Why is my pastor so picky about our music?

Doug Stevens said:

Our pastor says just praising God is too mindless and doesn't provide a sufficient message.

Hmmm. So who decides when a given song has sufficient message to be suitable for worship?

I get the picture of some dour pastors scanning even the book of Psalms to make sure their theological depth is sufficient.

[ September 04, 2002, 05:42 PM: Message edited by: Ransom ]

 

av1611jim said:

Why must the church embrace a style of music which has its roots in the world?

Do let us know when you stop singing in English to the twelve tone scale, will you? After all, both of them were developed by pagans.

Do you want to know how to test this music thing?

Wow, this sounds scientific, but anyway . . .

Get a tape of your favorite CCM artist. Then remove the words, and listen to the music with your eyes closed. Do you find yourself tapping your foot?

Hey, it gets my toes tapping even with the words in. What if it does? Nothing wrong with that.

Or does it take you into the very halls of heaven?

You assume, falsely, it can't do both.

For some very accurate assesments on this whole music discussion . . .

Sorry, but "accurate," "biblical," "balanced," and "Dial the Truth Ministries" are not four words that ought to appear in the same sentence together - unless that sentence happens to be "If Dial the Truth Ministries is an accurate, biblical, and balanced look at music, hell has frozen over." That site's articles on music are a textbook example of the overuse of guilt by association, often two or three degrees removed from the Christian musician they are supposed to be criticizing (e.g. their laughable criticism of DC Talk for hiring a director that once produced a video for Nine Inch Nails, but not even the video DTT takes NIN to task for).

There is therefore good music and there is bad music. Don't you agree at least with this? For example, how can you say that the music of AC-DC is good? With titles like, HIGHWAY TO HELL how can one possibly say this is good music? Or as another example of music from MY youth, SABBATH BLOODY SABBATH comes to mind. How can you possibly say this piece of trash is good music?

Is someone claiming "Highway to Hell" or "Sabbath Bloody Sabbath" is worship music?

Or do you just pull extreme examples out of thin air and hope for such a strong emotional response that no one will notice these particular titles are irrelevant?

John Lennon was tame in comparison to Led Zepplin but his piece of trash singing praise to LORD KRISHNA is just as evil.

Maybe you should do some homework. That was George Harrison the Hare Krishna, not John Lennon the atheist. Lennon was wouldn't be singing praise to Krishna any more than he would to Jesus or the Great Green Arkleseizure.

It's a minor nitpick to be sure, but it does betray a certain, er, sloppy reasoning on your part, especially as pertains to your attention to accuracy in detail.

[ September 04, 2002, 06:01 PM: Message edited by: Ransom ]

 

"I go to the garden alone" is a pretty song,but I have to admit,it is not biblical or in depth in content....some hymns aren't. I mean,God doesn't talk to us and tell us things.(in an audible voice) The song is referring to the closeness felt,but there are many better songs out there,from a biblical sssstaandpoint. That's why it does take some discernment and wisdom in deciding these things. There are some contemporary songs that have a lot of depth(by contemp,I mean newly written,not loud 7-11 songs). I happen to think there are some great songs put out by PDI worship,like "I will glory in my Redeemer". It is a precious song about all God has done for us,but it is a newer song.

So,the bottom line is,a pastor,elder,teacher,music pastor,etc has every right,let me rephrase that...he has the *responsibilty* to see to it that the music is Christ centered and biblical. Afterall,not everything *christian* or labeled praise is really that,just like not every hymn is doctrinally sound,as well. We don't accept anything and everything in our churches. God can and will give us wisdom in this area.

And let me just say,I pray there are men doing exactly what you made fun of. Seeking righteous music to edify the body. Bless them.

Peace,Molly

[ September 04, 2002, 05:54 PM: Message edited by: Molly ]

 

HA! ROTFLMFIBO

Mike

 

tiggertoddy said:

No, the "hymns" of today's age are nothing more than trite emotionalism wrapped in a candy-coated package suitable for all religions.

Here's a recent (1995) example of some of that "trite emotionalism" tigger's going on about:

"How Deep the Father's Love for Us," Stuart Townend

We sure wouldn't want to offend a Catholic by singing a hymn that states we don't get to heaven by works. We sure wouldn't want to offend the MUSLIM by singing that Jesus Christ is the ONLY GOD!

What kind of skewed motivation is this for worship? I mean, do you specifically pick out songs that offend Catholics and Muslims? Where in Scripture does it say that the purpose of worship through song is to offend anyone or that it is for anything but the glorification of God and the edification of the brethren?

