Why is my pastor so picky about our music?

The Bible doesn't need to mention pornography or set dress codes.Lust is lust plain and simple.Whether I fantasize about a woman I see on the street or one I see in the lingerie section of the Sears catalogue God will judge my heart the same.

You cannot however determine a root sin in your so called "carnal music style" because there is no Scriptural standard for doing so.Your argument always falls flat on it's face before it ever leaves your mouth.

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

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

Me:Sure, you pick the tune, I'll listen to it and prove you demonstrably wrong every single time.

 

Aaron, Latterrain, and others;
Thank you for your comments, and replies. Some it seems are interested in arguement and others, it seems, are interested in dialogue. (sigh) Ain't that the way of it anywhere? Well, I do not have time right now to fully reply to all points raised since my last post, so I am just now writing to tell you all I have not disappeared. And I will give a full and Biblical consideration of all comments. I am in the midst of developing a Sunday School lesson on the dispensations of Law, The Church and the Jewish Nation right now so I do not have time to give this a fair and just consideration. I will get back to you all very soon, however. Thanks again folks!
AV1611Jim

 

Odemus said The Bible doesn't need to mention pornography or set dress codes.

In a previous discussion I said, "You insist that there should be a verse that mentions the word music in order to justify moral evaluations."

You said, "Darn tootin I do."

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000264;p=4

And now when pressed to adhere to the same standards of evidence to which you hold me, you say the Bible doesn't need to be explicit.

We've discussed this before, but for the sake of the newcomers, music is communication, and the Bible has much to say about the manner of our communication.

But back to my question:

What in your opinion did Paul mean when he said "spiritual songs?"

[ September 07, 2002, 10:53 AM: Message edited by: Aaron ]

 

Hey. Sorry I'm a little late to the discussion. Anyway, here goes. What is the purpose of the hymns? What exactly makes them so "sacred?" I've heard it said repeatedly "The old sacred, doctrinally sound, biblical truth telling hymns." Huh? What makes it sacred? Just go through your hymn book for 30 seconds, on the bottom of the page it gives the origins of the music. How about "I Have Decided to Follow Jesus." Or maybe "Come ye Sinners, Poor and Needy." These songs took the lyrics and put them to traditional music. Music that you would have found anywhere, worldy music. Does that make them evil? Should they no longer be allowed in the church? Nay. They were written to God, and thus have been sanctified, or set apart for his glory.
So what if a hymn can pack a "sermon into 2 minutes?" What is the point of our music? To teach us, or to praise God? I would love to know where the verse is that says "All 19th and 20th century hymns are given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."

People keep saying how music was never used for evangelism in the Bible, but what about teaching? How many times is it really used as a tool to teach? Instead, let our singing praise God, and the Word of God teach us!!

Oh, I’d like to hear all of these 2, 3, and 4 words choruses your talking about. I guess I’m just not up to date on the newer choruses.

Who says that in order to be a “proper” praise and worship song it HAS to contain rebuke to the sinner? Show me in the Bible. The Bible says to praise God!! NOT to sing about how terrible we are. And herein lies the problem. You make statements as if it's written in the Bible, but it's not!! Believe it or not, Paul never sang Amazing Grace, or What a Friend We Have in Jesus. And correct me if I'm wrong, but he never heard a piano, or an organ, or a guitar or a bass. So how can you be so convinced?

What is so wrong with being short? Come, don't tell me you don't like this praise chorus:

I lift my eyes up to the mountains,
where does my help come from?
My help comes from You, Maker of Heaven,
Creator of the earth.

O how I need You Lord, You are my only hope;
You're my only prayer.
So I will wait for You to come and rescue me,
Come and give me life

Ummmm....What about this one:

Where can I go?
If I go to the heavens
You are there
If I lie in the depths
You are there
If I mount upon wings
If I settle by the sea
Even there Your hand will guide me
Even there Your hand will hold me
(This is just the chorus, if anyone wants I can post the rest of it.)

Ok. One last one:
"Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and praise!"

