MMF - Contemporary/band vs hymns/piano in worship service.

DHK, you were asked whether you carry out the music and dancing commanded in Psalm 150, and you simply quoted somebody's opinion. Opinion are like noses-- everybody's got one; some stick theirs out more than others.

You have ignored the question: What is your scriptural reference for Satan being the "chief musician?" as you claimed. And a corollary follows from your post saying you like 'classical' music. Since this music is not used for praise, is it part of the "devil's music?"

 

DHK, I am not saying it's not true but can you please give me scripture that says Satan was the chief musician in heaven? I have heard this more than once but have never seen or heard biblical backup, I'm sure you are able to give me something.

Btw...even if he was chief musician and actually knows much about music, that still doesn't prove that he created any type of music for his purpose or glory. Thus meaning there still is no such thing as "devils music".

karen

 

I will do my best. Let's look at some Scripture first.
Eph.5:18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;
19 Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;
---Notice the outcome of obeying the command of God, and being filled with the Spirit: We speak (or sing) in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord. Can we truthfully categorize the music that we sing in one of these three categories: psalms, hymns, or spiritual songs. The Psalms are well defined. There are 150 of them. Not everything in our hymnal is a hymn, and very few new hymns are being written. The old hymns of the faith generally speak forth praise, as well as doctrine, and have a great deal of depth to them. Spiritual songs should and need to be "spiritual." Often what is called spiritual is not. Many songs are shallow, not mentioning the name of Jesus, his blood, his salvation, his resurrection, or any of the great doctrines of the Bible. In fact, in many of these "praise songs" you could sing them to almost any god, for the "god" is not identified as Jesus, not with His blood, or redemption, or resurrection, etc.
Here is a couple of examples from the personal worship thread, with no offence meant to anyone:

"Wake the neighbors,
Get the word out!
Come on, crank up the music,
Climb the mountain and shout!
This is life that we have been given, to be lived out!
Live out loud!!"
---What kind of Christian message is this? Where is the salvation, the Christ of Calvary, the resurrection, the anything?? Wake the neighbors? What's that got to do with Christianity? Crank up the music? No thank you!! People are growing deaf (or at least hard of hearing) at an alarming rate because of listening to loud music.

Lord, I will bow to You
To no other god, but You alone.
Lord, I will worship You
Nothing hands have made,
But You alone.
I will lay down my idols
and thrones I have made,
All that has taken my heart.
Lord, I will bow to You,
To no other god, but you alone.
---Nice song (for a Muslim).

That is what to look for in Christian music, but that really doesn't totally answer your question. In opposition to Godly music (psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs), there is some very ungodly music, and music that is rebellious, anti-God, and even blasphemous. Surely you wouldn't defend, for example, Marilyn Manson's music. His music is the devil's music. He is a minister of Satan, literally. Go back a few generations to John Lennon of the Beatles. Lennon was one of the most anti- Christ individuals of his generation. His speech was filthy, lifestyle full of drugs, and philosophy and religion diametrically opposed to Christ.
When modern day Christian composers imitate the styles of these composers in order to popularize their music, I would call that using the devil's music. It is the music of the world, ungodly, given over to sensuality and the flesh. We are not to be conformed to this world, bur rather to be conformed to the image of Christ. Today's CCM is in general a cheap imitation of "the devil's music," or the music of the world, a music that does not glorify God. Satan is the god of this world. Though there may be some music, such as classical, that is not Biblical; it is not unbiblical or antibiblical. The music of Manson and Lennon were directly opposed to the Bible. And yet Christians copy it.
DHK

 

I quoted Peter Master's exposition of Psalm 150. He has done thorough research in both the Bible and in music. It was not just opinion, it was an exposition of Scripture.
So in answer to your original question, I have not ignored Psalm 150 at all. If you read the exposition that I posted, which I happen to agree with, you would note that dancing was done at national festivities, and especially at military victories. I do not live as a Jew, in a Jewish culture, celebrating their festivals. I have no need then to use the timbrel and the dance as is described in Psalm 150. I gave you the reference for Satan being the chief musician in heaven--Ez.28:12,13.
DHK

 

< I quoted Peter Master's exposition of Psalm 150. He has done thorough research in both the Bible and in music. It was not just opinion, it was an exposition of Scripture. >

Oh, I didn't realize he was your pope and his word is therefore infallible.

