Ccm

[Aaron]

I was tongue and cheek with OldRegular.

You were rude and insolent. That's the point.

As far as the potter's vessel is concerned the same right back at you.

Try to keep up. In the Gospels Christ made a statement that bears directly on your assertion that "there are multiple and legitimate forms of worship." Can you guess what it is?

You too have failed to support your position from scripture.

No I didn't, but more is coming. Just answer the question above.

But, for your edification, in the Old and New Testament, God's people over and over again displayed emotions in response to God's moving in thier lives.

So? They also slaughtered animals, sprinkled blood and burned incense. The OT needs to be seen in light of the New.

In fact the shortest verse in the New Testament is "Jesus wept." Why did He weep if He were not moved by His emotions to do so?

First, He was neither at the Temple or in a Synagogue, and second, Christ's emotions weren't corrupted by the Fall. But simply answer the question above, and you'll see your just playing in the shallow end of the pool with your generalizations about OT worship and Christ's emotions.

 

[sag38]

Ok, Aaron! You know all and are high and mighty on your plane of self-righteousness. Have fun!!

 

[Johnv]

Let it be noted that since Johnv was asked to cite his sources about attitudes in the past concerning music, he has bailed.

Whoa, there, it is YOU who is making the claim that CCM is morally inappropriate, hence, it is YOU who needs to cite references. You've done absolutely nothing to that effect.

As for your claims agaisnt me, I'm made the following objective statements, which are factual, and not opinion:

Fact 1 - There are no objective reasons to oppose CCM on scriptural or moral grounds. It's a matter of personal liberty.

Fact 2 - Arguments often raised against CCM are the same arguments that have in the past been raised against what we now consider to be classic hymns. That's a matter of historical fact which at least two individuals in this thread have likewise confirmed, desite Aaron's claims to the contrary. This is confirmed in the publications: Hutchison's Unabridged Encyclopedia of Western Music History, History of Music in Western Culture, and Cambridge History of Western Music.

Fact 3 - Aaron has made numerous arguments against CCM, but none are supported by scripture.

Johnv, I never said that ccm must be categorically avoided by all churches.

I said SOME ccm and SOME tcm should be avoided.

I agree there, but I believe it's a matter of liberty for each church to decide what to exclude and what not to exclude. I know churches that refuse to sing "we three kings" because it's not scriptural. I support their choice, but I have no problem singing it in my church.

 

[ccrobinson]

You were rude and insolent. That's the point.

:laugh:

You're calling somebody else rude and insolent?

:laugh:

That's rich.

 

[Aaron]

Fact 2 - Arguments often raised against CCM are the same arguments that have in the past been raised against what we now consider to be classic hymns. That's a matter of historical fact which at least two individuals in this thread have likewise confirmed, desite Aaron's claims to the contrary. This is confirmed in the publications: Hutchison's Unabridged Encyclopedia of Western Music History, History of Music in Western Culture, and Cambridge History of Western Music.

Let's hear them in their own words. Quote them and cite them.

 

[Johnv]

Let's hear them in their own words. Quote them and cite them.

Translation: Aaron is too lazy to do his own research. It is a fact that current arguments often raised against CCM are the same arguments that have in the past been raised against what we now consider to be classic hymns. If you disagree with that, feel free to cite historical evidence to the contrary, since it is you who made the claim, and did so without objective support, I might add.

 

[Eric B]

To add some more sources to this argument on how older music was once similarly viewed, since I cite Steve Miller, Contemporary Christian Music Debate, his sources are Allen, Borror, Worship: Rediscovering the Missing Jewel; "Jewish Music", The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, and Bainton, Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther.

Try to keep up. In the Gospels Christ made a statement that bears directly on your assertion that "there are multiple and legitimate forms of worship." Can you guess what it is?

No I didn't, but more is coming. Just answer the question above.

