MMF - Conservative SBC Music Festival

I read the article and looked at the pictures. I just wanted to weep. What must God think when He looks down on something like this? Did He not ask his people to be SET APART FOR HIMSELF and away from the world (Biblical sanctification--II Cor. 6; Titus, et. al)? And as I think of the people in the board that defend this travesty against Christianity and our Lord I wonder, "What are they thinking?" "How can they justify this?" "How can they envision Christ EVER being at one of these events?" (and, please don't anyone come back at me with the publican and sinners line---that one doesn't fly for this situation---) Where is all of this headed? Is this music movement the precursor for the apostacy spoken of in Thessalonians (even the elect being deceived)? Perhaps. My, oh my, I hope others will take the time and look at this link. Some will justify it (I could give you their screen names). But what must GOD think? That is the far more important thing to consider. How can He bless or be any part of any such wickedness? [rhetorical question]PLEASE WAKE UP, FELLOW CHRISTIANS. This is no laughing matter.

[ August 02, 2001: Message edited by: Daniel ]

 

My former pastor (RevKevin, who often posts on other boards) regularly forwards me Cloud's newsletters, so I saw this already.
My response is:
This is the extremes. Still it does not prove that only traditional music is good, and if we had only stuck with that, we wouldn't have this mess today. In fact, if we weren't so overly restrictive in the past, perhaps we wouldn't have this blind bolt to the opposite extreme today. Kevin added: "I thought too that he was emphasizing the extremes, which you could also do in IFB churches that use only the KJV."

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And as I think of the people in the board that defend this travesty against Christianity and our Lord I wonder, "What are they thinking?" "How can they justify this?" "How can they envision Christ EVER being at one of these events?" (and, please don't anyone come back at me with the publican and sinners line---that one doesn't fly for this situation---) Where is all of this headed? Some will justify it (I could give you their screen names). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Leave mine out! As I read it, it made me want to add to my page an important clarification. I may do it soon. It's a shame that it comes to this, but Cloud and others lump this in with everything else that they criticize. The arguments against certain beats and syncopation, etc. rule out not only this, but a whole lot of other stuff that is nowhere near this. This is what I think further clouds the whole issue. Old-liners reject practically everything, and then the contemporary people then accept everything. They know that the one or two "traditional" styles advocated by the critics can't possibly be all that God accepts. So then where is the line? We can just push it as far as it will go, and here we are: Christian "raves" complete with "mosh pits"! (The same on the worship scene with laughing, barking, etc). And the critics just remain steady trashing, everything, including the mild stuff, which they blame for setting the stage for this far out stuff. But this is just forther compounding the problem. The answer is not to demand that everyone go back to old hymns. We must really go to the Bible and try to lay down some clear principles to go by, rather than reading into it all-or-nothing extremes. Otherwise, this is all we will see: One group trying out all sorts of bizarre things, and another group just bashing them for it. Neither will hear the other. And we will get nowhere.

As I say on my page:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But then "rock" as they define it is a very broad category, including hard and soft rock, and even R&B, disco and jazz are apart of it.

The CCM crowd and large sections of modern Christianity may have gone too far in certain respects, but it is wrong to assume everything they are doing (i.e. everything modern, or from outside of the traditional Christian culture) is "sin".

So people, including many Christian children, threw off everything associated with the old order, right or wrong. (And it's why some Christians have just taken the position that music must really be neutral.) The separatists justify it all with the concept of "drawing lines". If a line is reasonably drawn, it sets a clearly defined boundary. But if you set the line ridiculously close, people have no room to breathe. They will more quickly cross it, and then once they do, there won't be another guideline. This is precisely what has happened in this country and the rest of the "Christian" civilization. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

Excellent points, Eric. I knew this was an extreme situation; hence, my "extreme" comments. Normally I would not have to have a reaction that strong; but, as even you acknowledge, this was the far extreme...Yes, Eric, I believe you're right about HOW we got here in the music dilemma. I'm not sure we can ever get out of this mess, but we can try in our own ministies to be balanced. In the church where I am the Minister of Music we have a nice blend of the old hymns, older gospel songs, mild southern gospel (no sountracks or live bands, though), newer stuff by the folks at the Wilds, Majesty Music and Soundforth (BJU), songs popularized by the Brooklyn Tabernacle Choir (He's Been Faithful, etc.), some Ray Boltz (not all of his stuff, though), etc. Get the picture? A fairly decent variety. Still not contemporary in the usual sense, but a nice balance of different people, styles, etc. We still operate in the guidelines of what would be the conservative camp of Christian music, but not the 'TIGHTLY CONSERVATIVE' camp. I have really enjoyed ministering in a church like this that has this level of freedom without phony restraints put on us by a Christian institution or icon within the conservative, fundamental movement. I am not trashing them, just their unbiblical standards imposed on churches. Each local church must determine what is best for their local church within the proper restraints of Bible principle, not man-made principle. I'm sure you get my drift on this, Eric. Please keep this discussion going; but, let's not go to any personal attacks. You were excellent in how you responded to me. I like HOW you did it. Please continue in that style. I would request that of all other posters, too. Thanks. We don't want a thread like the one Dr. Bob just locked!