< I gave you the reference for Satan being the chief musician in heaven--Ez.28:12,13. >

Ezekiel 28:12-13 --- "Son of man, take up a lamentation over the king of Tyre and say to him, 'Thus says the Lord GOD, 'You had the seal of perfection, Full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. 'You were in Eden, the garden of God; Every precious stone was your covering: The ruby, the topaz and the diamond; The beryl, the onyx and the jasper; The lapis lazuli, the turquoise and the emerald; And the gold, the workmanship of your settings and sockets, Was in you. On the day that you were created They were prepared."

Neither Satan nor "chief musician" is stated in these verses. The king of Tyre, who is threatened by "strangers" and another worldly king (v.7; Ez. 26:7) does not qualify as heaven's "chief musician."

All that is hogwash anyway in this topic. You say God gives a kind of music ['new song'] which is different from every other kind, which is not true, obviously, as some melodies have both secular and sacred/Christian lyrics. Then you also said you enjoy 'classical' music. Which is this classical music you enjoy-- God's music or Satan's music, if this is such a binary system?

 

Sure have. There is a big difference between the "idol meat" and music.</font>[/QUOTE]The point is "doubtful disputations," or "disputable matteres." St. Paul is illuminating a principle some examples of which are eating meat, the regard of a holy day, etc. His point is to put the conscience of your brother ahead of your personal preferences. After all, there is no command to worship with musical instruments. We are certainly not the better for it.

Music, especially drums, is a central element in pagan practices and employed to induce ecstatic, trance-like states of mind. In African and Haitian Voodoo at least the shamans summon specific loas (spirits) with specific rhythms. One rhythm for this loa, and another rhythm for that loa.

Would you please cite the OT Scripture references that "specifically" bans meat offered to idols?

Romans 14, which does not mention idols at all, was about showing deference to those who regarded certain meats clean or unclean, or regarded certain days as holier than others. Why cause your brother to stumble doing those things he regards as evil? The stronger have the liberty to abstain from certain meats and activities for the sake of their weaker brothers.

1 Corinthians 8 has nothing to do with showing deference to the Jews, but to those Gentiles who had come out of paganism into Christianity. Here, it wasn't whether the meat was cow meat or pig meat, it was whether it was offered to an idol or not.

Again, the principle not being limited to only the examples Paul gave here, but to any other similar matter. Musical style being one of them.

Brass, Strings and Percussion: The facts about Bible instruments and the strong rules restricting their use in worship

This insightful article by Dr. Peter Masters, the present pastor of C.H. Spurgeon's church, will correct your misapprehension of what was allowed in the Jewish church with regard to musical instruments.

It comes as no surprise that Handel's Messiah was criticized by many clergy. It breaks a basic standard set forth in the New Testament regarding Christian worship. The Baroque style is defined by embellishment and "busy-ness," neither of which are of any value in the worship of God who desires to be worshipped in truth and in spirit. It is showy and exhibitionistic. It is not God's ears that are pleased with polyphonic textures and terraced dynamics, it is man's ears.

The early church did not employ musical instruments, but abandoned them as carnal vestiges of Jewish ritual. They did not come back in again until Roman Catholicism brought them in with other trappings of the law such as priestly garments, burning of incense and the lighting of lamps.

If you researched the issue, I think you would find very few, if any, Baptistic churches in Europe at the time of Handel allowed the use of instruments. And even those that did shunned showy and exhibitionistic styles.

No, the issue wasn't so much style, though that was an issue, and a valid one, the issue was whether this was a sanctified form of worship or not.

Whether they verbally denounce Christ is not the issue. A recurring theme in the Scriptures concerns those who draw near to God with their mouths yet have hearts that are far from Him. But that is beside the point. What are the examples set forth by Christ and the Apostles as sanctified means of evangelism? What means is clearly stated as being God's chosen method of evangelism? (Hint: It sounds foolish.) Either way, you cannot simply point at a practice that Christians have lately engaged in and thereby deduced that God has ordained it.

But is this all that is required? When Paul said, "Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend;" and again, "We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves. Let every one of us please his neighbour for his good to edification. For even Christ pleased not himself;" you take that as meaning, "but only when they're watching"?

Edited for civility. Sorry, I sometimes get carried away.

