Anyone heard this?

This is answered here: http://members.aol.com/etb700/ccm.html#subjectivity
Here are some pertinent segments:
This whole criticism of preference or subjectivity I see in the teachings ignores the fact that man is a subjective creature. If that is such sin, then remember, it is due to our fallen nature, and ALL of us have it and have to beware of it coloring even our rejection of things (as well as our choosing things). That's why God gives us His Holy Spirit to guide us in debatable areas not covered in the written Word. But what people are doing is for the sake of denying "subjectivity"; instead of admitting that they feel or think certain music is bad, (since they criticize the modern generation for judging by feelings) they simply say "God says!", even though He has not said it, and then try to read these convictions into His Word as universal commands for all. But this makes it no less subjective...

So you can ask that people not play certain music around you or in church (and perhaps some young people have not respected this), but they do more than that: they say it shouldn't be used anytime, and they try to defile everyone else's conscience with their "knowledge" so people would have to be restricted to only what these critics say is good. Some will cite Paul's statements that he would never eat meat again if it made his brother stumble (1Cor.8:13), and that we shouldn't either (Rom.14:21). Paul is giving us the attitude we should have, and yes, many have failed here. But this is not to be manipulated in order to completely obliterate others' preferences altogether. Else, the person doing this is violating the intent of these scriptures just as much as the supposed "offender". Plus, nobody would be able to do anything, because different people will claim to be "offended" by everything and anything. The people claiming to be "offended" must have a sensible claim. The Bible does not tell us to yield to any teaching that comes up in the Church, for then there would be no way to keep out false doctrine! Paul may have in one place told his readers to yield to those with weak consciences regarding meat, but then in 1 Tim.4:1-5 he condemns those among other things, "commanding to...abstain from meats". Contrasting this with Rom. and 1 Cor. shows that with some it is a legitimate issue of conscience, and with others, it is part of a false system of doctrine. He does not even say "well, since there are some who have legitimate conscience issues, we should still abolish all meat anyway, [as basically, the false teachers happen to be right on that]". In fact, rather than a genuine personal spiritual conviction, it seems in this issue the music critics are bent on stamping out of existence altogether a whole range of music largely because of the culture its elements came from, or because it's not what they are used to, or because they thought any amount of physical pleasure was bad! Is that what Paul suggested we do with meat? No, but it is closer to what the false teachers in 1 Tim. apparently were trying to do. Younger generations questioned this, dismissed it, and then went and did whatever they felt was right. (hence, the argument "God doesn't care about musical styles in the church, and that it's just a matter of personal preference"). Both went about it the wrong way!

And once the youngsters went out and started their own churches, the traditionalists should have had no problem, as they would not have to hear what was sung in those churches. But instead, they continued to denounce the entire contemporary Church just for using the styles, period (whether people were trying to bring it into their congregations or not). Obviously, the traditionalists' motives are questionable, and have damaged their own credibility, so they should not be surprised when the younger crowd doesn't accept their authority as biblical.

 

Not you, Thankful. Elnora. Elnora said she wasn't going to post any more, and Ed made the allegation that I had reproached her by asking her a question about God's will and her beliefs about music.

I concede that I haven't figured out women yet!

 

Oops, Sorry Aaron. I had quit posting and took it personally without researching. Thanks for explaining.

 

Eric,

There are two basic errors in your last post. 1) Music is not subjective. In other words, our responses to music are not culturally conditioned. Sad music sounds sad to everybody regardless of era, culture and position on the globe, and happy music sounds happy to everybody, and so on down the line.

Now the B-17 syndrome does exist. (Please, Mister, please! Don't play B-17. It was our song it was his song, but it's o-wo-ver!) People will associate specific tunes to happy or sad times, and hearing them will evoke happy or sad emotions. That's not what I mean when I say that our responses to music are not culturally conditioned.

Happy music sounds happy to everyone, sad music sounds sad to everyone, and the same with angry and scary music. It is the same not just with these basic emotions, but with the whole gamut of the human experience. Submission is always eyes down, haughtiness always eyes up. No one mistakes angry looks or loving looks because of culture. Even in speech, rapid and high-pitched means excited, low and slow is calm or grave. I could say to my wife, "I hate you," in a manner or style that really means "I love you," and not only she, but everyone within earshot would get the message. In fact, they would accept the manner in which something was said as the truth over the words themselves.