 

Yeah, I spend so much time arguing with the ultr-conservatives, I realize one might think I'm trying to justify everything, but I want to mek it known I do not justify this stuff.
I've been to Brooklyn Tabernacle, since I'm here in NY, and have made a few friends there, and some who came out of it into anoher church I was going to. When I first got saved, both Borrklyn Tabernacle Choir and even Maranatha must have been going through some sort of conservative phase, because it seemed all the stuff on their "praise" tapes sounded like the Wilds and Majesty Music (which was played for us at the music class RevKevin and I attanded, and which finally inspired me to write ccm.html). So I got the idea that this (plus the old style hymns) was all Christians were supposed to listen to, and then I came across the critic of "rock" (including jazz and everything else with rhythm and soul). So this is where I developed my extreme annoyance at people who say only that sound is good. I then began seeing both Brooklyn Tabernacle and Maranatha products that used more upbeat and contemporary styles, and then I met my wife who introduced me to CCM. (She marvels about how I argue so much about Christian music styles, even though I myself am not all that into CCM. I like only about a couple of groups out of the whole genre).
Since RevKevin left the IFCA church we were going to, and they took in someone we didn't agree on, we left, and now have been going to Christ Tabernacle, a direct spinoff ofBrooklyn Tabernacle. (These are Independent Assemblies of God). I find them a bit too big and glitzy (Though Christ Tabernacle is not as big or fancy as BT), and in both churches, you'll often have one person break out in tongues during the sermon, which I don't care for. The preaching is biblical though. I still plan to look around, but a good moderate church is really hard to find around here. It seems they're either pentecostal, Catholic, mainline Protestant, and a few overly traditionalistic Baptists.

 

Hey Eric B, Thou art welcome here at our IFB church in Richmond Hill! I know, I know... We are in transition and trying to "modernize without compromise". I think you might be pleased with our transitions.

 

Now, what is the basis of anyone calling the activity in the article "extreme," and how is that different from our parents' outrage against Doo-Wop, Bee-bop and "shang-a-lang-a-ding-dang"?

How is it different from their parents' outrage against Ragtime, the Charleston, Razzamatazz, Boogy Woogy, Big Band and Jazz?

I gotta call Aaron on this one. He would have a hey-day!

 

So much of today's Christianity practices what it called REACTION THEOLGY. We see/hear of something happening and usually OVER-REACT to that thing. In time we come to a reasoned, balanced position...but at first we "come unglued" at what we see or hear. That's just human nature. Music is particularly vulnerable to this "theology" due to its subjective/emotional nature. So, no one should be surprised at the adjectives used to describe the various responses to musical events/styles/happenings in this forum of Baptist Board.

[ August 08, 2001: Message edited by: Daniel ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Now, what is the basis of anyone calling the activity in the article "extreme," and how is that different from our parents' outrage against Doo-Wop, Bee-bop and "shang-a-lang-a-ding-dang"?
How is it different from their parents' outrage against Ragtime, the Charleston, Razzamatazz, Boogy Woogy, Big Band and Jazz?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think I get it. Because the reactions of people to those earlier "secular" styles was the same as our reaction today to these new styles, then those earlier, milder styles are no better than the newer hard styles of today. So there is absolutely no difference between jazz and acid rock, or big band and the rave scene (it's all the same "jungle beat" that makes people immoral anyway, right?). And of course, only traditional/classical styles are above such reaction.
It was precisely this failure to set reasonable standards that blurred the line and helped lead to the removal of all standards in the first place. Just lumping all styles you weren't used to into the same pot. So now once again, you have people who either accept everything, or continue to reject everything, and neither side seems to recognize any balance.
And we forget that the styles now regarded as "classical" and "traditional" were also once reacted to like this by people favoring older, plainer styles. Miller's Contemporary Christian Music Debate covers this well. (I should call Ransom. He would have a heyday with this). Organs and violins were regarded as of the devil, and the piano associated with "raggtime". So who was right?
Daniel's discussion of our tendency to over-reaction is right on key.