[ April 02, 2002, 03:32 AM: Message edited by: Aaron ]

 

DHK posted from Peter Masters:

This psalm undoubtedly makes a figurative use of all these instruments, because the psalmist even calls upon the angels and the saints in glory to worship God with them, and they would obviously not literally use the poor instruments of this world.

It seems as though Masters (and the Puritans who preceded him) have chosen to allow their theology and presuppositions to drive their interpretation instead of the other way around, abandoning the literal hermeneutic in favour of allegorization. This is simply poor exposition, no matter how many of his spiritual forbears did it.

Interestingly, Masters departs from his predecessor on this one. Charles Spurgeon's exposition of Psalm 150 incorporates both literal and figurative senses.

 

In the link provided I don't see much that contradicts what Masters has put forth, only much additional information. In fact, I didn't see Spurgeon's commentary at all, just a collection of commentators such as Matthew Henry and Andrew Bonar, and many others put together by Spurgeon.
DHK

 

Oh, Ok. So here is one "classical" style you criticize, finally. But then you are a bit more conservative than the rest of the CCM/rock critics, who accept both Handel, and instruments. If this is your real issue, then you need to focus on "showy"ness and "exhibition", and not just single out the style of rock and other contemporary forms. Instead, it looks like these arguments are just conjured to condemn modern styles and answer the counter-point that lively styles were allowed in the Bible.

 

DHK said:

In the link provided I don't see much that contradicts what Masters has put forth, only much additional information.

You don't find Masters' omission of the literal sense of the Psalm significant?

In fact, I didn't see Spurgeon's commentary at all, just a collection of commentators such as Matthew Henry and Andrew Bonar, and many others put together by Spurgeon.

The compilation of those sources is Spurgeon's commentary. It's safe to assume he concurs with subject matter that he compiled, published, and put his own name to, is it not?

 

Eric B said:

But then you are a bit more conservative than the rest of the CCM/rock critics, who accept both Handel, and instruments.

Indeed, I have heard the tape on rock music in the Striving for Excellence series put out by Bill Gothard, and that presentation in fact argues that the Baroque era was the last one in which musical style specifically was God-honouring.

It is the Romantic era that Gothard's presenters criticized for its bombast, not the Baroque.

 

Now, don't jump to conclusions about things that I have not said.

Simply because Handel's Messiah is too showy for Christian worship, that is about its only flaw. It is not sensual. Folks listening to Baroque music are not moved to get up and gyrate around like a bunch of wild heathen. Neither are they moved to sway in some kind of semi-trancelike, ecstatic state with their arms in the air and heads thrown back and eyes rolled back in their heads.

Baroque music, for the most part, is good music and there is no harm in listening to it.

Rock music, on the other hand, is evil, and there is great harm in listening to it. It has it's roots in African Voodoo, and the feelings it evokes are quite contrary to the Scriptural standards not only for Christian worship, but for Christian conduct in general.

 

Neither have I ever said that we do not have the liberty to use musical instruments in Christian worship. The whole debate has usually been centered on the wrong issues. Both sides have simply assumed things that are not necessarily true, (e.g. the early Church used musical instruments, and the Church has in the past readily snapped up any contemporary tune for worship, etc.).

But once it is understood that until recently, the use of musical instruments in church had been a concession to the weaknesses of the people, and have only been employed in a very limited manner to help the people sing their praises to God, the issue can be seen from an entirely different point of view...the right one.

 

Aaron said:

Rock music, on the other hand, is evil,

Aaron, do you ever prove anything you assert, or do you just expect us all to take your word for it?

 

Excuse me...Aaron? Who deems The Messiah"too showy for Christian worship"? Chapter and verse, please?

Anyone Christian who can listen to The Hallelujah Chorus and not be moved to worship, must be a corpse. That and many other parts of The Messiah are just short of heavenly, IMHO.

I'm really curious...just what fits into your extremely narrow range of music suitable for Christians to listen and/or worship to? It must be a tiny percentage of all the good music that's out there. Being a music-lover, I would hate to be so severely limited in what I can get a blessing out of. How drab and boring life would be!

Cordially and respectfully,

Elizabeth

 

Elizabeth, I agree totally with you. As a music major I have learned to look at the words of a song and not so much the stlye.