[Antagonisitc phrase deleted. Aaron]

[ September 04, 2002, 06:41 PM: Message edited by: Aaron ]

 

Ransom;
And my gaff about who wrote "my sweet lord" somehow nullifies my point? Are you pretending that ANYTHING coming from the pens of the Beatles should be in the church? In your entire post I read nothing at all which would qualify as a SOUND reply to the points I was making. Well nevermind.
My point is still sound and rational and Biblical.
If you wish to mirror the world in your music style, that is your business. I will not be a part of any church that wishes to compromise with the world. It seems to me that somewhere some one once said, "Abstain from all appearence of evil" Could be I read that somewhere?
AV1611Jim

 

Tiggertoddy:
Thank you. I just KNEW that I was not alone on this issue. And that goes for others here who have echoed my sentiments about this issue. I need only look at what is going on IN the church to learn what is/is not going on OUTSIDE of it. For example, Jw's and LDS are big on door-to-door proseletyzing. Where are the SBC's? Where is the "going house to house" that once was common in Baptist churches? Many IFB's are combatting the onslaught and are also going door-to-door to witness to the lost. And many (in my experience) would NEVER allow CCM or 7-11 songs in their worship. I (personally) see a correlation to this. Not excluding sound BIBLICAL preaching, of course. There is a difference to some folks between fault finding and fault exposing. "But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evil doers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ."

AV1611Jim

 

I can't speak for the Southern Baptists in your area, but we're pretty big on that here.

As we were in the areas I lived in in Texas, Florida and Alabama.

Right, but where is the "gentleness and respect" that the Bible calls for in your posts to others?

You guys can quote the scripture but you won't actually do what it says.

I've found that anti-CCM'ers, some KJVO and some of the more rabid IFB'ers can be downright nasty when talking to others.

A good example is tiggertoddy's venomous posts in the recently defunct "CCM" thread.

The Gospel is offensive enough without our having to be.

Mike

[ September 04, 2002, 07:24 PM: Message edited by: Smoke_Eater ]

 

What constitutes a non-carnal and a carnal musical style?

Feel free to use Scripture to answer that one.

[ September 05, 2002, 11:19 AM: Message edited by: Barnabas ]

 

The mother of all music threads. Wow.

My main concern is that the words that are sung are biblical and theologically sound.

Also, in terms of corporate worship, I think it is good to have the music conveyed (instruments, etc) in a manner that is least distracting and most encouraging to the main goal of the moment: praising God. That can differ depending on the makeup of the church congregation, etc.

When I'm in a church that has musical accompianment that I find very distracting (like organ music..long story here)..I try to remind myself to focus on the words and sing unto God.

peace,
kman

 

av1611jim said:

And my gaff about who wrote "my sweet lord" somehow nullifies my point?

No, I said it betrays a certain amount of disregard for accuracy on your part.

Think it through. "My Sweet Lord" is a well-known, classic song - not only composed by one of the most famous songwriters of the century, but also one over which a watershed copyright infringement lawsuit was fought in the early 1970s.

Now, if your accuracy cannot be trusted in matters that are considered common knowledge, what grounds have I to trust your claims on matters that are less commonly known? With respect to your credibility, your inattention to detail is shooting yourself in the foot.

Are you pretending that ANYTHING coming from the pens of the Beatles should be in the church?

Where did I say anything of the sort? Don't you have enough to argue about without inventing more?

My point is still sound and rational and Biblical.

How can your point be considered "Biblical" when the single Biblical allusion in the entire post was a superficial comparison of Psalm 98 with the sound of modern music? That was not Biblical; it was you taking a Bible verse and using it as a springboard for your own, humanly-inspired personal tastes.

It seems to me that somewhere some one once said, "Abstain from all appearence of evil" Could be I read that somewhere?

Could be; the question really is, did you read it in context?

 

* Pete puts on his best Monty Python "Yorkshireman" voice and says....

Pete

 

What constitutes a non-carnal and a carnal musical style?

Feel free to use Scripture to answer that one.</font>[/QUOTE]That the Apostle Paul makes a distinction between spiritual and carnal musical styles I have already commented upon. Please see Psalms, Hymns and Spiritual Songs.

No one argues that pornography is evil, but where is the Scriptural criteria for pornography? How does one go about establishing that one portrait is pornographic and one is not?

It is the same way that one goes about discerning that some music is carnal, and some is not.

 

Hi Jim. Thank you for your post. Again, I must tell you how much I appreciate your continued thoughts on this subject, and I thank you for sharing them with me.

It is certainly true that some of the lyrics that you mentioned in your most recent post are obviously not Christian. However, the topic of our dialogue was “praise music” in various styles including Rock, Rap, and Old Fashioned. I am unaware of any Christian Rock or Rap Artists using lyrics similar to the ones that you have described. “Black Sabbath” is obviously NOT Christian praise music. I’m fairly certain the members of Black Sabbath would agree with that too.

I’m glad that we agree on a few things that you mentioned. For example, we agree that musical instruments themselves are not evil. I’m also happy to see that you agree, at least to some degree, that LOUD NOISE in music is appropriate as described in Psalm 33: 3.

Psalm 33: 3 say’s that LOUD NOISE in music is required. We both agree that instruments themselves are not evil, so it matters not what instrument is used to accomplish this music. Psalm 33: 2 specifically states that “10 string instruments” (which are guitars) are praise worthy instruments (the modern guitar usually has 6 strings, 12 strings, or 4 strings and some have 10 strings).

When we stop and think about it, we immediately remember that loud noise guitars are a hallmark of Christian Rock and Rap music! Accordingly, the Bible, through Psalm 33: 3 fully endorses these NEW styles of music.