 

Another thought, Eric. Do you happen to recall ever hearing Bill Bennett (he worked for the White House at various times) talk about DUMBING DOWN America? He showed fairly well how that our US academic system had progressively diluted the level and quality of our education system through abandoning the time-tested principles of education.This resulted in (pardon me) dumber kids. (PC translation--lesser educated) My tie-in to music would be similar (without the foolish "lumping-it-all-together" that you mention). We have been progressively "dumbed-down" in the music field by some of the newer styles throughout the ages of music history. Hence, we are more tolerant of musical styles that are not as well written or substantive. These things have crept into our church music and some people have screamed. The problem is that they don't know WHY they have screamed. They've just screamed (and looked foolish, I might add!). Now we're trying to figure out what in the world is going on. If we would just go back to some of the time-honored principles of music composition and performance we would be back on a better track. (By that I am NOT advocating JUST classical and hymns---on the secular side, I believe the film composer John Williams is the best example of a MODERN composer using time-proven composition principles to their best and fullest...anyone whistling the "Star Wars" theme as you read?) What I'm trying to show you is how far away from the GOOD and the BEST we have strayed; hence, we have some of these styles in our church music and all the uproar that follows in the trail of its use....people just need to back up, take a good look at the TRUE PROBLEM, fix it (easier said than done )and get about the Master's business. We have been so severely sidetracked into foolishness that we may not even know where we are in church music history....come on, we can get a bird's eye POV if we are willing to do the homework!

[ August 08, 2001: Message edited by: Daniel ]

 

On academic issues, you have to be careful about this "dumbing down" issue. In some ways it's gotten harder. Mike Regele Death of the Church (another book that challenges rampant traditionalism) points out how despite claims SAT scores are in free fall, more people in this generatioin are taking SAT's (70% compred to 10-20% for the baby boomers) and comments "And the curriculum? How can a generation that got credit in college for basket weaving be critical of a generation that takes trigonometry before leaving high school?" All of this can affect the scores and other statistics.
As for music, however, I can certainly agree that things have been dumbed down. My wife and I comment on how cheap modern black music has gotten. It mostly is just a beat, with sampled sound. Classic jazz, Stevie Wonder, and Earth Wind & Fire are examples of good music, although the religious eclecticism is may call in question the "spirit behind the music". (I basically gave up EWF after reading from Larson & Ankerberg about how they prayed to the gods in a circle before performing, or something like that.) But the music is recognized around the world as exceptional, and has helped shape modern music, even though it uses the African beat and other elements people say are bad. But it's just a popular dance beat sound that sells now, though there are still some good vocalists out there. And of course, in the hard rock scene, what sells is harder and more freaky.

 

Eric B said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And we forget that the styles now regarded as "classical" and "traditional" were also once reacted to like this by people favoring older, plainer styles. Miller's Contemporary Christian Music Debate covers this well. (I should call Ransom. He would have a heyday with this). Organs and violins were regarded as of the devil, and the piano associated with "raggtime". So who was right?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are not telling the whole story. Again, musical instruments came into Christian worship through Catholicism. The reactions to what you call "newer" styles were the reactions of godly saints to trend of a more sensual and earthy forms of worship.

As far as musical styles are concerned, can you find ANY Charleston-style Gospel songs written when the Charleston was popular? Likewise Razzamatazz, Boogy-Woogy, and Big Band? Why did the music indicative of the youth/worldly cultures first find its way into orthodox Christian worship in the 1970's? Why was it carefully avoided prior to this?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You are not telling the whole story. Again, musical instruments came into Christian worship through Catholicism. The reactions to what you call "newer" styles were the reactions of godly saints to trend of a more sensual and earthy forms of worship.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Read Miller's book. The people back then (this is after instruments had been accepted in the Protestant Church) still thought what they were reacting to was "sensual and earthly"...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As far as musical styles are concerned, can you find ANY Charleston-style Gospel songs written when the Charleston was popular? Likewise Razzamatazz, Boogy-Woogy, and Big Band? Why did the music indicative of the youth/worldly cultures first find its way into orthodox Christian worship in the 1970's? Why was it carefully avoided prior to this? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