As you probably know, I cheated on the last one. It's actually a song sung to our Lord in Revelation. However, can you just see the Angel who's in charge of heavenly music going "Hey everyone, stop a moment. You know, I don't think that this song has enough doctrinal truth packed into it. And it's way too short, unless we sing it repeatedly, but then it becomes repetitious. Instead, we'll sing all 42 verses of Standing on the Promises." (Yes, that was joke, I do realize that the Bible doesn't tell us there's an angel in charge of heavenly music, I was simply making a easily understood point)

BTW, the first two songs were Psalms 121 and Psalms 139, both of which we sing at my youth group.

Out of curiosity, have any of the anti-chorusers ever been to a youth worship service, at a rally or maybe a youth retreat? They sing exclusively praise songs, except for Amazing Grace. And it is incredible. I sincerely hope that Heaven is like that, just worship for our God from every fiber of our being.

God bless,

~JD

 

Why do we worship God? Do we go to a worship service to be entertained? Why is it we can't go to a worship service that has a certain style of music that we don't like and still be able to worship God? It seems to me that we have it backwards. Are we worshiping God, or our own musical tastes?

That is what we all should be able to do. We should so delight ourselves in the Lord, that we should be able to focus on Him and sing praise to Him, even if the song is in a style that we don't tend to prefer.

That does not negate the responsibility we have to offer God our very best sacrifice. The music we sing to Him should be the best. Others have said this, but it is worth repeating. Just because a song has even the slightest mention of anything spiritual, does not mean it is appropriate to be offered to God as a sacrifice of praise. The same can be said about a hymn. Just because it is in a hymnal, does not automatically make it worthy to be offered to God. We still need to be careful.

I love to collect quotes, and this is one of my favorites. It does not speak specifically about music, but I think it is apropos, nonetheless.

Soli Deo Gloria,
Chris

[ September 22, 2002, 12:11 AM: Message edited by: Music Man ]

 

JonathanDT,

Scripturally based songs are not the ones I have a problem with. The songs you qouted obviously have scripture backing and are fine songs,I'm sure.

My problem has been with taking a song and dumbing it down to suit man's taste,with a loud band,drums etc,because it simply is cool,and making the music service appeal to goats,by drawing them in through a worldy "style". Even if the words are doctrinally good,the style brings it down instead of elevating it. The two do not match,IMO. In a church where this goes on,I guarantee the presenting of God's word has also been made to be light,non confrontive,cool from a guy that makes everyone feel good,little sermonettes. I believe neither is pleasing to God and I can not support such a philosophy. The music and style play a great part in this downgrade.

If a song is scripturally based,sung with congregational voices singing out to a Holy God,I don't have a problem with if it the concept of *new or old*....as long as it elevates Christ and shows extreme reverence to a Holy God.
Hymns do,overall,have more doctrinal depth than most newer songs,though....truly,just read through them. There are some new songs that are okay and fitting,but we need great discernement in this area.

 

A very interesting thread.

I would like to make a couple of points.

Let's be sure to seperate CCM music from Modern praise and worship intended for church services. Many people seem to think that just because it's called "Christian" music, that means it was intended for the church. That's not true. Many, many CCM artists praise the Lord but never intended for their music to be a part of a Sunday worship service. They do what they feel called to do through music, whether that be overtly spiritual, or just provide good, clean, God honoring, fun music. So let's not think that a rap song played by a Christian artist at a Christian music festival, should be played in a Sunday morning service. The rap is not wrong or sinful, but it's not appropriate for the service.

(By the way, for all those that claim that only a certain kind of music is holy, godly, etc. - I ask you this...Just what is the current top ten list in heaven that God and the angels are enjoying? Could God possibly enjoy all kinds of music dedicated to praising and honoring Him?)