--------------------------------------------------
Classical in its day was, what I believe, to be the rock of today. Mozart, a great composer with geat music, lived the lifestyle that a rock musician would have lived. He was a spender and a drunk, knowing this now, is Mozart's music still okay? If so, then why is CCM so bad if the lifestlyes of the artist are that a Christian should live?

Here's a question, what's more important, the words of a song or the movement of the song?

I believe that the words of a song are more important, more times than not, than the movement of the song. With different cultures comes different music, which means the movement of one Christian song will have a different movement than that of a Christian song in another part of the world.

In heaven we are going to be at a party. I don't think that the music is going to be classical or all hymns. I believe that the music is going to reveal the kind of mood weare in, how we are feeling. We are going to be excited, and I believe that the music that is played is going to show that excitement.

If we are going to rejoice, shouldn't our music show our rejoicing? How can one person say that one style of worship is better than the other? How can one say that because we worship in a certain way that we are not worshipping the right way?

What is worhsip? Worship is our showing admiration of God to him through our music and words and even the way that we fellowship with one another.

True, some music is bad, but I believe that music is a gift God has given us, and who is to say that the way we praise God, if it is within reason, is bad or wrong?

In Christ's gracious love,
Teresa

 

But all "rock music" doesn't have this effect on all people. This is just a broad generalization that is just not true. This is what Ransom tries to tell you in that argument about "sensuality". Some things may have a direct "sensual" effect on all normal people (pornography, sensual words, voice, etc), but rock and the related styles (jazz, pop, etc), are very diverse and while some may have those characteristics, it is totally wrong to try to trash it all together.

It seems the real difference is between Europe and Africa. Europe has its pagan influence too (platonism), even though this may not look as "sensual" and "demonic" as the much derided African tribesman doing their ritual dances.

 

1 Cor. 1:29, "...no flesh should glory in His presence." Music is not a gift. It is a natural ability. Anyone can learn it, and university researches have discovered that talent, if it really exists at all, contributes very little to one's proficiency in the field of music. Therefore, it is not a gift, it is of the flesh.

To sing the Messiah requires extraordinary musical proficiency, the one who gets the glory is the performer.

Simplicity is the rule in Christian worship, 1 Cor. 14:19. Five words that are easily understood by all are better in God's sight than ten thousand in the spiritually inspired exercise of an unknown tongue.

As music is a "tongue" of sorts. It communicates directly to your emotions bypassing all congnitive functions of the mind. Therefore the music used should be easily sung by all. That is more pleasing to God thn two and half hours of "high class hollerin'."

There is a whole range of styles and sounds that are just fine for personal pleasure and recreation, however, the range is incredibly narrow for what is allowed in worship, and I just expounded on one of the principles above.

However, rock music, including all its progenitors and progeny, is off limits. Period.

The Christian does not derive his cheer or his joy from these external things. He derives his cheer from the Word of God and the Holy Spirit. From the very beginning I have asserted that the push for CCM is thinly-veiled thrill-seeking; a carnal grasp at that which can only be granted by God's Spirit.

[ April 03, 2002, 07:08 PM: Message edited by: Aaron ]

 

It is a Scriptural fact that one's conscience can be "seared with a hot iron," 1 Tim. 4:2. This is saying that because of constant practice or exposure, one can be desensitized to its evil.

We are not so far removed from the '50's to have been educated upon the vast protest against Elvis Presley and his hip movements (Elvis the Pelvis they called him.) But it was parents and civic leaders that protested. Those with the responsibility of preserving virtue and order.

But now, Elvis movies are shown on so-called family channels, and no one is alarmed. Why? Not because the music and dancing is less sensual, we have become less sensitive.

People don't change. People are the same from age to age all over the globe. History has shown that, and the Sciptures attest to it, Eccl 1:9. Civilizations rise and fall and the pattern is the same. At the beginning, generally moral and just. Toward the end, sensual and permissive.

What is evil is evil. That doesn't change, but a society's response to evil can change. The Scriptures say that evil communications corrupt good manners. Period. This is not dependant upon whether you feel the communication to be evil, or whether you can judge by the outward appearance the effect it has had on a person.

I said all that to say this. A person who can no longer feel an effect from something sensual is simply one who has had his conscience seared because of constant exposure or practice.

[ April 03, 2002, 07:32 PM: Message edited by: Aaron ]