"Classical" music in church

Ignoring most of your irrelevant comments, I will address only a couple.

Where did he do this? I missed it somewhere.

What Larry said was that classical music does not fit the biblical use of music in church in most cases. That is far different from what you said.

You talked about the planets educating us about the planets. That is one of my favorite works. I love it. But if a person doesn't know by propositions (words) something about the planets, and is not told (by words) that "The Planets" is about the planets, they will learn nothing. In fact, the music itself can only reinforce the propositions that were previously known about the planets.

Do this: Go into a shopping mall and randomly select people and play a part of teh planets (as much as they will listen to) with no explanation, and record the number of people who can tell you what it is and what it is about. I will guarantee you that it will be a really low number, like somewhere next to zero. Why? Because the music needs propositions in order to teach propositional truth.

That does not mean the planets are wrong, or any other piece is wrong. It simply addresses the issue of teaching. BTW, if people listened to more stuff like the planets and less stuff like much of CCM, we would have a much better society. But that's another issue that we shouldn't get into here.

You say that the Bible doesn't say much about music. You are correct. But what it does say (that music should teach one another and worship God) should not be written off.

Why would we use classical music without words in church? What purpose would it serve? And how does that fit with the stated purposes of music in Scripture?

Back to the OP, why do churches play classical music at Christmas and no other time? Because traditionally, things like "The Messiah" have been classified as Christmas music. There is nothing wrong with that.

 

No, but spiritual gifts should be exercised. If you have it, then use it.

Big assumption that cannot be substantiated. A genre, by definition, can please or displease God depending on the communication of hte music. But again, that is off topic. Let's not get into it.

Really??? And you have the gift of discernment?? How did that gift lead to this?

I am not saying that at all. Go back and read what I said. Be mor careful John.

And you would have those few places omittd from Handel's Messiah when performed in church.</font>[/QUOTE]Really??? No I wouldn't. They are part of the work John. I wouldn't have Beethoven's fifth or ninth (my two favorites) played in church. They have no biblical purpose. Personally I wouldn't use the Messiah. It takes too much work to do it properly and I think the time and effort can be better spent. But that's my personal preference. It is not at issue here.

You will have to explain how I have added to Scripture.

No it's not relevant at all. This topic was about churches that use classical music at Christmas and no other time. CCM is not related directly to that question.

I didn't imply that. I am remarkably flexible, perhaps too flexible, on music. I made a point about Scripture.

I didn't condemn a genre, nor did I require anyone to adhere to my belief about it. I think are reading more than is there.

But forget all that and get back to the point.

 

This was what I was going to say.
Basically, most of the hymns being played in Church are "Classical"; having the same basic form. It's how they are performed. If you did them up with the orchestras, then it would be obvious. Likewise, you could probably do many "classical" pieces with just a piano, tone down some of the more "majestic" parts, and sing words the them, and they would sound just like hymns.

At least Larry is consistent here:

 

Actually, it is two different musical forms. Hymns can be performed in a classical style, as can some pop music. But the classical style is not the same as classical music. It is more than "how they are performed."

BTW, curious as to what you mean by "at least I am consistent here."

 

Worship is simply laying your gifts on the alter. Some people gifts are musically related. I think in the right context someone playing a piece of classic music, could be a great moment of worship.

 

I agree. In the right context it could be. But worship is not simply laying your gifts on the altar. It is much more. It certainly invovles the right kind of gifts. Offering a gift that God doesn't want is not worship. And that is where the conversation must take place.

 

Mt. 5:23,24, "Therefore if you are presenting your offering at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your offering there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering."

 

Sometimes a certain amount of silence in church can be a great worship experience.

When I was in seminary the professor of a music class we had to take had each person describe a time when they felt they had a great worship experience. I think there was only two people out of sixty who stated it was in church.

I believe much of what is done in most churches is simply singing songs and not real worship. Worship happens when we realize how great God is and how small we are and return thanks to him.

 

I am not really addressing that question here. I was merely making the point that our desire to offer something to God does not make it worship.

Nor was I.

[/q]When I first read your question, I thought you were asking about classical music in church, to which my original replay was made, and then it got sidetracked.

Having reread the question, it appears that you are asking about classical music anywhere, not just in church.

The answer to your question has nothing to do with hypocrisy (it never did), or with worship per se. I think the answer is seasonal. It is like asking why someone will sing Rudolph at Christmas but not any other time. The answer is because it is Christmas. AT Christmas you do certain things that are "Christmas things" like hang stockings, and give gifts, and have fruitcake, and the like.

Christmas classical music, like The Messiah or Nutcracker, is more familiar than, say Mahler or Mozart. It is more recognizable.

BTW, just about everyone also listens to classical music another time during the year ... the 4th of July when Tchaicovksy's 1812 Overture is played during fireworks. It is the same type of deal. It is seasonal.

There is certainly no hypocrisy involved.

For me, I attend classical concerts any time during the year.

 

You're unhappy with me using it if the result disagrees with you.

On the contrary. Condemnation of a genre as a whole as being appropriate or inapproprate is the big assumption. OTOH, condemnation of an individual selection of music is logical and reasonable.

Since your logic on the topic of musical genres is flawed, I don't expect you to comprehend that.