...so Christians always remained several steps behind the rest of society, and would gradually accept a style after the world had long moved into even more radical forms. Now we look up, and raves and mosh pits are being accepted in the church, and once again, we react with horror. But this is what happens when we put so much emphasis on our rejection of the world. The opposite of the desired effect happens: we, trying to be so "separate" from the world) actually define our whole existence around the "world" ("whatever they do, we will do the opposite"). Then our children see through this phony spirituality and rebel, and follow the world, albeit two steps behind. (now trying to catch up, though).
Michael Horton's Beyond Culture Wars covers this tendency well. While he has much to say about modern evangelicalism and its music, slogans, bumper stickers, etc. He shows that this whole "Christian ghetto" approach actually stems from the world-rejecting old-line fundamentalism with it's radical "separationism". All we're doing today is updating the approach.
Once again, when lines aren't drawn reasonably, people will cross them quickly, and then not know where to draw another line.

 

Eric---you're right on with one word in particular---REASONABLY. (READ ERIC'S LAST POST TO GET THE CONTEXT)...I am privileged to have a 14 year old daughter asking me fantastic questions about music that test the fullest limits of my ability to explain. It has been so good for me...but the key idea I have had to flash through all the conversations about music is REASONABLY. I know we have horribly over-reacted to what we have seen/heard around us (that includes me, unfortunately). We must get back to a reasoned, balanced approach to areas of Christianity or else we will be losing a lot of brilliant minds and hearts (eg. the generation of my daughter)...think about it, folks!

[ August 14, 2001: Message edited by: Daniel ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Eric B:


...so Christians always remained several steps behind the rest of society, and would gradually accept a style after the world had long moved into even more radical forms. Now we look up, and raves and mosh pits are being accepted in the church, and once again, we react with horror. But this is what happens when we put so much emphasis on our rejection of the world. The opposite of the desired effect happens: we, trying to be so "separate" from the world) actually define our whole existence around the "world" ("whatever they do, we will do the opposite"). Then our children see through this phony spirituality and rebel, and follow the world, albeit two steps behind. (now trying to catch up, though).
Michael Horton's Beyond Culture Wars covers this tendency well. While he has much to say about modern evangelicalism and its music, slogans, bumper stickers, etc. He shows that this whole "Christian ghetto" approach actually stems from the world-rejecting old-line fundamentalism with it's radical "separationism". All we're doing today is updating the approach.
Once again, when lines aren't drawn reasonably, people will cross them quickly, and then not know where to draw another line.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What do you do? Do you make up your own history just to support your arguments?

But to refute your blasphemous railing against separation from the world, I will quote our Lord and His apostles:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Luke 16:15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.
John 15:19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.
Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
James 2:5 Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?
James 4:4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.
1 John 2:15 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
1 John 3:1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, wait a minute! These guys were just over-reacting!! That's why it took nearly two thousand years before the line between Christian music and worldly music to be completely erased!

There is nothing new under the sun, and the trends in "popular" music have happened before. Don't procede on the false premise that rock music and the rejection of moral standards are mere coincidence. A quote from Plato is worth considering:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>From The Laws:
And then, as time went on, the poets themselves introduced the reign of vulgar and lawless innovation. They were men of genius, but they had no perception of what is just and lawful in music; raging like Bacchanals and possessed with inordinate delights-mingling lamentations with hymns, and paeans with dithyrambs; imitating the sounds of the flute on the lyre, and making one general confusion; ignorantly affirming that music has no truth, and, whether good or bad, can only be judged of rightly by the pleasure of the hearer. And by composing such licentious works, and adding to them words as licentious, they have inspired the multitude with lawlessness and boldness, and made them fancy that they can judge for themselves about melody and song. And in this way the theatres from being mute have become vocal, as though they had understanding of good and bad in music and poetry; and instead of an aristocracy, an evil sort of theatrocracy has grown up. For if the democracy which judged had only consisted of educated persons, no fatal harm would have been done; but in music there first arose the universal conceit of omniscience and general lawlessness;-freedom came following afterwards, and men, fancying that they knew what they did not know, had no longer any fear, and the absence of fear begets shamelessness. For what is this shamelessness, which is so evil a thing, but the insolent refusal to regard the opinion of the better by reason of an over-daring sort of liberty? . . . Con-sequent upon this freedom comes the other freedom, of disobedience to rulers; and then the attempt to escape the control and exhortation of father, mother, elders, and when near the end, the control of the laws also; and at the very end there is the contempt of oaths and pledges, and no regard at all for the Gods-herein they exhibit and imitate the old so called Titanic nature, and come to the same point as the Titans when they rebelled against God, leading a life of endless evils.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

