2 Services?

No, its not. Its an urban legend concerning certain songs (most notably a song by Martin Luther). However, it is NOT an urban legend that the style of music used for many of these songs were derived from saloon songs. They were.

It is also not an urban legend that the piano came into widespread use in the church through saloons. There are dozens of church's that still exist today, that were originally started in a saloon.

If your saying "You don't play the music that we like enough, so we are leaving," that is splitting a church over music preference. If you tell a large group of people in your church (including the youth), "We don't care about the music you prefer. You are not allowed to express that music in this church," then you are causing division and splitting the church.

 

No they weren't. It's an urban legen.

No, that would not be splitting a church. That would be someone choosing to leave the church.

How so?

 

No its not. There are more than 20 churches in existence today, which were started in saloons. The music was indeed derived from all contemporary sources, including saloon music. The Wesley's, while not using saloon music per se, used other secular contemporary tunes. Several of those hymns are in the Baptist hymnbook.

So if the music minister decided to do some Chris Tomlin and Phil Wickham, no one would object?

Because you are being selfish, and making church about you. Its not.

 

I read this last night and had to think about it. Isn't it more economical to have two services based out of the same building and using the same staff (at least in part)? It seems like it would be more economical even if there were two staffs due to the cost of buildings and upkeep.

I don't remember going to a church with only one service since I was a child. Until the last 15 years or so, the services were identical (or as identical as possible). No it does seem every service has a different style.

Personally, I like a blended service, but we haven't had one in a while.

 

Actually, that's just an urban legend.

Even if they did, that still would not be splitting a church. If the church split everytime somebody disagreed with something or didn't like something, the church would have collapsed a long time ago.

So how is it "selfish" or making church about us?

Do you think a church should have any established rules or protocol?

 

Which tribe? Which "pagan tribe" utilizes music with that signature?

What's your evidence?

 

The statement that some of church music was created from bar, pub, and saloon music isn't an urban myth.

During my studies I worked up a paper on the nature of the ecclesiology in the second generation reformers. One of the guys you have to survey with that kind of a paper is John Calvin.

One of the things I came across, in my research, was a number of scholarly, peer reviewed, fact checked articles about how Calvin used bar tunes for his music. In fact during his second ministry in Geneva as Calvin was going about establishing the Genevan church he went and hire two refugee musicians named Clément Marot and Louis Bourgeois.

In commissioning them to compose music and songs for the worship (or liturgy) of the Genevan church they were sent into the bars, pubs, and saloons to get some of the tunes of popular songs and then adapt them for use in the church.

Luther also did this, obviously since he was in the bars himself. (You all know these guys drank beer and liquor during their lives.)

Anyhoo, some sources you can check on this fact are:

Charles Garside, Jr. "The Origins of Calvin's Theology of Music: 1536-1543" Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, New Series, Vol. 69, No. 4 (1979), pp. 1-36

Quirinus Breen "John Calvin and the Rhetorical Tradition" Church History, Vol. 26, No. 1 (Mar., 1957), pp. 3-21

Friedrich Blume, Protestant Church Music, A History (New York, W. W. Norton and Company: 1974)

In addition to these guys you see it across the breadth of Christian history. This isn't a myth or urban legend. Often the Church has been very good at appropriating cultural symbols and sanctifying them for use in worship by replacing parts with more God honoring words. This doesn't mean all the music is sourced out of taverns and bars, but there is some of it. Doesn't make the music any less reverential or God honoring either.

 

What was an urban legend was that the term "bar tunes" referred to "saloons/pubs". Bar tune referred to the structure of the music. (I even posted here a link to the article pointing this out, years ago)
However, that does not mean that some of the music was not in fact taken from secular tunes. It's really two different claims that got bound together. One turned out to be based on a mistake, but the other is still true.

 

Yes, it's an urban legend based on a misunderstanding of the term "bar tunes".

 

Well then, to quote your previous post, prove it. Scholarly articles are preferred.

 

You're the one making the claim. Therefore, the buden of proof is on you.

 

This is in fact how certain fundamentalists have chosen to try to rewrite history. However, it is not true. Note what Dr. John Barber says:

Also, apparently you missed the brother's post. He did not just refer to "bar tunes" he cited historical facts about Calvin gathering music from pubs...

 

Well I've provided my proof. Please go back and read my post and see the three citations I provided for you. Two are journal articles from scholarly, peer-reviewed, reputable journals one is a book.

So I've satisfied my burden of proof. Now its on you to support your claim. Show me where I'm wrong. With evidence...scholarly journals are appreciated. (Blog posts by Harry P. Somebodywithoutadegree are not)

 

Actually, the burden of proof rests on the one making the claim. It is up to you to demonstrate your claim, not up to me to disprove it.

Yes, this is a logical fallacy commonly known as "poisoning the well".

 

As opposed to heretic defending socialists, such as yourself re-writing history?

 

Wow. Last time I checked, personal attacks in the form of name calling were forbidden. However, I am never one to go running to the moderator, so indulge me:

#1 "Heretic defending": Exactly what heretic have I defended?

#2 "Socialists": In what way is reducing the size and scope of government, stopping all but the most basic government aid, and defending of the constitution "socialist"?

Its O.k. brother. I forgive you. Call me whatever you like.

 

You defended a heretic. You are a socialist. What else should I call you?

N. T. Wright.

See your comments in the "Food Stamps" thread.

Its O.k. brother. I forgive you. Call me whatever you like.[/QUOTE]

 

I did? I am?

Care to provide a quote on that? And a link? Thanks.

Just checked. No socialism on there, unless you think a person keeping their own money, reduced government, and greatly reduced welfare programs are "socialist."

You sure you don't have things all backwards and turned around? You know Carl Marx was not a traditional U.S. conservative, right? Because if you disagree with what I am saying, YOU are the socialist.