Church music

I would agree with nearly everything but the part about being concerned about being getting saved in our church services. Let's be careful to remember why we're left on this earth--to preach the gospel (good news) to every creature. What's one of the best venues?---THE BIBLE-BELIEVING WORSHIP SERVICE!

Your other musical points are fine...thanks for the clear, straighforward post!

 

< 1) Since church should be a congregation of BELIEVERS we should not worry ourselves about getting people saved during the worship time >

Right-- better they go to hell than to cramp our style in 'worship time.'

< it is a time where the child adores his Father. >

to the exclusion of other times?

< Salvation is an issue that should be dealt with outside of church (church being the gathering of ourselves (believers) together for worship and teaching). >

Sure-- church must be one of the lousiest places for that.

< 2) Church music should be distinct from candy music (rock, country, pop, dance, swing, southern gospel, and other easily digestible music styles) >

I don't know of any "candy music"-- except Hershey's Symphony, perhaps. Let it be the same note and the same timing all the way thorugh-- that ought to keep any appealing music out.

< 3) It should be reverent >

To be feared? That's the meaning of the root word here.

< 4) The music is useless if it is not understood. Therefore, the songs sung must be explained. >

Then cut and paste Webster's definitions of every word in every song to be sung... "Just [merely; only] as [in the manner or way] I [first person nominative pronoun] am [first person singular present indicative], without [not having; lacking] one [single entity; unit] plea [defendent's answer to charge]... Is this what you mean? I suppose we would also need a music theorist to explain the chords, timing, and phrasing-- another reasont to use only one note and one timing pattern.

< 5) The music should be prepared ahead of time and practiced - it is, in a sense, our offering to God. >

Sure, practice everything we are going to for God. Practice every prayer to be said, practice sitting and standing at middle pew #21 3rd seat in, practice dropping a dollar bill in the collection plate.

 

Hey Trevor-It's your favorite southern belle
As for using upbeat music in worship-I don't see anything wrong with it. I sing from a jubilant heart, and the slow songs don't always contain the Joy that I feel. I'm not saying that they can't (you already know about the wide varieties that I listen to). I told you that I stay away from these threads, but I decided to "pay you a visit" and see what you had to say. As for "do I listen to the same type of music at home or in the car?" For the most part, yes. Occasionally I will listen to some secular music, but very rarely, and only that which is not against my morals (I'm not saying that others can't listen to what they choose)
Anyway, I'll talk to you later.

 

Though we often use the term "upbeat" to describe lively music, the term is more appropriately used to describe music where the stresses are placed on the up beats (2 and 4 instead of 1 and 3; 3 instead of 1 if the rhythm is 3/4; etc.).

Rock music is upbeat music, because the stresses are placed on the upbeats, not where they would naturally occur on the the downbeats.

 

Much is made of this "accent" in some people's writing, but if you actually examine most "rock" (contemporary) songs, it is usually only the percussion that is accented on 2 and 4. The actual chords, bass, etc., which make up the real "stress" of the music are usually strong on 1 and 3! This is kind of like a compliment. Yet, some old soul songs did actually accent even the percussion on 1 and 3, such as the OJays' "For the Love of Money", and Stevie Wonder's "You Haven't Done Nothing", if anyone is familiar with those (I always wondered how rock critics would condemn those since they make the deciding issue the accent of the beats)
So when you talk about what "naturally occurs", keep in mind how you are reckoning what the stress really is.

 

Music is a science, but I don't recall waxing particularly scientific in this thread except to expound a little on music theory.

No, you are not right in your assumption, but for today's crowd, drawing the line at the rock beat is a good start.

 

Well, what kind of instruments are we commanded to use in the New Testament. That's a good place to start, too.

[ March 07, 2002, 08:45 PM: Message edited by: Aaron ]

 

As far as I know, instruments are not mentioned in the NT. Am I right, Aaron? (of course, neither are public address systems, air conditioners, computers, electricity, lights, running water, etc.)............you get the point........

 

Daniel,

None of these things existed at the time of the New Testament was written.

However, there was no shortage of musicians or intruments. I think it is significant that in the midst of a culture steeped in performance arts we can find none of them employed by the Apostles.



[ March 08, 2002, 12:20 AM: Message edited by: Aaron ]

 

Oh for goodness sake, use what type of music is going to fly the best with the majority of the people, your not going to please everyone with style unless you have two different services in which case...problem solved. Don't get so caught up in style when what the real issue is the heart of the worship...that is, the heart of the people worshiping, it's about Jesus!

Karen

 

I'm a little confused...so does the Bible address using "rock" music in a service? It seems that the only requirement God gave was to worship "in spirit and truth." The Bible tells to sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. I don't see musical instruments mentioned, but I don't see particular beats and styles mentioned either. I do know that whatever style of singing and music used back then is totally different from now. For example, Paul was not referring to the hymns we have today when he used the term...we cannot be sure of what their "hymns" sounded like.

 

Aaron said:

None of these things existed at the time of the New Testament was written.

PA systems didn't exist, but ampitheatres were built with acoustics in mind, and one could always raise his voice if he wanted to be heard.

Air conditioners didn't exist, but they could cool the air with fans or by opening a window.

Computers didn't exist, but pen and paper did.

Electric lights didn't exist, but other forms of light did.

And, of course, the Romans had plumbing.

Your argument is in a bind, Aaron. If you are going to stipulate that what is not commanded in the New Testament for worship may not be used, then on the very same grounds you are going to have to forbid air conditioning, PA systems, and electric lighting on the grounds that their first-century equivalents were not commanded either.

 

Biblical silence is not a tool for the approval of one thing or the condemnation of another. Biblical silence is a remarkable evidence of the providence of God so that we could adapt to our cultures in these areas of scriptural silence. I know that the ADAPTATION TO CULTURE principle pushes Aaron's "hot buttons," but that doesn't change the beauty of the scheme of things in the omniscient providence of God. Selah.

 

No, Ransom, my argument is not in a bind. It was tailored to fit the spirit and tone of Daniel's rebuttal. I am not ignorant of the engineering marvels of the Roman Empire or other ancient cultures. (They did not, however, have electricity.)

The intent of Daniel's post was to say that I take for granted many of the conveniences of modern technology, yet find no fault in them simply because they are not mentioned in the Scriptures, implying that I am inconsistent in my hermeneutics.

I do not find fault with musical instruments in and of themselves. I find listening to music sacred and secular very pleasureable. However, the question to me was, "How do you decide what music is appropiate in your church?" And when dealing with questions such as that I like to begin with the Scriptures.

The Bible could not have mentioned our modern conveniences, (Daniel did not have in mind the ancient acoustical and enviornmental controls built into Roman architecture) because they did not exist at the time. But music, drama, and graphic arts were highly developed and sophisticated by the time the 1st Century rolled around, and it would have been a very easy and natural thing for the Apostles to utilize them when presenting the Gospel--but they didn't.

I have never stipulated that silence always means prohibition. By the same token it cannot be interpreted to mean permission. I am aware of only one argument in the New Testament made from silence. That is in Hebrews 7 dealing with the genealogy of Melchizedek. There is nothing in the OT about his progenitors, his birth or his death. How does the Apostle interpret that? Silence, at least in this case, means "no."

[ March 08, 2002, 06:30 PM: Message edited by: Aaron ]