Classic Hymns VS CCM music in church

[SpiritualMadMan]

I know *I* can react rather defensivly myself...

Here's a quote I wrote many years ago:

One thing I do know though, is that when you reject a persons music you reject the person. Music is very personal, and tastes vary greatly from person to person, and from day to day.

I also know myself quite well and know how careful I am, when leading Praise and Worship, in my selection of hymns and songs for a service...

There is a lot of prayer given to it...

Of course in my background the Music part of a service isn't considered a mere preliminary but a vital part of the service...

In some ways equal to the Preaching of the Word.

And, I have always taken that responsibility as seriously as if I were preparing a major sermon.

So, of course, I would tend to be somewhat defensive when *my* area and methods of ministry are "put down".

Rejection is a very real issue when we talk music...

And, in spite of my 'know betters' it still affects me, too.

Mike Sr.
mnw you my find the whole article of interest?

http://www.houseofmyrrh.org/music1.htm

It's somewhat old and dated... And, had a different target audience.

 

[Aaron]

Originally posted by rbell:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Aaron:

The CCM argument boils down to self will. Those who argue for "classic hymns" are arguing for God's preferences, even if many of their arguments are erroneous. None of them say or feel that "classic hymns" should be used because they prefer them, despite false accusations to the contrary. They are saying, "This is what pleases God."

The CCM group is saying, "This is what pleases me."

Your assertion is absolutely baseless.</font>[/QUOTE]No it isn't.

You know ANYONE and EVERYONE that has EVER worshiped God singing ANYTHING modern, and you know their hearts, motives, and intentions.

I know the arguments that have been made in this forum, and to date, no one has cited anyone making a different argument.

BTW, I'll say it again. I'm not "pro CCM." I'm pro-God glorifying music.

Me too, but what you have yet to do is list God's criteria for music that glorifies Him.

We aren't about to throw out the richness of the great hymns of the faith. Old, ancient, and new...God can use them all.

God uses Satan, too. This isn't about what God can or can't do to His own glory. This is about how we are to interact with Him, and with each other.

 

[Aaron]

Originally posted by SpiritualMadMan:
Well then get rid of your Pianos and Organs...

I can only see good resulting from this action.

 

[rbell]

Let me give Aaron this: he is being historic.

In the late 1600's, this was said, a common view among New England Puritans:

"Regular singing, with its use of written music, was seen by its opponents as 'Quakerish and Popish, and introductive in Instrumental Musick.'"

The only accepted form of music was lining-out (as opposed to reading written music), acappella, slow tempo, and with little or (preferably) no harmony.

This form of music was legislated by the British Parliament in 1644.

SOURCE

Only 350 years late.

 

[SpiritualMadMan]

What a hoot rbell...

My! Don't that sound familiar?

 

[Eric B]

Jesus said plainly that true worshippers will worship the Father in truth and in spirit, and in saying so gave us the defining points of true worship, it's object and its manner. The object most folks are agreed upon, the Father; but the manner is the topic of our debate. It's important to note that Christ here was contrasting the manner (and nature) of OT worship with NT worship. So that automatically neutralizes the appeals to David and Miriam. The manner of worship "winked at" by God under the darkness and superstition of the OT has been folded up and put away. God never was pleased or appeased by the the blood of goats and bulls, or other carnal modes of worship. (The ceremonial laws are called "carnal commandments." Heb. 7:16)

Christ also revealed that God has a will concerning the manner in which we approach Him. That neutralizes all God-leaves-it-up-to-us-and-our-personal-preference arguments..

The CCM argument boils down to self will. Those who argue for "classic hymns" are arguing for God's preferences, even if many of their arguments are erroneous. None of them say or feel that "classic hymns" should be used because they prefer them, despite false accusations to the contrary. They are saying, "This is what pleases God."

The CCM group is saying, "This is what pleases me."