The second part is that I believe music is a Christian liberty matter. Now obviously, some music is wrong for any Christian to listen to or find acceptable. (Songs that overtly praise the devil or sin etc.) However, other music (Including CCM) can be sinful for some to listen to and perfectly fine for others. If the Lord saves you from a life that included let's just say, secular rock, then that style of music, (No matter how Godly the intent of the artist or lyrics) may be sinful for you because it reminds you of your past and possibly even still appeals to the lusts of the flesh and mind that ruled you back then. While for other believers who never had those experiences, this is a great new way to praise the Lord that they truly enjoy with peace of mind and heart. Personally, I try to remember this before I turn on my radio or CD player whenever a new person is around. I don't want to offend them or cause them to sin. Better for me to give up my Christian liberty and not listen to anything than to cause my brother or sister to be tempted or sin.

God Bless you all!

 

I agree and the statement you made about it all not being appropriate for corporate worship is exactly what I think. There is a difference between worshipping and entertaining. Corporate worship is for God,not man.

 

I DO go to a service with music I don't like(though my church has improved over the last six months), but I still worship God. The only times I have "my style" music is at youth events.

That is what we all should be able to do. We should so delight ourselves in the Lord, that we should be able to focus on Him and sing praise to Him, even if the song is in a style that we don't tend to prefer.

That does not negate the responsibility we have to offer God our very best sacrifice. The music we sing to Him should be the best. Others have said this, but it is worth repeating. Just because a song has even the slightest mention of anything spiritual, does not mean it is appropriate to be offered to God as a sacrifice of praise. The same can be said about a hymn. Just because it is in a hymnal, does not automatically make it worthy to be offered to God. We still need to be careful...</font>[/QUOTE]Agreed. I've heard songs from many genres of music and thought "Wow, how great would that be as a praise to God." Everything by Lifehouse comes to mind, though the band doesn't even tell who the song is written to, it is an awesome song for worship. OTOH, I've heard some praise songs and hymns that just don't seem like they should be sung as worship.

"Even if the words are doctrinally good,the style brings it down instead of elevating it."
By what standards??? This is what makes me crazy. People act like it is wrong simply because it is different from the old tradition, and that makes it bad. Jesus said:
Mark 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye. (KJV)

Mark 7:13 Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that. (NIV)

We should be careful not limit our God because of tradition, but instead look at it as The Word says, and if it doesn't say then we shouldn't uphold tradition as if it IS in the Word.

Like I said I don't go to a church where "this goes on," but what are you basing this guarantee on? You've been to all of these churches? Visit the Creation festival, and you would be shocked if you really think that it is all feel good sermonettes. I'm not trying to criticize you, but I think you made a hasty choice of words.

WW2, I agree with what you said. Isn't Biblically based, but mostly on my experiences: Music is written with a purpose. Sometimes it fits other purposes better then the original intent, but normally it is best used as it was meant. And yes, that means that some (most?) music shouldn't be in the Church.
Personally, I prefer the praises because for a variety of reasons, but they all sum up to I feel I can (usually) give better worship with them and personally enjoy them more. If you don't like them, that's cool. You can sing all hymns, and I'm not going to tell you you're less spiritual or your songs are really the influence of the Devil. It's how you worship best, and like it or not we are all going to worship best with music that we enjoy personally.

 

I agree with you. I think that is an important point. This has implications, though, not just on CCM, but those good ol' Gospel Songs as well. Many of the Gospel Songs (BTW, I define a Gospel Song as one which does not address God, but man, and also has a refrain) were never intended by those who wrote them to be used in worship services. They were written specifically for use in revival services. But what happened is precisely what is happening today with the CCM, people went to these revival services, heard these new songs and liked them so much, they wanted to sing them in the worship services. And that is the problem today. Someone goes to a concert and hears a song they want to do on Sunday morning, but then gets mad when told it is not appropriate for worship.

I also agree that musical style is something we must be careful with. Why do we as the church want to sound and look more like the world all the time? Everything about us and what we do should be different, in every way, from the world. James gives us a strong warning about that (James 4:4). As an aside, I think that includes our architecture as well. Why do so many new large churches look more like convention centers than churches?

I believe these quarrels we have in our churches over music are wrong. We need to learn to set ourselves aside, putting God first, then others. I think James 4:1-12 and Colossians 3:1-4, 12-17 would be good for all of us to read and follow, myself included of course.

