Confessions of a Former Worship Leader

It's not that it at all. There's nothing wrong with being an accomplished musician. The point is that when skill becomes the focus, the soul of the music dies. That's my whole point about a band like Stryper:



It's all artifice and gimmick. Actually, I don't even know what that is.

What those bands of the 80's forgot is that rock, jazz, blues and country all breaks down to folk music. It's an expression of the human experience in song, not some freaky androgynous theater production.

 

Thrash metal. </font>[/QUOTE]Are you saying, then, that based on principles found in Eph. 5 Thrash metal would be out of place in the life of a Christian no matter his place on the globe or the culture that conditioned him? </font>[/QUOTE]I can think of no benefit that thrash metal could provide a Christian.

 

That's nothing more than one person's opinion. It may be crap to you, but it may be jewels to another. Besides, scripture does not forbid the use of that which some may deem crap.

 

It's not that it at all. There's nothing wrong with being an accomplished musician. The point is that when skill becomes the focus, the soul of the music dies. That's my whole point about a band like Stryper:



It's all artifice and gimmick. Actually, I don't even know what that is.

What those bands of the 80's forgot is that rock, jazz, blues and country all breaks down to folk music. It's an expression of the human experience in song, not some freaky androgynous theater production. </font>[/QUOTE]I do agree that when you focus on technique you can lose feeling. But the best is being able to do both. I just don't agreee that playing with technique is mindless. It would be like telling a piano player that playing Mozart or Bach on the piano is mindless.

 

All right. All right. As newly crowned (apparently self-appointed) moderator, could we please get back to the style question????

[j/k...just had to milk this "moderator" thing for all its worth...thanks for the coronation, Aaron, I am really enjoying the power! ]

 

But Aaron, how do you make a list of acceptable musical styles when God did not provide one?

But, let's say in theory that we had a list, would it apply to all the countries of the world? How would the interfacing of the list with the other countries of the world occur should you answer yes?

I think it has been pointed our over and over--to you in particular--that you open a can of worms by insisting on the musical arguments you espouse on this board.

Would you please do this, following the guidelines and normal flow of deductive reasoning (premise lists leading to the conclusion), would you please list you premises and conclusion. Please attach a scripture verse to each.

Premise 1_____________________________________

Premise 2_____________________________________

(etc.)________________________________________

CONCLUSION:______________________________________________________________

Thanks, and please don't give us pictures like the Roseanne one. I was just getting ready to eat dinner.

[ August 12, 2005, 10:52 AM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob ]

 

Okay, Aaron, scripture says to worship God with music and dance. It does not say with beautiful music, or crappy music. It does not say with classical music, or early American folk music. It does not say with monotony or polyphony.

For a worshipper to imply that a certain genre, say, heavy metal, or blues, or pop, or classical, is scripturally required or forbidden, that's nothing short of a pharasaical attitude towards the topic.

Look, don't care for blues. But if the Blind Boys of Alabama come to my church and sing, I'll be waving my hands in the air praising the Lord, regardless for my distaste of the blues.

Oh, and in regards to "everyone" knowing beauty when they see it, before I met my wife, I got turned down by numerous women who didn't think I was attractive enough to date. My wife, however, thought I was a pretty good looking dude (so either my wife is a liar, or I need to send her to an optometrist, I can't figure out which). Perhaps some of the female folks on this board who have seen my wedding photos can chime in, as I tend to be my onw worst critic.

 

That's nothing more than one person's opinion. It may be crap to you, but it may be jewels to another. Besides, scripture does not forbid the use of that which some may deem crap. </font>[/QUOTE]What John is saying here is that art has no intrisic quality whatever, that beauty is simply in the eye of the beholder. He's saying basically that beauty does not exist, and therefore nothing can be truly judged as beautiful.</font>[/QUOTE]To some level I believe all people can agree on what is beautiful or sublime at some point in their lives. The human condition, or what makes us who we are has a way of causing people to differ on the percieved value or benefit derived from our pursuits.

Some would argue ideally that's a thing of comedic genius, therefore beautiful. It's a poignant,legitimate form of satire. It creatively sends a message about something wrong with society.

If beauty were simply in the eye of the beholder, that Scripture could not be true.[/QB][/QUOTE]

How so?

Who is sick then? Anyone who differs from what you deem holy or righteous? Or do you mean to say Scripture holds a perfectly understandable, universally standardized commandment to how we find God's purpose and meaning for us?

 

A benefit is derived from taking action. How else am I to judge whether or not listening to music is good for me? I must first listen to thrash metal to understand that I get nothing good out of it.

Interesting that you now choose to use a physical analogy where previously you have stated music is nothing like things.

You do right to point out that the only benefit of the fruit was a temporal, physical one. It provided sustinence. After all, the apple was just a thing. It can't be good or evil, it can only exist and behave according to the law of it's natural properties. If the apple had been made of something toxic, it wouldn't have been an evil apple, merely a poisonous one. The consequence of eating the forbidden fruit came as a result of disobedience to God's command, not because there was something sinful about that particular tree.

Sure, because the listening to it can provide no benefit.

 

But Aaron, how do you make a list of acceptable musical styles when God did not provide one?

But, let's say in theory that we had a list, would it apply to all the countries of the world? How would the interfacing of the list with the other countries of the world occur should you answer yes?

I think it has been pointed our over and over--to you in particular--that you open a can of worms by insisting on the musical arguments you espouse on this board.

Would you please do this, following the guidelines and normal flow of deductive reasoning (premise lists leading to the conclusion), would you please list you premises and conclusion. Please attach a scripture verse to each.

Premise 1_____________________________________

Premise 2_____________________________________

(etc.)________________________________________

CONCLUSION:___________________________________

 

Here's the distinction. Music can't be drunkeness. It can't be whatever sinful states cause excess and riot. No matter how much you try to personify it, you can't make it a free moral agent with a will against God. Only people can be those things.

Sure they are. You have found that the particular ethic which governs your life and family is of benefit to you no?

Yes. I was speaking on whether it had the ability to be intrinsically righteous or sinful.

So when discussing the benefit of the fruit, we are actually discussing the benefit of an action, not a thing. That is my point.

 

People are not the same. We have different tastes in aesthetics. Some like Picasso, some think he's crap. It's all a function of our mechanics. Who can explain it?

Aaron: If beauty were simply in the eye of the beholder, that Scripture could not be true.

TS: How so?

Aaron: Isn't obvious? If someone somewhere at any point of time in the history of the world would have found Jesus as He walked the earth in the first century physically attractive, then how could the Scriptures have said, He hath no comliness?

Right, our desire for him will not be based on his being something greatly attractive. He was of plain appearance. That is not to say he coudn't be considered beautiful by Mary and Joseph.

Kind of hard for something without form to also have comliness no?

I don't consider you deficient at all. I wouldn't be surprised to find you live a more righteous and holy life than I do. I do think however that you are too strict. You call things sin which don't have the ability to be sinful.

Yet here we find that every Christian pursues these things differently. Even those who pursue them with the greatest diligence and purest heart possible do so differently. There is no one single perfect Christian ideal that we all strive for based on what music is acceptable, what clothing to wear, how much makeup or other artifice is acceptable, whether this or that is sinful.....

 

How so, Aaron? Are you ignoring my request for your scripture backed premises and subsequent conclusion? Don't you think everyone reading this thread can see your evasion?