You have yet to prove that classic hynms are "God's preferences", and anyone can argue their own prefertences and just CLAIM it is God's preference. The lack of any scriptural evidence, and the substitution of a cycle of red-herring arguments is the biggest proof it is just as much personal preference as what the CCM crowd does.

Plus, once again, you cannot show that music was the same thing as sacrifice. God plainly tells us that sacrifice did not please Him. Yet he never says that with music. In fact; in doing my Harmony of the Gospels; I just came across the parables Jesus uses such as the prodigal son, where dancing and partying are still spoken of in a positive sense.

When you talk of CCM music you are talking about the same beat used in love songs and pop culture songs. So is God really pleased with that when He has called us to be seperate from the world?

And there were love songs and popular songsfrom 100 years ago that sound just like hymns. Ever hear of "Drink to me only with thine eyes" (Even done in King James English). I know that one, becayse the traditional vs. contemporary debate was even covered in an old Looney Tune with a conservative owl teaching his son that song, and the son only wants to sing jazz.
And then, there's the national anthems as well(which are actually in many hymnals). What it ultimately comes down to is that a generation that was more openly "Christian" is what determines which one's style is good.

When a Rock star, many rock musicians, specifically state, "I use this music to sexually arouse the hearer" then something inside me says it is wrong. When they can do that even if the words are in another language then something tells me that is wrong. When I have experianced the same physical reaction to certain styles then something tells me they are wrong.

And to be fair, I will not listen to some classical pieces because of the same rule.

God's Word states our musical should major on the spiritual. Rock/pop/jazz and others major on the physical.

But if not all classical is good, then maybe not all rock/pop,jazz is bad, and the issue is not the specific "elements" focused on which distinguishes those styles, but rather other aspects of the sound.

The spirit behind something does not determine its moral or immoral standing. Somethings are intrinsically wrong and no spirit behind them is going to change that.

If that's the case, then the spirit behind it is bad. How can you divorce morality from spirituality? That seems to stem from a dualistic mindset that focuses in the physical as a totally separate realm from the spiritual.

 

[Eric B]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was also stating that if Rock Music Sensually arouses you...

And, others say it doesn't do the same to them...

How can you be so arrogant as to say it the non-sensually inclined that has the problem!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some people say going to a nudist colony doesn't encourage bad thoughts. Guess that's okay too by your logic...

We still have a sin nature, and sex is deeply ingrained in us, and is one of the areas hit hardest by the Fall. So something like sexual moaning, for instance, can never be "pure" to us listening to it on some record made by someone else. But in our marriage bed, it is pure (Heb.13:4). This person, while denying that rock "causes" sin through its "effects", claims instead that it is rather simply "feeding the flesh", like a person reading a pornographic magazine. But pornography is a totally different story. God tuned our senses to be aroused by the opposite gender. This comes from a universal principle God instilled at Creation, and was marred by the Fall, so He was always strict about it. (i.e. we are only to be aroused by the person we marry). So this is why such pictures will always lead to impure thoughts, and indelibly feeds our "flesh". (Because this is not our partner, which is what makes it impure, not the physical "pleasure" in itself, which would be pure in another context —if it was from our mate). Thus, this act of "feeding the flesh" is an act of "sin", and is what I meant by "causing sin" (even though the reader's heart may have already been "sinful" as he approached the magazine, as this person pointed out). The same is not so with music. Some things may influence us in various ways, and some may use it for evil, enticing the masses with the beat that is pleasant to them, (and then adding sinful words, sexual sounds, etc), but there is no such universal principle for pleasure in music as there is with sexuality, and it's only the Platonists who have elevated it to that level. Listening to some song you like, and even enjoying the rhythm, in itself, is not the same as the thrill of lust one gets from looking at a dirty picture. It violates no command of God by itself (i.e. if not wedded to something universally sensual like sexual sounds, or you are using it for a sinful purpose). All of this does not address how much the other sounds criticized in music (such as the accents of the beats) are indelibly associated with sensuality. They are simply used for it sometimes, like anything else. But they can also be removed from that context, unlike passionate moaning or pornography.

