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

They are of equal importance. Music is communcation. Certain styles communicate certain moods, and it is not dependant upon social conditioning. It is absolute.

Chapter and verse please?

Worship is the offering of "worth-ship," and our worship today is in truth and spirit. That means focused on the Word and in the heart. Not all the outward pomp. Worship is solemn and grave. Can you find me a verse anywhere that compares worship with a party?

By what standard is some music bad, and what is the criteria for "reason?"

 

Before we begin another exchange, let's define our terms first. What, exactly, do you accept as proof?

 

Let's use common sense, ok? When we are in heaven we are not just going to be sitting on our duff thinking, "well, isn't this nice?" Instead we are going to be worshipping our Lord in heaven.

Is there a possiblity that there will be excitement, I could bet on it. Are people going to contain their excitement? I don't really think so. Heaven is our final destination and Jesus described heaven in a parable about a wedding feast. How many weddings have you gone to that have played slow and mundane music? None that I have gone to...

What is a wedding? It's a celebration of two people's love for each other and the excitement is more times than not shown through music.

If heaven is a wedding feast, then there will be music. Will there be hymns sung? I don't know... Will there be Psalms quoted? Again, I don't know... But I do know that God is the Creator of music, no there is not a verse for that, but do you have a verse to back up everything you claim in every conversation you have? I would guess not.

While God has given us infalliable Word, and the Bible is a guide book from which we are given godly examples from which to live, it does not dictate our daily lives. When I wake up in the morning, I don't go "What shirt shall I wear today? I better look in the Bible for the answer" Because it is not there. What is there are guidelines that tell us not to profane our bodies or send unChrist like messages. If the shirt I am wearing does one of those things, then, I should not wear it. However, if all I have are button up plain shirts, or something of the sort, the choice, I believe, is left up to me to make. Similarly we come to music. I know what I should not listen to: ungodly music that is against the gospel message, yet, if I have been lead to worship God (note what worship means) in ways different than you, but not unbiblical, than you can not judge me. For it is God I am worshipping, his approval I am seeking. Not that of mans.

In Christ's gracious love,
Teresa and Adam

 

Teresa and Adam, you said it very well. As I read Aaron's post saying Christians are never supposed to get happiness from external things, I thought to myself, "What's wrong with this?" I think it's a very sad misinterpretation of Scripture.

Aaron, I'm just curious as to whether or not you're married. I think about the joy and happiness my marriage has brought me, and even the act of physical marital love. That's not spelled out in the Bible, but if you've ever experienced it, you know how pleasurable it is. I suppose we aren't to enjoy that,though?

I look at nature and think "God didn't have to make it this beautiful." I believe He did it so we could take joy in it. Similarly, I take joy and pleasure in beautiful art, beautiful writing, beautiful music,even delicious food...and I thank God for providing such beauty for us to,yes, enjoy and take pleasure in. Sometimes the pleasure is enjoyed through my senses. God gave us those senses, too.

The Scottish missionary Eric Liddell said "When I run, I feel His pleasure." He even used running as an act of worship!

Aaron, with all due respect, you seem to be a very severe person.

Elizabeth

 

Aaron, about this comment:

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

So we should never offer up as worship,something that requires proficiency and excellence? Sorry, I just don't buy that.

I Cor. 10:31 tells us that whatever we do, we are to do to the glory of God. If I am going to sing a solo, I will carefully rehearse it with the goal of doing my absolute best. I won't offer something shoddy to my God. If a choir piece requires proficiency, the choir will rehearse to make it as perfect as possible. We then give it to the Lord to use as He sees fit, and ask Him to bless others and draw others to Him through the music, with the aim that He ultimately receive all the honor and glory.

Of course, a song doesn't have to be complicated, fancy or in your words "showy," to be a blessing and to be used of God...but I don't agree that a piece requiring proficiency is unacceptable as worship.

Elizabeth

 

This thread has been a trip and a half! I have laughed more than once at the antics you've displayed. Jesus will have the last word. Remember Zephaniah 3:17 says He will joy over thee with singing. "Joy Over" is a leadership term indicating that Jesus will be Heaven's choir director. I can't wait to sing under His direction. Until then all we can do is offer feeble praise (from Handel's "Messiah" to Michael W. Smith's "Breathe"---though the former is far more skilled than the latter, I'll admit as a seasoned music teacher and director!!)Come on, ya' all, knock this foolishness off...let's get back to the Master's business!

 

Molly, you don't need to apologize for the heated discussion. That's what a forum is all about, and that's how we learn and grow.

I have mentally conceded a few points here to Aaron and others, but some issues will never be settled. At some point we will all say "that's how HE believes,but it's not how I believe."

Elizabeth

 

Aaron said:

Before we begin another exchange, let's define our terms first. What, exactly, do you accept as proof?