I sometimes wonder if Calvin wasn't wise to only allow the singing of the Psalms in worship services. But, then again, I'm sure someone complained about the songs being sung in Geneva. Queen Elizabeth I did call them "Genevan Jigs" afterall.

Soli Deo Gloria,
Chris

 

I haven't heard anyone suggest that we sing POD's Boom, or AudioA's Underdog, or Supertones' Unite. The only CCM (It's debatable if this band is CCM, but I'll leave that to another time) song I've heard specifically mentioned was Lifehouse's Everything, which I think is an excellent praise song and certainly appropriate when played correctly. Other then that, this debate has been all about praise and worship songs, which WERE specifically written for this purpose. I believe that your statement is about what you got the impression we "praise & worshippers" want, but it really isn't if you listen to us!!

Actually, I think James was talking about being materialistic. But even if he wasn't, didn't Christians in the new church have the same homes, same tunics, same food, same sandals, same haircuts, same jobs, the same marketplaces, and the same prisons?(among other things) Be careful not to add more meaning then a verse should have. Our traditional architechure is a far cry from what the Apostles knew, so make sure that you don't elevate tradition to the level of The Word. Same with Music. Paul probably heard a Bass and drums just as many times as he heard a pipe organ.

I really enjoy these debates!!! I don't consider them quarrels, as long as we're sure not to judge each other or other churchs on the music we have. I really do enjoy reading your views, along with the views of my other brothers and sisters, and I don't think that it upsets God to see us express our opinions. If it forces us to dig a little deeper into The Word, all the better!!

God bless,

~JD

 

JD, thanks for the response. I must apologize for not stating this in my post. I was speaking more from personal experience as a worship planner/leader than as a response to any particular post (even though I quoted one ). You might be surprised what some have asked me to let them sing on Sunday morning! My point was really just that we need to be careful that what we offer to God as worship, be appropriate for worship.

True, but the key to the point is verse 7, "Humble yourselves before God."

Are we not supposed to be different from the world? Paul certainly taught that we are (Romans 12:1-2)
Why do we think we need to be like the world to "win" the lost people of the world? We try to be like the world with our music, the clothes we wear, programs we have. We strive to have all of the latest media tools which we think will help us draw people in, but what are we saying when we do draw them in? Are we presenting the Gospel to them, or "Christian entertainment"? (Spurgeon wrote a great piece dealing somewhat with this, "Feeding Sheep, or Amusing Goats?") It seems like there are a lot of churches who try so hard to make people feel comfortable by saying, "See, we're no different from you." That isn't going win people.

Practically nothing about the contemporary church would be recognized by Paul. But why did God have Solomon build the Temple. Was it like anything else at the time. Wasn't it a special place which was to signify the Holiness and Greatness of Jehovah? Why did the early church meet in homes? Wasn't it because of the persecution they might suffer? I think architecture is important. Where we worship God, and what it looks like says a lot about how we view God.

Again, I must apologize. I was speaking more about the quarrels that can and do take place in local churches over music, than anything in previous posts. Sorry I did not state that in my post. I also enjoy these debates! I think they belong in forums such as this, though, not in the church. Believe me, I have come under plenty of fire over some very trivial matters.

Soli Deo Gloria,
Chris

 

Thanks for your insight! I totally agree with the last sentence, but I guess we disagree slightly on what appropriate is. I can't convince our worship team to sing ANYTHING not printed in the hymnal, which IMO leaves out a huge number of great songs.

True, but the key to the point is verse 7, "Humble yourselves before God."</font>[/QUOTE]
Yes, and I think we can humble ourselves well with praises AND hymns. Neither has a monopoly on humbleness. Two songs I love are Light the Fire and Hungry.

I disagree with trying to be like the world, what we should be is the best we can. That means that we should be different in our language, in our actions, in our love. Does that also apply to clothing, transportation, technology? I'm not so sure, it does warrant some more study on my part. Are we supposed to be different for difference sake, even when the world standard is as good or even superior to what we would have? As for music, HOW different should it be? Some believe that it should be different as in only something that is virtually extinct in the secular world is acceptable. I disagree, I think it should be different as in sanctified and set apart for God, but this is a matter of opinion and conviction since the Bible doesn't tell us.