2)Music is not a matter of Christian liberty. It is God's will that music be used in worship, but just as in everything, God has set certain limits. It cannot be said that God's will is that all kinds of music be used as in the promiscuous decree of Nebuchadnezzar (Dan. 3:5). The demeanor of Christian gatherings should be nothing like the demeanor of heathen idolators. God has forbidden excess and riot and anything that might resemble drunkenness, which, I might add, looks the same from culture to culture, (1 Pet. 4:4, Eph. 5:18). Even in today's licentious culture, one finds it difficult to sanctify the degenerate form we call "Rap." However, I think it's a perfect form to accompany songs about doin' ho's, b******, and popping n-word's (their word, not mine).

 

My apology

In an earlier post I mixed up CCM for ECM ...

 

I also started a poll to find out if people are actually disagreeing over the posted song, or if they are disagreeing over genres of music.

Wayne

poll web page

 

Aaron,

ever hear a sermon by Evangelist Steve Piggot that he called "Music Paints Pictures"? It illustrates your point about sad music sounding sad to everyone, etc.

Just thought Id ask.

 

All of these indicators of behaviour which communicate or express emotion, mood or intent are not in and of themselves the mood, emotion or intent. They can all be replicated without their associated meanings (I can smile without really being happy), and without a context to provide a meaning there can be no discernment or judgement except to say that God has created all emotions and they are good and a reflection of His character. Only an action of the heart can bend, twist and pervert them.

 

I don't see how that excerpt denies this point. In fact,I acknowledge the point elsewhere in the page. Still, it is the claims that certain music always evokes some negative response, and the deciding factor being beat accents (and add, talking in rhyme, rather than singing), is what has not been proven. (and even all the "negative" you mentioned; such as "sad", and even "angry" are not always wrong, or at least not always consistently avoided by "traditional conservative" Churches. (Much of the old Church hymns sound sad, while much of the preaching is angry, and even haughty lookling/sounding!) So all you have proven is that music can affect our emotions (which I have acknowledged, though some others seem to deny). You have not proven that rock or rap always have these bad effects.

You're looking at "today's licentious culture", where music is used for the sins of the day. Likewise, centuries agon, music we are calling "traditional", was the music associated with barrooms and drunkennes (And I'm not talking necessarily about particular hymn tunes being taken from there, but the style being then what was "secular" and "contemporary").

Another exerpt:
Rap is criticized as being "arrogant" and drawing attention to the rapper, but in the Christian context, it is no different than the old-time fiery preaching, which the fundamentalist critics look up to and miss so much. The only difference is the beat, but if the issue is whether the vocals are arrogant, then the issue of the alleged evil of the beat (which supposedly draws attention away from the vocals) is not a valid support for the argument. Unfortunatly, in the secular context, like rock, rap has been heavily degraded with rampant themes of violence and sex, and the "gangsta" or "thug" images of its stars reflecting this; and in the past, there was an obsession with egotism leading up to all of this (the "I'm the baddest rapper" craze of the '80's, with gold jewelery and other material items flashed and bragged about). Though it always had an element of bragging and partying (though nowhere near as sinful as today), it was at one time more of a positive vehicle of socially conscious messages, including making people aware of the destructive patterns of the streets, but as with everything else, once it hit mainstream, it was corrupted by the typical sins of pop culture. But once again, this "association" does not mean the style is unseparable from those vices.

 

Hey Bapmom,

Music is neither good or bad, it is amoral. It is when you put lyrics to the words that things get messed up.

The Christian group Apologetix has been doing paradies of secular songs for a lot of years. It's amazing to see how the Lord will use what people consider "bad" music.

While my taste in music is not rap, I won't say all rap is bad. Some people think Southern Gospel is THE only kind of music you should listen to. I guess they shouldn't sing out of a hymnal.

When Great is Thy Faithfulness was included in the Baptist Hymnal in 1956, it caused quite an uproar in the church. People said it was too modern and such. Of course, it is now considered a classic.

 

That was considered too modern in the 50's?
They must have really been centuries behind back then! (Old waltzes like this bring up visions of the old ladies in church singing, with a few of them breaking into soprano, or whatever that high pitch on "morning by morning new mercies I see" is). Is it any wonder people just threw off all restraints (And we see obviously that the distinction was not "all sacred traditional music versus rock", with everything else OK!) uch strictness is what blurred any line we may think should be drawn, as even stuff we today call "acceptable" was questioned back then.