From John Calvin's commentary on Psalm 33:2:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It is evident that the Psalmist here expresses the vehement and ardent affection which the faithful ought to have in praising God, when he enjoins musical instruments to be employed for this purpose. He would have nothing omitted by believers which tends to animate the minds and feelings of men in singing God's praises. The name of God, no doubt, can, properly speaking, be celebrated only by the articulate voice; but it is not without reason that David adds to this those aids by which believers were wont to stimulate themselves the more to this exercise; especially considering that he was speaking to God's ancient people. There is a distinction, however, to be observed here, that we may not indiscriminately consider as applicable to ourselves, every thing which was formerly enjoined upon the Jews. I have no doubt that playing upon cymbals, touching the harp and the viol, and all that kind of music, which is so frequently mentioned in the Psalms, was a part of the education; that is to say, the puerile instruction of the law:I speak of the stated service of the temple. For even now, if believers choose to cheer themselves with musical instruments, they should, I think, make it their object not to dissever their cheerfulness from the praises of God. But when they frequent their sacred assemblies, musical instruments in celebrating the praises of God would be no more suitable than the burning of incense, the lighting up of lamps, and the restoration of the other shadows of the law. The Papists, therefore, have foolishly borrowed this, as well as many other things, from the Jews. Men who are fond of outward pomp may delight in that noise; but the simplicity which God recommends to us by the apostle is far more pleasing to him. Paul allows us to bless God in the public assembly of the saints only in a known tongue, (1 Corinthians 14:16.) The voice of man, although not understood by the generality, assuredly excels all inanimate instruments of music; and yet we see what St Paul determines concerning speaking in an unknown tongue. What shall we then say of chanting, which fills the ears with nothing but an empty sound? Does any one object, that music is very useful for awakening the minds of men and moving their hearts? I own it; but we should always take care that no corruption creep in, which might both defile the pure worship of God and involve men in superstition. Moreover, since the Holy Spirit expressly warns us of this danger by the mouth of Paul, to proceed beyond what we are there warranted by him is not only, I must say, unadvised zeal, but wicked and perverse obstinacy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>What do you do? Do you make up your own history just to support your arguments?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who's making up their own history? (The church was in complete agreement about music, and what we call "traditional" today was the universal style that went back to the apostles' age. It wasn't until rock was brought into the church in the last few decades that there was any conflict, so that style must really be bad)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But to refute your blasphemous railing against separation from the world, I will quote our Lord and His apostles:
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was not "railing" against any real biblical concept of "separation", but rather an unbiblical extreme based on people's fears and ignorance. The Amish lifestyle is based on "separation from the world" but you don't live like that, do you? So how would you justify your disagreement with them? They must be taking it too far. Look also at the religious leaders Jesus and the apostles dealt with, misinterpreting God's command for Israelto be separate. All of this shows it is possible to take separation to an unbiblical extreme, and it is certainly no "blasphemy" to point this grave error out.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Oh, wait a minute! These guys were just over-reacting!! That's why it took nearly two thousand years before the line between Christian music and worldly music to be completely erased! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, all throughout the centuries, whenever music in the church started to change, advocates of the old ways claimed the line between church and world was being breached. That's just what people did; anything they didn't like was bad, and thus "of the world". That's the problem now, that people really can't tell where the line should be, because it's been moves so much throughout the Christian era.

Next you quote Plato and Calvin, but I already addressed this on my page. Plato was a pagan philosopher, whose teachings (in the form of gnosticism and neoplatonism) greatly corrupted church teaching, and hel;ped create the Rome of the dark ages, with it's unbiblical flesh is evil, and sex is always dirty even in marriage concepts, the monasticism, etc. Yet he is here praised by conservative music critics, while fellow Christians are put down. It's amazing how we are willing to turn to pagans (like also the Chi-based "scientific" studies) when we run out of scripture to prove our points!
As for Calvin's statement that OT style music was just the "puerile instruction of the law", what basis do we make this claim? What New Testament scripture says that all lively stuff was only for the Old Covenant, and Christians today must only use some dry style with Platonic philosophy behind it? Calvin too reads something into passages and then makes this the basis of some new restriction that can really be found nowhere in scripture. And since his argument seems to be really against all instruments period (like the Church of Christ), that would rule out even the "traditional" styles fundamentalists advocate, and since the real argument is against the rhythms of rock, I don't know why this reference keeps coming up.
What I see sometimes seems to be the scratching up every argument one can find, regardless of how self-contradictory, unscriptural, or even antiscriptural (pagan) it may be. This is the point of what we are saying, about hasily reacting, instead of bringing reasonable standards, and even Daniel agrees on this point.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Eric, claiming to be summarizing Theo's argument said:
(The church was in complete agreement about music, and what we call "traditional" today was the universal style that went back to the apostles' age. It wasn't until rock was brought into the church in the last few decades that there was any conflict, so that style must really be bad)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never postulated such a ridiculous assertion, however, the style of music in the church has always been an issue. Good, godly and learned saints have written at length about it. But wait! Here in the 21st Century we have Eric B to set us all straight.