Also, this is just like how sugar is delightful, but misuse of it is harmful, so a "creature of id" as they are called, may overindulge in sugar and be fat and be unhealthy which may lead to sins such as gluttony, sloth, and "destroying the temple God has given us". But we don't then say sugar is "unholy" or has such a "bad association" that we must completely shun it to avoid an "appearance of evil". The same with how marching rhythms would come in handy for an ungodly army such as the Nazi troops waging an unjust war and brainwashing people. The same with how classical fit in with people becoming smug and proud of their culture compared with "barbarians". That a person has witnessed all those sins and it appears so evil to him means that this is his personal association, and he should avoid it.

http://members.aol.com/etb700/ccm.html

 

[SpiritualMadMan]

Eric, you can play at the game of exageration and embellishment... If you want to...

I made a very specific and valid point and you immediately come back at me intimating I encourage and or have purient interests...

That is the **VERY** conduct I was decrying...

And, you have made my point both adequately and beautifully...

Thank You!

Mike Sr.

 

[Alcott]

Well then get rid of your Pianos and Organs...

Originally posted by Aaron:
I can only see good resulting from this action.

I think I, also, would buy many pianos and organs they woulld be getting rid of and make some $$$ on this deal. 'Good' thinking.

 

[Eric B]

Spiritual Madman wrote:

Eric, you can play at the game of exageration and embellishment... If you want to...

I made a very specific and valid point and you immediately come back at me intimating I encourage and or have purient interests...

That is the **VERY** conduct I was decrying...

Aren't you and I more on the same side? I think you're looking at a quote of a quote of you that I answered. It was in that case mnw, and in answering you, he was comparing rock music to nudity, regarding whether they "encourage bad thoughts" or not, and the excerpts of my page I responded to that with are showing that (and why) nudity/pornography is sinful from the start, so the correlation CCM critics make of it with music is invalid.
The "This person..." statement is actually taken out of it's context and I forgot to cut that out when I posted (It refers to our own Aaron anyway, who uses the same argument mnw used, when you read further),

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by SpiritualMadMan:
The Hymnists say CCM is bad... And, only Hymns are acceptable for worship...

Before the days of the hymns there were those who saw music as of the devil. So according to those hymns are of the devil.

So those who are claiming hymns are of God are not in agreement with those who have gone before them claiming that hymns are of the devil. Now those who claim their hymn music is of God is claiming that CCM is of the devil. It is impossible that hymns can be of God and of the devil. Which is it? Whatever you want to believe?

 

[SpiritualMadMan]

Eric,

Sorry, sometimes it's hard to tell who's on what side when the ink starts flying.

The problem is, is that both sides have legitimate concerns...

But, when we phrase our Concerns in "Absolutes" it gives the opposite view no wiggle room to seriously consider the complaint or concern...

I *have* to be the first to admit that when it comes to music I wear far too much of my emotion on my sleeves...

I also know that there are problems in CCM in general...

And, I am very concerned that CCM Praise & Worship is going down the 'Great Marketting' downward spiral...

I used to subscribe to the Hosanna/Integrity mailings and looked forawrd to each and every new CD...

But, I don't subscribe anymore because so many CD were coming with trite lyrics and cutsy melodies and just plain grated on my nerves...

But, I can not state that all CCM Praise and Worship is bad...

I will say that I am **VERY** careful to seek My Fathers Face before I start putting a Praise and Worship service together...

And, more and more of the newer stuff is _not_ getting picked...

Also, what I can worship with/to at home or as I drive to work on my one hour commute is different than I can use in an adult or main service...

Thankfully, by 1985 Gran Fury has a tough dashboard pad as I pound out a beat with one drum stick...

There are times I am singing Praise at the top of my voice...

There are times my face is quite wet with tears in Worship...