Now most importantly, Psalm 33: 3 states that this LOUD NOISE music MUST be “NEW” music. This verse demands that the praise songs be “new.” So, not only must Christian praise music be LOUD, but it also must be NEW - “fresh material” with new songs and new expressions of music. For your convenience, Psalm 33: 3 reads “Sing unto him a NEW song; play skilfully with a LOUD NOISE" (the emphasis is mine).

As such, we immediately recognize that NEW Christian Music, performed LOUDLY, is totally endorsed by Psalm 33: 3.

As a result of this, I conclude that modern (new) Christian Rock music is not only a possibility in the church, but it is exclusively REQUIRED!

Old songs, such as “Saving Grace,” though beautiful, are not NEW – and Psalm 33: 3 demands the songs mentioned in it must be NEW. However, I would agree that NEW renditions of old songs such as “Saving Grace,” would not violate the verse and would be acceptable. This is because new arrangements are, to some degree, NEW songs (technically called “derivative works.”)

So, Psalm 33 actually PROVES that contemporary NEW “praise music,” performed LOUDLY, is Biblically sanctioned. Accordingly, Christian Rock music, and Christian Rap Music, and Christian Synthesizer Music, IS Biblically blessed.

Regarding your previous “Hogwash” comments. You said; "One has mentioned that rap, rock, blues, country, etc, can be just as spiritual if done with good intent and good words. I say, HOGWASH!"

As you know Jim, I respectfully did not agree with that comment when I first read it, and I still don't agree with it. What I mentioned in my earlier posts expresses my view, in addition to what I have stated above.

Lastly, please allow me to add that it does not matter what the physical appearance of the person performing the music is either. He can have “green hair” a nose-ring, baggy pants, or any other outward appearance. John 7: 24 shows this to be so. It say’s; “Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment” (John 7: 24). It is the HEART of the performer that matters - not his appearance.

Accordingly, we should refrain from judging anyone by that person's “appearance." That includes hair color, height, weight, or any other physical manifestation. John 7: 24 positively won’t allow it.

Thank you again Jim for your excellent exchange of ideas. As I have said many times before – folks do NOT need to agree with each other in order to LEARN from one another. I have learned much as a result of this thread. I thank you much for it.

latterrain77

[ September 05, 2002, 08:33 PM: Message edited by: latterrain77 ]

 

Believe it or not, I actually found a verse in the O.T. that spoke about Israel "drawing a picture" of some object of worship (I don't remember exactly who or what) and "desiring to give herself up to that image," and the context was startling similar to one of pornography. I don't remember which translation it was in (probably the NASB). I'm pretty sure it's somewhere 9n the prophets.

Brett

 

latterrainn77,
Your interpretation of Psalm 33:3 is certainly a "new" interpretaion. You won't find much support for it in any time-tested, tried and true commentaries.

av1611jim,
Dr. Peter Masters, the present pastor of the Metropolitan Tabernacle (Spurgeon's Church) has some wonderfully insightful articles about the kind of music endorsed by the Psalms.

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

Click on the title to read the article.

 

That you have already been proven wrong on that point, Paul nowhere makes a moral claim or distinction about musical styles whatsoever I have also already commented on.

Once again I pose the challenge to you, please define non-carnal and carnal musical styles by Scriptural standards.

Pornography inspires and elicits lust.The Bible has much to say about lust.Music in and of itself is incapable of making one lust.

If I was to use your your criteria for understanding morality nothing would be sinful, because music doesn't inspire or cause me to sin in any way.It's a good thing I have the Bible as my standard, you should try using it.I tell you it works wonders.

 

Pornography inspires and elicits lust.The Bible has much to say about lust.

Please adhere to the standard to which you hold me. Find me in the Scriptures a direct statement about what degree of nakedness is considered pornographic. Does the SI Swimsuit edition qualify, or just Playboy and beyond? Chapter and verse, please.

Music in and of itself is incapable of making one lust.

Would you care to back up that statement with some evidence?

Back to music. What in your view was Paul meaning when he said, "spiritual songs."

[ September 06, 2002, 07:33 AM: Message edited by: Aaron ]

 

I would like to just add one more point to this discussion,although I realize it has been stated before by me and others....just something to think about....Very rarely does a style elevate the content,but the style can and does bring down the content...it needs to match. If we are singing about the one true God who is Holy,unlimited,infinite,and unchangeable,possesing all wisdom,don't you think the style or genre of music should also be holy,set apart,and special?

For example,if I was singing about a holy God whom I fear and want to please,would it be right to put words to a light happy clappy tune that you might hear on the radio with people saying,wow,that is a cool song....does that appeal to men or God? Why are we doing it? It pleases man. I'm not saying we can not be happy,of course we should have the joy of the Lord all the time,but shouldn't we get more serious about keeping the worship time very reverent,holy,and set apart? I think the contempo push may be for more genuine worship...I agree there. I believe people who truly love God will be serious and authentic in their singing,praying,etc....but does it take a *new* style to get that? No,it takes dealing with the heart of man. Anybody can add a band and sing light *different* music,but very few churches are really worshipping in spirit and truth. I believe there should be an emphasis on this in churches from leadership.