Again; just what I was talking about: "let's connect the dots". This is so important; the entire truth of the nature of man, the nature of God and the nature of the Atonement is at stake, but in order to discover God's "clear statement" on this matter, we have to create a string of riddles from verse to verse and piece it all together. (Feel like I am watching Batman vs the Riddler!)

I'm sure, yet again, the statement of Christ being referred to is "Worship in spirit and truth". It has been presented time and time again, however, this statement does not tell us which of these styles of music we are debating over are good or bad. It is only by overgeneralization and seeing some people use one style in a bad way, (plus all the bogus/misinterpreted references, such as studies, rock musican interviews, etc) that such an assumption can be made.
So then, we must jump to another mystery verse that is "so clear"; right?

With such swelling words about "trumping" and "dashing in pieces" others' assertions, you have to do a lot better than this.

 

[nodak]

DH and I have made our own decision in how to handle the "worship wars."

"Let each be fully persuaded in his own mind."

So for us, if the music of a given church either hurts our ears, offends our consciences, or we just plain don't like it, we will skip it.

That might mean coming late for preaching. It might mean just skipping the "worship service" and participating in the rest of the life of the church. It could even mean finding a different church if we don't like/approve of the music in a given church.

But we are done with two things: fussing to get our way, and participating in what we don't want to participate in.

If God is "in this thing" of CCM it will stand long term and He will use and bless it. If He is not, no matter how many trumpet its worth now, it will die out.

Until then, all any of us can do is follow our own conscience. But I do believe we need to do so without judging those who disagree.

Of course, then we won't have the fun of fighting about it anymore.

 

[Johnv]

DH and I have made our own decision in how to handle the "worship wars."

"Let each be fully persuaded in his own mind."

So for us, if the music of a given church either hurts our ears, offends our consciences, or we just plain don't like it, we will skip it.

That's the approach I usually espouse in topics such as these.

That might mean coming late for preaching. It might mean just skipping the "worship service" and participating in the rest of the life of the church.

I wouldn't recommend that. Purposefully skipping out on part of worship is rather disrespectful. Being a member of a church, but never attending worship doesnt' seem fruitful. There is always going to something about a typical Sunday that someone doesn't like. Grin and bear it, and when it passes, there will be something else you like, which someone else might not.

It could even mean finding a different church if we don't like/approve of the music in a given church.

That's reasonable.

Of course, then we won't have the fun of fighting about it anymore.

Well, it certainly does make it more boring.

 

[nodak]

Johnv--I believe normally when one is in strong disagreement with their church, they change churches. But then again, here in the sparsely settled parts of the country, they might not have that choice. Often there is only one church. Not one of any given denomination, but just one. For folks in that situation, rather than not go to church I believe it is better to attend what you can without violating your conscience. Prayer meeting on Wednesdays and Sunday School on Sundays might be a better option than not going to church at all.

As to being disrespectful by arriving late and slipping in quietly, I must ask, disrespectful of whom? If for me the music causes either physical or spiritual problems it would be disrespectful of the church staff to expect me to participate or sit through it. If I respect them enough not to complain, they can respect me enough not to demand attendance.

In the same way, honestly, it isn't that uncommon in those areas for the people to have been part of that same church literally all their life--and so were their parents and grandparents. It is part of the fabric of life in that community. Sometimes they get a preacher most of the church thinks is great and a few folks detest. Rather than cause dissension, complain, gripe about the preacher, or leave altogether they just continue in Sunday School and in those activities of the church not involving the preacher preaching.

I'm beginning to see the wisdom in that. I believe in congregational government of the local church. And since we cannot make every factor of church perfect for every member, we need to trust each other a bit.

I can skip the singing without losing my salvation. For that matter, if it were to bother a pastor for a member to slip in quietly after the singing and hear his preaching, that congregant will not fall away if they skip the worship service altogether. Neither will they necessarily backslide or wind up leaving the church and living in sin.