 

[Eric B]

What you said, I agree with pretty much completely.
The absolutists I'm going after are judging contemporary music by beats and other aspects of non-conformity with Western musical principles. They too cite the shallowness of a lot of modern P & W, but only as part of their argument that it's the music that is no good, or the young generations who have turned from out "godly heritage". Many people on the other side then reject all discernment of music and the valid points of the other side when they find that argument to be ridiculous, and then everything becomes OK (moshing, etc). So there is balance, and you have covered this balance well.

 

[Eric B]

I also have just been spending the intervening 2 hours over in the Baptist Only section looking for the thread you (SMM) discussed on the Christian Music Test. I just found it, and read the first three pages (have to finish later). But I see elsewhere that the Baptist only section has become the repose for the most adamant of both the anti-CCM'ers and KJVO's (IFB), as well as the Calvinists (the "theology" forum has besically become the replacement of the old C-vs-A board that used to be in this section), whom you don't see much over here
.
While searching over there, I came across a string of discussions covering Fundamentalism/IFBism's changes in 1980 when John R. Rice passed, and the Sword of the Lord then eventually became heavily KJVO. (I had a subscription from 1996-2000, and I let it go, because it was just too negative, using offensive statements like "jungle music", and "charismatic nonsense". I too noticed the final stage of the transformation to a strict KJVO position.

There are many people in those discussions who are alarmed at that development, and what I wish I could post over there is that this whole music issue, which many of them probably agree with, is cut from very much the same cloth. As KJVO leader Ruckman put it, "all truth is English truth", and that is similar to the basis of what they think God's music is. (I call them "TCMO": "Traditional Christian Music only"). One person pointed out that in the 70's, they had reached a pinnacle in growth, and needed a new issue to fight on. Instead of getting more into missions, it became the KJV and politics. That would figure, since their whole mindset was about western superiority/Anglocentricism, and how great everything was in the past, before all of these foreign (African and Communist/Leftist Europe) infiltrations in the culture.

So I wish someone would point all of this out over there. Especially rbell, who has been in some of those discussions.

 

[SpiritualMadMan]

Eric,

You can do what I did an start a 'duplicate' thread...

Or, a completely, new thread title...

These are issue that need to be discussed **civilly**... But, aren't usually...

And, there have been a number of "Baptist-Only" threads where I thought I could add something to the discussion...

AS for "Charismatic Nonesense"... I are one and I will be the first to admit we've had our share of health food over the years...

Fruits, Nuts and Flakes...

But, then, from what I've read on sme of the Baptist-Only threads we are, unfortunately, not alone in that regard...

Mike Sr.

 

[rbell]

Eric,

I post over there as well...but my posts with actual information got a bit buried with the duplicate postings from those opposing any modern music and their more extreme rhetoric.

That was a point I made at the end of that other thread...I encouraged folks to read through that thread, and look at where the balance of baseless charges and spurious accusations were coming from. (there were some exceptions from both "sides," of course).

I noticed two things seemed to drive the more extreme anti-anything modern crowd...

(1) They couldn't understand if someone didn't take an "either-or" position. In many minds, if you like anything new, you must hate everything old. Hogwash.

(2) Absolutely no one was willing to take on my posts about our worship services, and specifically itemize the doctrinal/theological errors in our choices of music for worship. This shows me one of the glaring weaknesses of the view...you end up having to use discernment, which is much harder than just making blanket condemnations. This led to,

(3) The more extreme posters had trouble understanding that just because we hum along with a particular CCM song, it doesn't mean we would use it in a worship service. They don't get the distinction that I (and others made) between music we happen to enjoy (that we don't deem destructive, btw) and music we use for corporate worship.

And...one gets tired of personal attacks and AV1611.org posts on those threads, so one takes breaks from the silliness. At least this one did.

 

[Joshua Rhodes]

Well said, rbell.

 

[Eric B]

(1) They couldn't understand if someone didn't take an "either-or" position. In many minds, if you like anything new, you must hate everything old. Hogwash.

