2 Services?

I did address them. And then instead of continuing the discussion in a mature way, you chose to resort to personal attacks and insults.

 

That is true, but it is more difficult than that. "Lust" is different from physical enjoyment and desire. "Lust" is simply a improper physical desire.

For instance, if I have sexual desire for my wife, that is a good thing. If I have that same desire for someone other than my wife, that is a bad thing. If I have a desire for chocolate chip cookies (which the scriptures say is to be received with thanksgiving, of course), that is a good thing. If I have an addiction to them, or steal someone else, that is a bad thing.

There is no such thing as "worldly" music, in terms of beat, instrument, etc. It all get backs to what the song says (is it doctrinally sound, and pointing to Christ as He is revealed in scripture), or not? A song can have the most beautiful, soft melody, but if the words are bad, then the song is worldly (some of the songs in the Baptist hymnbooks are HORRIFIC, biblically and theologically). A song can have a rap beat, but if it lifts Christ up, and glorifies Him, it is Godly.

A GREAT song, by way of example, is Shai Linne's "Atonement Q and A". This is like a systematic theology primer. If you learn this song, you have encapsulated an enormous amount of Biblical doctrine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RUciHVpCbw

Then you have horrific theologically vacant, "touchy feely" "old Hymns" like "In the Garden"

 

So first you say there were none and then you say you addressed them?

 

My Grandmother would have said "if it moves your foot before it moves your heart then you better not be singing it or playing it in church"

 

That would rule out half the hymns in the Baptist hymnal.

 

Nothing "post modern" about it. And absolute truth is conveyed through words, not feelings. Something that makes one person feel nostalgic, and worshipful, makes another person feel angry. Some tribal groups have "sensual" music that sounds like little more than banging cans together; not sensual AT ALL in our culture. But for them, it is a part of their culture, and is such.

As far as the other, you are confusing non-verbal communication, which convey definite meanings (the microphone thing), with subjective elements, that are based on the receivers personality, culture, and upbringing. These are two TOTALLY separate things. Feelings are subjective; communication is not.

Example: If I tell my wife, "I love you," that communicates a clear message. She understands what I mean. If I play an instrumental piece on the radio, though, I do not necessarily communicate that message, even if the instrumental is a love song. My wife might think it refers to my love of God, or her love of our Children, or maybe its just about how wonderful the sunrise is. In my wife's case, she might get upset, and wonder why I am trying to put her to sleep...

So, YES, music beats are completely subjective. Communication, verbal or non-verbal, is not.

 

Dr. Bob I do appreciate your posts but on this one I respectfully, completely disagree.

Two thoughts:
1. This absolutely, positively isn't postmodern. If that is your definition of postmodern you are simply wrong about this definition.

2. I will say that this is wrong. It isn't an "absolute" truth.

So how does American worship music incorporate other music from Christian worship services from across the globe? They use a variety of displays and such.

Again I think you're completely in error about your use of "postmodern." You know about 150 years ago a bunch of church people got up in arms about organ music and piano music coming together with these "new hymns." About 150 years prior to that it was about women singing with men. About 150 years before that it was about the use of certain chords being demonic. Before that...you get my drift.

While you might have a position in your argument to attempt to leverage postmodernism to label those who disagree with you is simply, totally in error.

 

Sorry to hear that--and I've heard that story, too. I've also heard stories of churches that do it right. We still shouldn't indict a style based on some bad approaches by a few.

You aren't speaking of me here. I have not denigrated traditional worship one time on this board. Nor have I beaten you up for preferring it. The harshest thing I said had to do with your "lead paint" insult, which I thought was over the line on a Christian board.


You may not believe it...but I get the "worldly" argument in one sense: As Dr. Bob described--when someone is taking part in or mimicking a sinful action or attitude...that's a problem. I don't want to see gyrations on stage (Frankly, I haven't seen that, ever, in our area in any worship service). Nor do I wish to see provocative dress. Nor do I wish to see a "look at me!" attitude.

However, those things are not the result of a particular style of music. They are the result of the worshipper or worship leader choosing the wrong object to which he directs his "worship." And that can happen with any genre.

Points of agreement:
1. Not all songs are appropriate for worship. Without getting to the emotional/controversial side...there are fun songs, written by Christians, that are clean, fun to sing....and carry absolutely no value in a service designed for worship. So, we don't sing 'em.
2. If the worship leader/pastor/singer/etc. does not have their heart right...it matters little what kind of worship style is employed.
3. God deserves our best, whatever style we are led to use.
4. Priesthood of the believer, baby. Priesthood of the believer.

 

Then your claim is untrue.

Yep, speaking of you.

 

I said I addressed your points. I did not agree with you that they were substantive.

 

Uh, that's just not the case. Most of the CW texts were classical or art music.

Hymns have never been set to anything that one could call "saloon" music, with the exception of a few of the Salvation Army's gospel songs. Folk music might have been used sometimes, but nothing that would have had any sketchy connotations.

"Bar" form is way different than "barroom music," by the way. "Bar" form is a textual device.

 

To expand their musical tastes.

 

Since when is that the responsibility of the Church?

 

If you want an example of a church doing multiple services with multiple types of music and doing it well, without dividing the church, google First Baptist Church of Bloomfield New Mexico.

 

It isn't, but we need to do it anyway.

 

OK. You do that and we'll fulfill the role of the church as taught in scripture.

 

OK. We'll continue to make pretty music with our choir and orchestra to glorify God AND fulfill the role of the church in Scripture AND expand people's musical tastes.