It isn't good, in my not so humble opinion, for any pastor, song leader, musician, preacher, teacher, usher, or whatever in a church to get the attitude "we are going to do things this way and if you don't like it, just shut up and attend anyway."

Might lead to people voting with their feet when a little kindness and understanding could have preserved the unity of the church.

 

[Johnv]

For folks in that situation, rather than not go to church I believe it is better to attend what you can without violating your conscience.

Agreed, but we're not talking about moral conscience here, we're talking about music preference here. Preference is not a moral issue, and not a matter of conscience. Note that so far not a single post in this thread has demonstrated any moral objection to CCM (or, for that matter, any music style or genre).

As to being disrespectful by arriving late and slipping in quietly, I must ask, disrespectful of whom?

Seriously? You think that people routinely coming and going as they please for Sunday worship isn't disrespectful?

If for me the music causes either physical or spiritual problems it would be disrespectful of the church staff to expect me to participate or sit through it.

Speaking strictly of the topic in this thread, if one finds a genre of music to be spiritually offensive, that would indicate a problem with that person's spiritual compass, and not a moral issue.

It isn't good, in my not so humble opinion, for any pastor, song leader, musician, preacher, teacher, usher, or whatever in a church to get the attitude "we are going to do things this way and if you don't like it, just shut up and attend anyway."

The answer to that is not to foster an attitude of "if you don't do it my way, I'm going to leave until you're done doing/singing what you're doing/singing" among the congregation.

 

[nodak]

johnv, we must be reading different threads. Many on here have said that they find ccm morally offensive. I don't--but I do find some music morally offensive.

I guess it makes me a bad Christian. Thing is, you see, with my brother's honky tonk background, music that sounds "honky tonk" is, for him and for me, a draw into a lifestyle we just don't want to reenter or enter.

If the church available to me does music that sounds that way, do you seriously think I should just stay home?

And I agree about people coming and going being disrespectful, but it happens all the time. Somebody wants another cup of coffee. Somebody else has to go to the bathroom.

Now, I don't recommend jumping up for every song you don't want to sing and leaving. But if the music style at your church is consistently one that bothers you spiritually (or even if you plain don't like it) I see no harm in not complaining but just quietly slipping in near the end of the song service.

 

[Johnv]

johnv, we must be reading different threads. Many on here have said that they find ccm morally offensive.

Some here have claimed it, but fail to provide objective support for CCM (or any genre or style) being immoral. Hence, claims of them being morally offensive are really cases of them simply not liking it.

If the church available to me does music that sounds that way, do you seriously think I should just stay home?

No, I think you should stay, and ignore the music you don't like.

And I agree about people coming and going being disrespectful, but it happens all the time.

I know it does, but it's still rude. Mature Christians need to grow some self-restraint. It's commonly lacking these days.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Well, y'all can fight about what is or is not acceptable by your own standards. I don't have a horse in that race. My worship is between My Lord and Savior and myself. I don't need anyone to approve of it.

I walked away from legalism a long time ago, but I still remember the stench of it. Most of what I read from those opposing CCM reeks of legalism, pure and simple. Let God be the judge of the worship given to Him.

:laugh:
That was funny!

Personally, I am not a fan of having CCM in the Sanctuary. It is not based on Scripture, it is a personal preference. I actually am a big fan of CCM and P&W - I just don't like it in the Sanctuary.

Now, as a mature Believer, I feel that it is a sin to falsely claim some sort of Scriptural basis to justify a personal preference, potentially becoming a stumbling block to a less mature or a newer Brother or Sister in Christ. For that reason, I don't make this into an issue, or attempt to present my preferences as Doctrine. My service is blended, so there is something for both sides.

That being said, I have seen several here on the BB claim that they have proven that somehow CCM is wrong Scripturally, which is laughable to the point of being pathetic. NOBODY has proven this yet, though many have tried.

Thanks for making me laugh though - I had a very tough day at work. I needed that.

