yet none of the arguments Aaron has raised make any sort of objective opposition to CCM. At best, the only argument that can be made so far against CCM is "I don't like it".

I haven't made any arguments against CCM. My arguments were about Tim's assertion that his natural emotions are a hallowed form of worship.

 

[Johnv]

I haven't made any arguments against CCM.

Seriously?

 

[Aaron]

Point to one.

 

[Johnv]

Point to one.

How about two?

In post 33 you make known an opposition to CCM for its use of the rock-style beat.
In post 36 you make known an opposition based on CCM being emotional in nature.