Confessions of a Former Worship Leader

Travelsong · Aug 11, 2005

Originally posted by steveo:
Sorry, Just had to say something when someone puts down guitarist with technique.

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.

Travelsong · Aug 11, 2005

Originally posted by Aaron:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Travelsong:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Aaron:
Describe for me, if you will, an excessive or riotous style that is inconsistent with Christian demeanor.

Thrash metal. [/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? [/QUOTE]I can think of no benefit that thrash metal could provide a Christian.

Daniel · Aug 11, 2005

Johnv · Aug 11, 2005

Originally posted by Travelsong:
Whereas you are referring to crap by association, the phony showboating rock is crap by definition.

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.

steveo · Aug 11, 2005

Originally posted by Travelsong:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by steveo:
Sorry, Just had to say something when someone puts down guitarist with technique.

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. [/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.

Daniel · Aug 11, 2005

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!

]

Aaron · Aug 11, 2005

Originally posted by Travelsong:
I can think of no benefit that thrash metal could provide a Christian.

I didn't ask you if you saw any benefits of thrash metal. How did we move from judging something based on its character (excess and riot vs decency and order) to its supposed beneficence or lack thereof?

The Forbidden Fruit offered a number of desireable benefits. It was good for food, pleasant to the eyes and could make one wise. The problem was, it went beyond the limit of what God deemed for man.

You agree that God has forbidden excess and riot. Then, based on God's standard, does thrash metal cross the line?

Aaron · Aug 11, 2005

Originally posted by Johnv:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Travelsong:
Whereas you are referring to crap by association, the phony showboating rock is crap by definition.

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. [/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.

We know that's crap. Who here could imagine Roseanne Barr on the cover of the SI swimsuit edition? Who'd want to?

But, physical beauty does exist, and is universally recognized as it was in Sarah and Esther. It was said of Christ's physical appearance that He hath no comliness, and when we shall see Him, there is no beauty that we should desire Him. If beauty were simply in the eye of the beholder, that Scripture could not be true.

It's the same with all the arts. There is beautiful art, and the beauty is an intrisic quality quite independent of the eye of the beholder. That's not to say that there aren't some sick folks who call ugliness beautiful, but by and large, most folks recognize beauty when they see it.

Daniel · Aug 11, 2005

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 ]

Johnv · Aug 11, 2005

Originally posted by Aaron:
What John is saying here is that art has no intrisic quality whatever, that beauty is simply in the eye of the beholder ... We know that's crap.

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.

Travelsong · Aug 11, 2005

Originally posted by Aaron:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Johnv:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Travelsong:
Whereas you are referring to crap by association, the phony showboating rock is crap by definition.

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. [/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.[/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.

Originally posted by Aaron:
We know that's crap. Who here could imagine Roseanne Barr on the cover of the SI swimsuit edition? Who'd want to?

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.

Originally posted by Aaron:
But, physical beauty does exist, and is universally recognized as it was in Sarah and Esther. It was said of Christ's physical appearance that He hath no comliness, and when we shall see Him, there is no beauty that we should desire Him.

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

How so?

Originally posted by Aaron:
It's the same with all the arts. There is beautiful art, and the beauty is an intrisic quality quite independent of the eye of the beholder. That's not to say that there aren't some sick folks who call ugliness beautiful, but by and large, most folks recognize beauty when they see it.

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?

Travelsong · Aug 12, 2005

Originally posted by Aaron:
I didn't ask you if you saw any benefits of thrash metal. How did we move from judging something based on its character (excess and riot vs decency and order) to its supposed beneficence or lack thereof?

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.

Originally posted by Aaron:
The Forbidden Fruit offered a number of desireable benefits. It was good for food, pleasant to the eyes and could make one wise. The problem was, it went beyond the limit of what God deemed for man.

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.

Originally posted by Aaron:
You agree that God has forbidden excess and riot. Then, based on God's standard, does thrash metal cross the line?

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

Aaron · Aug 12, 2005

Aaron: Are there musical styles today which we could classify as excessive and riotous, and therefore inconsistent with Christian manners?

Travelsong: Absolutely.

Aaron: Describe for me, if you will, an excessive or riotous style that is inconsistent with Christian demeanor.