Yeah, speaking of "hogwash"; on my CCM page; I quote Jeff Godwin on this very issue of "gray areas":
"What absolute hogwash! This kind of nonsense is typical of self-serving C-Rock deception. First: There AREN'T any grey areas in the Bible! From Genesis to Revelation, God lays everything out in blacks and whites: Blessings/Cursings, Life/ Death, Heaven/Hell, God/Satan, Christ/the world. Now make your choice. Why don't these supporters of "Christian" trash come clean and admit the obvious." (http://www.freedomministries.org.uk/godwin/jefchap1.shtml)

That is obviously apart of their strawman tactic. It is much easier to trash the bogeymen of the worst elements of the music we see in culture, but they start with the stand that TCM is God's music, and you either believe that is the ONLY acceptable thing, or you are against it; just like the KJV.

(2) Absolutely no one was willing to take on my posts about our worship services, and specifically itemize the doctrinal/theological errors in our choices of music for worship. This shows me one of the glaring weaknesses of the view...you end up having to use discernment, which is much harder than just making blanket condemnations.

In the same paragraph; I point out how BJU's Tim Fisher ("Battle for Christian Music") even criticizes what he calls the "catch phrase" of CCM, that this "requires discernment": ("No lines drawn, no standard held, no scripture quoted"). This too is the same thing. These people cannot seem to handle a world in which they cannot control everything through quick, unthinking judgements based on so-called "absolutes" that they themselves establish, and then read into God's Word. Taking the time to think and discern leaves it open to discovering that you might be wrong, or at least not 100% right, and the other side 100% wrong as this way of thinking thrives off of. They just "know" that their so-called "old paths" are competely right as they were.
Fisher and the BJU circle aren't even KJVO (but rather more along the lines of the old Sword, I imagine from before the '80's). But the mindset is still the same, and that's whatthe people over on the other thread who like the older IFB movement should be cautioned about.*
So in response to both of them, I continue:

"So no issue requires 'discernment', thought, prayer, or any other sort of discourse. We are supposed to just draw 'lines' and 'standards' and cite scripture hastily on the spot without even so much as taking the time to study the scriptures to discern these issues and then draw from the scripture our 'lines' and 'standards', (rather than going by tradition). That pretty much sums up the way these critics have approached the issue, and this is precisely why they are unbiblical!"

*(and BTW, SMM; I have tried starting a new parallel thread to a Baptist-only discussions and it doesn't work, as many of those people do not leave that area. (I even snuck in and posted a link to the new discussion--on preterism/pantelism; over there, and even PM'd a couple of people, and still the new thread went nowhere).

 

[SpiritualMadMan]

On parallel threads...

Perhaps they realize that by allowing persons outside their particular 'bent' they find arguments for which they are not prepared to snap an answer back to?

Eric... To prevent misunderstanding... When you quote someone please use the quotes functionality or separate it out so we do not confuse the quoted part as your own thoughts...

Thanks!

Remember... White Space is free... And, a lot easier to read through...

Mike Sr.

 

[Eric B]

On the first point, Yeah, and that's why people like av1611 and others say "We do NOT debate. We do NOT argue. But we welcome any King James Bible answers to CCM." and that "All E-mails violating these requests...may get a canned response of 'IGNORED' because we will not waste our time further with those trying to rationalize their wicked behavior with the Word of God." The truth is, they ARE arguing in their writings (against people they quote) but it is rigged so that it is one sided and they cannot be answered. It's easy to write or speak on a tape or radio where you get to set up your opponent's arguments and knock them down, and the person can't respond; but person to person confrontation (commanded in the New Testament, as opposed to what is called "backbiting", which is what we see here) where the person can challenge you is much harder (especially if you have something to hide, such as a weak argument covered with a veneer of tough talk that the other person can expose). If one's position is so true, would this form of censorship be necessary?

Anyway, sorry about the misunderstanding. I just answer these things and then move elsewhere so fast, I often cut that corner.