I guess architechure is really something I haven't thought about much. I just want to be careful not to hold tradition too high, my church had some serious problems with doing things for tradition sake, with no rhyme or reason. Tradition outside of The Word is something that isn't encouranged in the NT.

Oh, I believe you. My Dad's a pastor, so fire is something I'm well acquainted with. Thankfully the ones who would like to incorporate some of the newer songs are also sensitive enough not to "rock the boat" so much as to upset people.

God Bless,

~JD

 

Please pardon my ignorance, but what is IMO?

Agree 100%. I did not mean to imply otherwise.

That's where the rub comes in isn't it?

Soli Deo Gloria,
Chris

 

In My Opinion.

Mike

 

At one time my pastor asked me to sing just hymns with the piano instead of accompament tapes. I did what he asked. I knew he had his reasons. I later found out that christians that was weak in the faith was taking tapes to him that was not biblically sound but they didn't understand. He asked me to do this so he did not have a fight about the situation with them and I am glad he did because now sometimes I sing with the party that was upset and we can agree on music anyways. They just needed to grow in faith a little.

 

Hi;
I am sorry it has taken soooo long to get back to this thread. I have moved to another town 160 miles east and it takes awhile to get back to a routine. I am sorry I am so late with this but I promised so here it is. After a bit of research and looking around, I have come up with this for a suitable answer to the many objections I have read concerning the use of "modern" praise tunes for our worship.
DID THE WESLEYS USE TAVERN MUSIC?

November 24, 2002 (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service,
P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org;
for instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses,
see the information paragraph at the end of the article)

The following is from the United Methodist News Service, September 30,
2002. It was written by Dean McIntyre, director of worship resources at the
United Methodist Board of Discipleship. We are picking this up from
Foundation magazine, November-December 2002. While we certainly do not
support the United Methodist Church, the following is an accurate and
important debunking of a popular myth and we are thankful to Mr. McIntyre
for taking this stand:
____________________

Did the Wesleys really use drinking song tunes for their hymns? This
drinking tune myth pervades our denomination and has attained the status of
truth in many people's minds, including pastors, musicians, professors,
writers, students, and our general laity.

Of particular importance is the distinction between the use of secular
music as hymn tunes--a practice that the Wesleys did occasionally use--and
the use of drinking tunes or saloon songs as hymn tunes--a practice that
they did not use.

The Wesleys did not use tavern or drinking songs to carry their texts.
Their theology as well as their sense of aesthetics would have made such an
occurrence unthinkable. There are no such examples in their collections.
There are no suggestions or recommendations that others do so in any of
their writings.

The oft-repeated legend results from some poor, misinformed person who
confused the medieval literary bar form, also sometimes known as bar tune,
with tavern song. Once spoken out of ignorance, the confused version took
on a life of its own and seemingly grows with each repetition.

The legend is now repeated by those who advocate this very practice in the
church's worship and music today. They use the "fact" that the Wesleys did
it as justification for their argument that we should also do it. I want to
argue that those who wish to commend this practice to the church should not
be allowed to appeal to an historical inaccuracy or lie as their
justification. They should be able to argue the position on its own merits.

The Wesleys did, indeed, make use of secular music as hymn tunes--rarely.
And when they did, THE MUSIC ALWAYS WAS FROM SOURCES OF RECOGNIZABLE BEAUTY
AND EXCELLENCE, such as an original composition by the great composer
Handel as a tune for "Rejoice, the Lord Is King." Other secular sources
used by the Wesleys included the classical music of their day, a few opera
tunes, and perhaps a folk song or two. But IN EVERY CASE WHERE THEY MADE
USE OF SECULAR MUSIC FOR THEIR HYMNS, IT WAS ALWAYS OF THE VERY HIGHEST
CALIBER, never a little ditty, jingle or disposable contemporary pop tune
of the day that would be cast aside as soon as the next one was penned. …