Since by your own words, we are dealing with a moral question (i.e. you asserted that rock music is "evil"), the only valid proof comes from the Bible, which is the rule of faith in all matters of doctrine and practice.

In other words, now that you have asserted that rock music is morally evil, I want you to give chapter and verse saying as much, or plain reason showing how it obtains from Scripture by good and necessary consequence.

In short: Put up or shut up. "Evil communications corrupt good character" just doesn't cut the muster, I'm sorry to say, unless you happen to think petitio principii is a fundamental of the faith.

 

To whom is this directed?

 

Of course you will say this, but then this is making your or past societal reaction to things the standard (Also as Ransom, Smoke and others have been saying). This is precisely the problem. None of you contemporary critics ever look at ast society and question how biblical it was. A seared conscience can work the other way; in uptigtness! In fact, in the very context of this passage, it was people with too strict rules, not too lenient, who were being discussed!!! Back in the 50's the word "pregnant" was banned from the media, as sex was generally still viewd as dirty by much of public consciousness, and this is precisely what paved the way for the rebellion of rock & roll and other outlets as this made them appear all the more insteresting! This is the problem I have with critics such as you. You point out some legitimate concerns but ignore the problems of the past people are reacting against. It's always as if the 50's and before were the perfect Eden and all of a sudden, some wicked conspirators (Left/communists, other cultures/egalitarians, rock musicians, humanists, etc) came and created the Fall.

 

Aaron asked to whom my posta priori was directed. Answer: all. What legitimate good has been accomplished in this thread? Have we not seen the same arguments over and over and over and over and over ad infinitum?

Can any of you from any POV cite chapter and verse for your beliefs? Oh, yes, many cite derived principles (eg. the worldliness argument), but no one can cite a dogma on either side.

Music has been my OCCUPATION and MINISTRY for 19 years. I have fought on both sides of the argument. I have played and sung both kinds of music. I have served in tight, conservative churches and currently serve in a balanced, joy-filled church. (The latter is much more preferable, believe me!)

So, what's my conclusion? THERE IS NO CONCLUSION THIS SIDE OF ETERNITY. Aaron, DHK, Ransom, Eric B, Smoke et. al are NOT going to change in any way shape or form. So, what's the use of all this bantering back and forth? I presume they love the chatter. I also know they are strong in their beliefs. But what good for the cause of Christ are they accomplishing? Each side's self-righteous pontifications and quasi papal bulls are not advancing the kindgom.

Brethren (this includes the sisters ), let's step back, look around, take a deep breath and move on to HELPING each other within the structures we so stronly adhere ourselves to in this fluid, subjective field of music.

 

Aaron, why are you ignoring Elizabeth?

UNP
Adam

 

Yes, people rebel because of their fallen nature. My whole point was that those who advocate rules have often forgotten that in thinking that we can tame this fallenness through excessive rules (e.g. When the music was kept plain and devoid of physical pleasure to it, people were less likely to sin, but when rock & roll came, that as well as the rest of the cultural revolutions led to all the sin of today).
Read Romans chapter 7. Paul shows that rules by themselves do cause our fallen nature to rebel. Of course he is not saying there should be no rules, but he is cautioning about the perfectionism of legalism that thinks sin can be stamped out by enforcing rules alone. We thought we had sin under control in the 50's and before with all the rules, but sin was still there, only repressed, and as hearts were not really changed (people would obey because they were forced to), it would only burst out in rebellion in time. Christians then blamed rock music, integration, Communists/liberals, feminists and everyone else instead of the wicked heart, which included their own and the equal fallenness of their past traditional society.

 

I think there is some good that may come of all this. I certaily have gained a better understanding of the other side. Others may be slowly opening up and reconsidering their positions as well. We just don't see it.
We all think we are doing good for the cause of Christ, because if either side is right, there could be a serious problem to the pronouncement of the Gospel. If the ciritics are right that the modern music is no good, sensuous, demonic, offensive to God, etc., then it must be challenged or it will damage our testimony. If they are wrong, then they are projecting a false image of Christian morality and culture and need to be challenged themselves. So the debate will go on.
As for people's strong will, witnessing would seem futile if we look at peoples refusal to change and conclude that no one ever will down the line.

 

I've actually had the concern that if churches didn't have newer styles of teaching and reaching out that people get bored. The gospel of Christ will never change or become newer, but face it folks the world around us changes everyday our society grows and learns something new so why can't we as christians be new and innovative and creatively thinking on better, newer, brighter methods of reaching out to the lost using the exact same Gospel of Jesus Christ but presented in refreshing fashions? I say keep pressing forward and if you can come up with newer methods then by all means go for it, I don't see where the gospel is watered down at all in this.

karen

 

Daniel,

Chill, Bro. Let us sharpen our debating skills. There is no harm in our discussing this issue no matter how often it comes up.

Aaron

 

Aaron: OK. I Just see NO END in sight. All the posts are circular, including yours.