Travelsong: Thrash metal.

Aaron: You agree that God has forbidden excess and riot. Then, based on God's standard, does thrash metal cross the line?

Travelsong: Sure...

Whether or not you like to admit it, excess and riot are moral judgments, and you have just judged a specific musical style as immoral based on principles found in the Scriptures.

Congratulations!

Aaron · Aug 12, 2005

Originally posted by Travelsong:
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.

That wasn't your first judgment of the genre. Your first judgment was that it was excessive and riotous, traits which have nothing to do with benefit. Are all things that have no benefit riotous or excessive?

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

I didn't compare music to fruit. I merely pointed out that your reasoning was fallacious. Moral judgments aren't based on what one sees as a benefit or not.

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.

Where do you come up with stuff like this? The fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was good. And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.

Anyway, discussions about music are never just about music. They're about the knowledge of God, the knowledge of good and evil, and the Atonement. What exactly is it that Christ has saved us from, and what were we created to do?

Daniel · Aug 12, 2005

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:___________________________________

Aaron · Aug 12, 2005

Originally posted by Travelsong:
To some level I believe all people can agree on what is beautiful or sublime at some point in their lives.

Good so far.

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.

Huh??

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.

Puh-leeeeze!

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

TS: How so?

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?

And notice that the Spirit spoke of comliness as a trait He did not possess, not as something that existed in our own minds.

Who is sick then?

Have you seen any of Jack Kevorkian's paintings?

Anyone who differs from what you deem holy or righteous?

Come down off your high horse, TS. You also think that those who differ from what you deem holy or righteous as somewhat deficient. Everyone does. Haven't you just judged me as holier than thou and self-righteous with that statement? Yes, you did, and the reason is because I hold to a morality that excludes your philosophy of art and music.

But then, yours excludes mine, but that's okay, because you're right.

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?

Of course it does. Everyone's life purpose is found by obedience to the eight callings in 2 Peter 1:5-7. The eighth verse says plainly that if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me.

Travelsong · Aug 12, 2005

Originally posted by Aaron:
That wasn't your first judgment of the genre. Your first judgment was that it was excessive and riotous, traits which have nothing to do with benefit. Are all things that have no benefit riotous or excessive?

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.

Originally posted by Aaron:
I didn't compare music to fruit. I merely pointed out that your reasoning was fallacious. Moral judgments aren't based on what one sees as a benefit or not.

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

Originally posted by Aaron:
Where do you come up with stuff like this? The fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was good. And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.

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.

Travelsong · Aug 12, 2005

Originally posted by Aaron:
Huh??

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?

Originally posted by Aaron:

Puh-leeeeze!

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.

Originally posted by Aaron:
and notice that the Spirit spoke of comliness as a trait He did not possess, not as something that existed in our own minds.

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

Originally posted by Aaron:
Come down off your high horse, TS. You also think that those who differ from what you deem holy or righteous as somewhat deficient. Everyone does. Haven't you just judged me as holier than thou and self-righteous with that statement? Yes, you did, and the reason is because I hold to a morality that excludes your philosophy of art and music.

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.

Originally posted by Aaron:
Of course it does. Everyone's life purpose is found by obedience to the eight callings in 2 Peter 1:5-7. The eighth verse says plainly that if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

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.....

Aaron · Aug 12, 2005

Originally posted by Travelsong:
Here's the distinction. Music can't be drunkeness.

On one hand you think of music like it is an action (and it is). How else could you have judged thrash metal as riotous or excessive? But when taken to the logical conclusion of your thinking, you suddenly switch to thinking of it like an object. And all our discussions end here.

But, you've already made a moral judgment about a specific genre. You said it crosses God's line of decency and order. That's basically how everyone evaluates music, on the basis of its demeanor.

Even Daniel, though he won't admit it now and is making himself look quite foolish.

Daniel · Aug 12, 2005

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?

Confessions of a Former Worship Leader

Travelsong

Guest

Travelsong

Guest

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Member

Member

New Member

New Member

Travelsong

Guest

Travelsong

Guest

Member

Member

New Member

Member

Travelsong

Guest

Travelsong

Guest

Member

New Member