I feel quite comfortable casting my lot with … the Wesleys in this matter.
I'm happy for us to "redeem" and use secular music in our worship if it is
appropriate (and legal) AND IF THE RESULT IS SOMETHING WE NEED NOT BE
ASHAMED OF IN OFFERING BACK TO GOD. USE OF THE MUSIC MUST NOT PUT US IN
ASSOCIATION WITH ACTIVITIES, LIFESTYLES AND BEHAVIORS THAT ARE INCONSISTENT
WITH A LIFE OF LOVE IN CHRIST. …

The legend has a seductive quality to it. How can anyone argue against the
kind of evangelical zeal demonstrated by one who would go out into the bars
and taverns of our communities in search of lost souls, and who would be
willing to make use of that culture's music to attempt to appeal to them to
hear our message? It is that very appealing evangelistic zeal that makes us
today repeat the story again and again, even if it isn't true. We want to
think of the Wesleys as having done that, even if they didn't.

The truth is, while they quite likely preached to the lost, including a
fair share of drunks and alcoholics, in many venues, THEY DID NOT AND WOULD
NOT HAVE USED THE MUSIC ASSOCIATED WITH THAT SINFUL BEHAVIOR IN THEIR HYMN
SINGING. They certainly did not use it in their hymnal publishing or in
their journal or letter writing.

End of article by Dean McIntyre.
_______________________

CONCLUDING NOTE FROM BROTHER CLOUD:

Contemporary Christian Music is founded upon an unscriptural premise, that
music is neutral and that any music can be used to glorify the Lord.
Nothing could be farther from the truth. God is holy, while this world
system is sinful and demonic. Music that glorifies and feeds the sinful
flesh and drives the wicked, demonic rock scene can never be pleasing to a
thrice holy God. It is true today as in the days of old, when Israel was
apostate:

"Her priests have violated my law, and have profaned mine holy things: they
have put no difference between the holy and profane, neither have they
shewed difference between the unclean and the clean, and have hid their
eyes from my sabbaths, and I am profaned among them" (Ezekiel 22:26).

I have more if any would like for me to post it but I say let the Scriptures speak for themselves. You will notice that we are to put a DIFFERENCE between the Holy and the profane.
AV1611Jim

 

Mike;
You just keep on believing that the "modern" music is not profane ok? But it escapes me how one can picture the holy angels up in heaven "rockin' out" to something as profane as some of the junk which is passing for 'christian' these days, all the while praising a THRICE HOLY GOD. God is not honored with a 'christianized' rock 'n' roll party in His name. He just isn't. Sadly, no amount of Scripture nor reason will convince the 'christian' folks who wish to hang on to the world.
I cannot nor will not endorse, agree, compromise, or accept the 'modernists' who wish to profane the holy worship of my Savior. Whether they see it that way or not does not matter. As an example, the ancient Jews could not see their Savior in spite of the fact that He walked with them, healed them, and talked with them. He was right there in their faces and they would not see Him. Likewise, the 'modernists' refuse to see that the more hateful the world gets the more like the world they get. What was once the line which was tabu is now okey-dokey to do. One need only look at what is going on in the 'modernist' churches today and what the world was like in the '60's. There is no difference. What was once decried as unholy is now ACCEPTABLE in church today. This is undeniable. I am talking about OUR times. For rebutal, forget going to the reformation. Nothing like the two times are comparable.
So without further re-hashing the arguement, let's just leave it at this. The 'modernists' want as much of the world as possible while still calling themselves 'christian' while we Bible believers want NO amount of the world polluting our haven of rest. And sadly the debates rage on while a lost and dying world sees only the 'modernism' in the church and asks them, "What makes you any different than what we already have?" To which they weakly reply, "uh...nothing"
AV1611Jim
P.S. Nothing personal intended. I am only stressing the need for holiness and seperation from the world. Not compromise.

 

I have not read all the answers to your question, but I will tell you what our church does.

We sing traditional hymns in most of our services.

Occasionally on Sunday evening, we will sing some praise and worship.

The youth sing the praise songs in their group meetings, and the youth director has been introducing them to some of the old hymn.

One young man came up to me and said," Some of your songs are awesome"

Maybe you can have some services where all types of music is song.