Regards, hope you and yours are well,
BiR (in St. Louis)

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

nodak,

I think you are doing a great job of expressing your opinion.

Does the issue of musical style really bother you that much? In other words, is this an issue about which you feel so strongly that you would consider "voting with [your] feet?" You wrote something about being in an area where you might not have the ability to change churches. If I understood you correctly, would you leave your church over this subject if you had a choice?

Just curious,
BiR (in St. Louis)

 

[nodak]

The issue of both music style and worship format (sets as opposed to hymn sandwich) bothered us enough to change churches. There is more distance involved, which means less frequent attendance, but it works for us.

For our family, there were several things to consider. The sets format left us with tremendously long music sessions, making it hard for a grandchild to focus that long. The ccm was being done WAAAAYYYY too loud for a lot of people. When it became clear that it wouldn't be turned down, that our Sunday migraines weren't going to go away, and that our grandchild who literally hid under the pew would sit up, behave, and worship at a traditional service, we knew we had to do something.

We tried skipping song service. That allowed me to help in the nursery, and dgd to help me help. DH still had the sore ears. Some folks were just sitting in the basement til song service ended. Others were coming late. It was getting to be a bone of contention. We decided to let the folks enjoy it enjoy, and we worship elsewhere. No fuss.

My plea would be this: whatever worship style and music style you prefer, listen if someone else says it is a stumbling block to them. Maybe they come from the bar scene, or come from another ethnic group, or something in their background makes a particular style of music a stumbling block to them. You can judge them for not being somehow as spiritual as you are, or you can listen. Doesn't mean you cannot do or enjoy the music that is a problem for them. It might mean not doing that music at church if it is a problem for a large group. If it is a problem to only a few, don't put them down for not participating. Just save them a seat near the door so they can slip in late and quiet and worship.

I will never understand why sometimes the same guys who will tell women how to dress because "if you wear that it causes me to lust" will turn right around and judge someone else for saying "if you sing that it causes me a spiritual problem".

Same principle. The one it "bothers" is indeed the weak one. And we can all help each other not to stumble without entangling ourselves in legalism.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Thanks for an honest answer.

I trust that all is well with you and your family,
BiR (in St. Louis)

 

[sag38]

Sorry, but the argument that certain music sounds like the world doens't hold water. Anyone who does a serious (not a Bill Gothard study) will find that church music styles from very traditional to CCM have twin sisters in the secular world.

 

[DHK]

I know it does, but it's still rude. Mature Christians need to grow some self-restraint. It's commonly lacking these days.

About coming and going.
I know of a church that when the service started the doors were shut. The policy was strict. No one was allowed to enter. No one was allowed to leave. It was a large church.

I grew up on an air force base, with my father being in the air force. That being so, I learned discipline at a young age. I believe one shows disrespect to the person you are meeting if you are late in meeting that person. If you say you are going to be there at a certain time then don't lie about it. Be there! And that includes the house of God.

 

[DHK]

Same principle. The one it "bothers" is indeed the weak one. And we can all help each other not to stumble without entangling ourselves in legalism.

You have stated that principle backwards. Here are the applications the way it is stated.
Be a drunk. If it bothers you, you are the one that is bothered, therefore you are the weak one.
Be a drug addict. If it bothers you, you are the weak one that is bothered, therefore go somewhere else where you are not bothered.

You have totally messed up on that Biblical principle.
Paul stated it another way:

He said: "If meat (eating it) makes my brother to offend, I will eat no meat with the world stands lest I make my brother to offend."

Now apply it:
If CCM makes my brother to offend (bothers him), I will play no CCM while the world stands lest I make my brother to offend (it bothers him).
--Can you honestly say that CCM music that drove a mother to have migraine headaches and her child under the pews was not offensive to her. It offended her greatly.
IF CCM makes my brother to offend (or is offended by it) I will play no CCM while the world stands.
That is the principle that Paul is stating. Not the other way around.