My post from Plato is excellent and reliable ancient evidence of recurring societal trends, not a basis for my philosophy on music, and no true historian, theologian or any real scholar could seriously dismiss Plato's statments of fact merely on the basis of his pagan beliefs. Plato's Republic and Deuteronomy were the two most consulted ancient documents when our Founding Fathers framed the Constitution.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Eric B continues:
As for Calvin's statement that OT style music was just the "puerile instruction of the law", what basis do we make this claim? What New Testament scripture says that all lively stuff was only for the Old Covenant, and Christians today must only use some dry style with Platonic philosophy behind it?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Charles Spurgeon stated the same thing about Psalm 33:2 in The Treasury of David: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Israel was at school, and used childish things to help her learn; but in these days, when Jesus gives us spiritual manhood, we can make melody without strings and pipes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here are some more quotes: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>J.M. Neale--
Here we have the first mention of musical instruments in the Psalms. It is to be observed that the early fathers almost with one accord protest against their use in churches; as they are forbidden in the Eastern church to this day, where yet, by the the consent of all the singing is infinitely superior to anything that can be heard in the West.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Thomas Aquinas--
"Harp;" "Psaltery," etc. Our church does not use musical instruments, as harps and psalteries, to praise God withal, that she may not seem to Judaise.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Chrysostom--
It was only permitted to the Jews, as sacrifice was, for the heaviness and grossness of their souls. God condescended to their weakness, because they were lately drawn off from idols: but now instead of organs, we may use our own bodies to praise him withal. [He doesn't mean dancing.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Justin Martyr--
The use of singing with instrumetnal music was not received in the Christian churches as it was among Jews in their infant state, but only the use of plain song.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Sir Richard Baker--
It is said that David praised God upon "an instrument of ten strings;" and he would never have told how many strings there were, but that without all doubt he made use of them all. God hath given all of us bodies, as it were, instruments of many strings; and can we think it music good enough to strike but one string, to call upon him with our tongues only? No, no; when the still sound of the heart by holy thoughts, and the shrill sound of the tongue by holy words, and the loud sound of the hands by pious works, do all join together, that is God's concert, and the only music wherewith he is affected.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You might as well knock off the "Church of Christ" and "Platonic paganism" smears. This is orthodox thinking.

Your question, "What New Testament scripture says that all lively stuff was only for the Old Covenant, and Christians today must only use some dry style with Platonic philosophy behind it?" reveals the true face behind your mask of objectivity. You are merely looking for a thrill, and that has no place whatever in Christian worship. If Eric B was thrilled with moshing, then his posts would be filled with justification (however lame) for the kind of behavior exemplified by the carnal gathering at the aforementioned music festival. He is like those who walk in lasciviousness thinking it strange that we do not run with them to the same excess of riot, speaking evil of us.

[ August 15, 2001: Message edited by: Theopolitan ]

 

&lt; You are merely looking for a thrill, and that has no place whatever in Christian worship. &gt;

I must assume you would condemn a certain hymn with the chorus, "All that thrills my soul is Jesus..." if a 'thrill' has "no place whatever in Christian worship."

 

Here we go again! Remember the thread called BIBLICAL PRINCIPLES FOR CHURCH MUSIC?...the one Dr. Bob locked...you can see where we're headed...anyway, fellows, listen, going at each other's cyber-throats will accomplish nothing. We've been there, done that. In this area of music we can only operate from core principles. There are NO scriptural commands regarding music style, etc. You must look at principles like the HOLINESS OF GOD, NON-CONFUSION IN THE CHURCH, SEPARATION FROM WORLDLINESS (again, a very tricky one as you guys well know), and many others in this vein to form YOUR individual beliefs and applications. Even one local church cannot dictate standards and application of principles to another local church. It's not humanly possible. As usual, we are proving nothing in this thread, other than that we can be cantankerous. Before we get locked down, why don't we back up a few posts and get back on track....it wouldn't hurt.