I did. Your stance determinses that handbell choirs are inapproprate for the church.

Okay, so let me get this straight. A musical selection that is devoid of words is unfit for the church. But if that selection is a part of a larger body of work that contains appropriate lyrics, then it's permitted. Do you not see the hypocrisy in that?

I have no problem with you making that decision for your church, if you're endowed with that authority by the church. However, I do indeed hav a problem with you imposing that view on all people of all churches.

Your tone implies an imposition of your view on all as a matter of scriptural mandate. That's adding to scrpture.

So you say, bit I think I've demonstrated otherwise. You're not required to agree with it, but I do request you respect my making a case for relevence.

Your overall posts in this matter suggest otherwise. However, if you've made it clear that this is strictly your view, and that each church is permitted to decide this issue for themselves, I'm more than willing to acknowlege that at this point.

Again, your posts indicate otherwise, but as above, if you've made it clear that this is strictly your view, and that each church is permitted to decide this issue for themselves, I'm more than willing to acknowlege that at this point.

The ultimate point is that each church, imo, is permitted to decide the issue of what music to allow and disallow as a matter of individual autonomy. But that also means that each church who does so must permit other churches the same autonomy.

 

Not quite. Some are classical, some are baroque, some are renaissance era. A few are medieval, and some others are gregorian. Many hymn tunes popular among Baptists are early American folk tunes. Many are negro spirituals. Some are Federalist era tunes.

 

Not in the least. But the gift of discernment carries with it certain biblical judgments that I am not sure you make. But that's another issue.

No, actually, it has been pretty well defended, as a whole.

No it doesn't. Your discernment is not kicking in here, John. Use it. Or at least use your knowledge of the English language.

Let me restate my point to save you the trouble of looking it up. You can misread it here as well as anywhere else.

The Bible declares a two fold purpose for music, particularly in the church: teaching others and worshipping God. Of necessity, teaching and worshipping require a propositional formulation. You might "teach by example" but even that can be quantified in words. Without words, there is nothing to teach. (

Music that has no words has no real purpose in teaching or worshipping in the church. (Notice I said in the church.) Music without words cannot teach anything propositional about God. It can teach something about order and logic and thought, but that requires a higher form of music than most churches use, and even then has to be explained to most.

Music that has words may be performed as an instrumental special, even by hellbound handbell players. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with that. Those who know the words can think about them. If I were to do that, I would project the words on the screen so that it would be teaching and edifying.

So therefore, it is clear that I do not forbid handbells or solo numbers, or even songs whose words are not being sung. You were incorrect. Your gift of discernment didn't work out so well for you there.

Yes, by and large, generally speaking.

No, because there is none. Would I forbid an introduction to a song (a wordless part of a larger composition)? Of course not, but under your (deficient) reading of my view, you would accuse me of doing such.

Well, then you have nothing to worry about. I have imposed my view on no church but mine.

No it's not. I have explained what Scripture says to support my view. If you disagree, fine. You are certainly welcome to. You won't answer to me.

yes, but that doesn't mean that each church is right, or biblical. A church may do what it wishes, but two opposing viewpoints can't both be right.

But none of this is the issue of this thread. I misread the original question, and got involved in this silliness with you. My apologies for being off-track here. Let's get it back on.

 

Being ... blessed with the spiritual gift of discernment ... </font>[/QUOTE] That was too funny!

Tell us another one!

 

The problem here is that "classical" is a very broad term (similar to "rock". Baroque, and renassiance would be considered a type of classical, at least by most people, unless you all want to be super technical. Gregorian set to instruments probably would be too. (Not sure what Federalist was, but if it is some centuries old Euro-American style, it probably fits too).
I guess with the negro spirituals and American folk, you are right.

That you don't exclude classical as possibly unfit, like most other conservative music critics do. The others, while warning that the classical performances can become showmanship, still say that it is acceptable because of its "appealing to the mind instead of the emotions and flesh", and all the rest of that stuff. But you have touched on a point that I have always made (that certain people here seem to miss), that even appealing to the mind can distract from worship just as much as emotions or physical pleasure.

 

Most folks use "Classical" to mean non-pop, so the assumption is made that hymns are classical music.

Hymns like those of Isaac Watts, not the gospel songs in the styles like that of Fanny Crosby, are nothing like the "popular" songs during the Baroque, Classical or Romantic periods.

The guiding principle from the Scriptures is that all things should be done decently and in order. This eliminates anything exhibitionistic or unspiritual, and everyone pretty much agrees on that. The disagreement lies in what constitutes a spiritual song.

 

You make a good point. But, that assumption, as common as it is, is layman's ignorance, and wholely inaccurate and misleading to the subject.

Many people don't distinguish betwen Isaac Watts or Fanny Crosby. But the fact is that they are separated by 200 years from each other, and their music styles are dramatically different. It would have been apparrant to someone in the late 1800's, but less so to the average listener today. This supports the fact that music is subjective, dependent upon the listener, and prone to change over time. Likewise, the classiffication of appropriateness for worship is subjective, dependent upon the listener, and prone to change over time. History proves that to be true with a fair amount of consistency.

 

Do tell, what hymns of Isaac Watts sound anything like Madrigals, Operas or Cantatas?

Again, Hymns were distinct from the "popular" styles of the day.