 

I just listened to the so-called song, and along with some others on this board I also believe that it is trash. To get another view point from another generation I asked my 17 year old son to listen to it. He immediately recognized that it was an imitation of a rapp song that talked about someone's butt and sex. Why anyone would want to trash the Word of God by comparing it to such secular garbage he doesn't know. That is close to blasphemy if it isn't. He recognizes that putting a touch of "Christian" words to secular music that was and is being used of Satan doesn't make the music Christian. What are the CCM advocates trying to do here? Convert Satan? No, Satan has his ways in deceiving Christians. As the farmer takes a handful of grain and puts half a teaspoon of arsenic in it, the grain taste good to the rat, but it is that little bit of arsenic that kills. But in this song you have a glass of arsenic with a grain of truth.
DHK

 

History always shows that "reaction theology" must back up and back off in time. Such will be the case with Christian rap in regard to those who condemn it. We may not like it, but it is a generational communication tool that is reaching the hearts of many youths.

Teens from conservative homes will often parrot what they think their parents want them to say. In reality they fully accept and embrace some of these newer genres. Don't be fooled, parents. I once was until circumstances violently ripped the blinders from my eyes.

Society has always vociferously protested the novel and the new and anything outside the immediate comfort zone. That thing may or may not be wrong, but at the time it is always presented as a tool of the Devil. Years later that very thing is commended as a wonderful tool in the work of the Lord.

Let's be careful in our hastiness, or we may be licking egg off our faces...

 

There is no such thing as Christian music, only Christian lyrics. Remember, music cannot be good or bad, it is amoral.

If Michael Jackson recorded Amazing Grace, would that make it an ungodly song?

 

I heard no trashing of the Word of God in that song. Where?

It isn't, and it isn't.

Music is neither secular nor christian, it's music. Sounds produced by instruments. Now let's talk about something being used by satan for God's glory. My church does not have a building, we meet in a theater. Mon - Sat they show ungodly, filthy movies there. Sunday it is transformed into God's house. People have been saved there. What if one teenager came to know the Lord by listening to that song? Would you still call God's work "trash"?

I guess you would be correct if music = salvation. Are you saying someone CAN'T come to know the Lord after listening to this song? God will use "stairway to heaven" for His glory!

 

Completely mindless. Not a shred of substance. Not a shred of style for that matter either. I'd rather plunge fiery stakes into my ears and railroad spikes into my eyes than sit through that again.

 

Absolutely. Association with ungodly people make the song ungodly as well. Have you ever heard of Marsha Stevens?

She is a "Christian Lesbian" writing for the "Christian homoxexual" crowd. Some of her music is quite good, even sounding quite traditional in its style. Do I listen to it? Not in your lifetime!! I would never condone or support that wicked homosexual crowd no matter how good their music is? The messenger must be worthy of the message.

Elvie Presley recorded some beautiful hymns in his day, but I don't listen to them either. Why should I? He is known as "The King of Rock," lived a completely intermperate and ungodly lifestyle and died of a drug overdose. I don't condone his music no matter how beautifully he may sing some of our hymns. Throw them in the garbage.
Do you call Elvis Presley a servant of the Most High God??

Michel Jackson? You have got to be kidding? I would never listen to his music no matter what he sang or wrote. Testimony is everything. He is an ungodly wretch.
The messenger must be worthy of the message, and Jackson certainly is not.

The imitation of one of the most ungodly songs ever written is blasphemy. and that is what this song is.
DHK

[ September 09, 2005, 07:17 PM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob ]

 

The lyrics and meaning of the song become 'ungodly' based on who sings it? That's a new one!

...Amazing grace, how sweet the sound, that saved a wretch like me...I guess nobody should sing, correct?

This is elevating man pretty high, no? Who is REALLY "worthy"?

It would help to know what blasphemy is before so easily throwing the phrase around.

 

I, too, am an unworthy wretch only saved and yet alive by the amazing grace of God. Would to God that we would see ourselves for what we are apart from the imputed righteousness of Christ!

Do I have any right to throw stones at others, even those like Michael Jackson and Elvis Presley? I think not.

I trust that some of our brethren on the board are not thinking of themselves more highly than they ought. God has said He will resist that spirit. On the contrary, He gives grace to the humble.

Since I cannot see into the hearts of my brethren here, I can only put forth these thoughts and reminders for all of us to consider.

May God's Spirit illumine our hearts and give us gracious, humble spirits.