Flower Power

[Aaron]

I'm going out of town this week, so I'll cut to the chase...

As shown, you are already making moral judgments about musical styles, and basing those judgments on Scriptural principles concerning the decorum of formal worship. Everyone does, it's just that not everyone realizes it.

Where we disagree is NOT on the premise that a line should be drawn, but on where to draw it.

You would probably agree that God forbids excess and riot, but then again assert that excess and riot are all relative. That would take me back to the Flower Power ads. Was Woodstock excessive and riotous? You would probably answer that it was to mainstream America in those days.

I would then ask, what changed? God's standards or man's?

You would say that man's standards changed.

Then what were God's standards?

He hasn't told us.

Then you're doing the will of man, not God. If God has no will concerning music, then the only wills left are man's and Satan's. But God has told us.

Where?

For starters, look at your judgments about propriety.

That's basically how this thread would have gone if we didn't tire of it first.

 

[tinytim]

Very Good post...
You nailed everything I would have said...lol!!!

YOu know I am not going to budge, and I know you are not going to budge....

Have a good week... (If you read this before you leave)

 

[Eric B]

Don't get too happy too fast, Aaron. Because you have nailed your own argument as well.

Was Woodstock excessive and riotous? You would probably answer that it was to mainstream America in those days.

I would then ask, what changed? God's standards or man's?

You would say that man's standards changed.

Then what were God's standards?

He hasn't told us.

Then you're doing the will of man, not God. If God has no will concerning music, then the only wills left are man's and Satan's. But God has told us.

Where?

For starters, look at your judgments about propriety.

People talk about God's standards and not man's standards, but then it is based on an assumption that the s"standards" of the past were equal to God's standards. Then, you take tim's acnowledgment of "propriety" to prove WHERE the line should be drawn. But guess what? Both of those are still man's judgments! I don't think tim will claim God was speaking through him when he said that. And likewise, the music of the old society that said rock was bad was also once looked on as bad and improper by older periods in the Church. So all of the comparisons we are making here involve man's judgments, not God's. Each generation reads their own convictions into scripture as the line of propriety. At least this generation in the Church is more honest in admitting it is their own conviction.

That is why the musical "line" is somewhat difficult, and more complicated than "traditional only" advocates make it. This is why it falls into the principle of Romans 14 and 1 Cor. 8. Now, if you want to talk about a lot of the behavior of Woodstock, then you would have a clear biblical case. But what your side often does is generalize the behavior to the style of music, or more specifically certain elements of the music (even when used in general in syles not even associated with Woodstock), and try to use that as the grand case against it as condemned under the category of "impropriety".
So you still have not proven that the line is where you say it is.

 

[Dale McNamee]

Dear Eric B & Tim,

Excellent posts !! :applause: I agree with what you both have said !! I can't add anymore to what you've both written.

But,I will add this...

Aaron quotes only a couple of Scripture passages without the contexts that they are written in.

First, 1 Peter 4:4...I've included the preceding passages and the passages that follow it so that things are clear:

1 Peter 4:1-11:

1 Therefore, since Christ has suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves also with the same purpose, because he who has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin,

2 so as to live the rest of the time in the flesh no longer for the lusts of men, but for the will of God.

3 For the time already past is sufficient for you to have carried out the desire of the Gentiles, having pursued a course of sensuality, lusts, drunkenness, carousing, drinking parties and abominable idolatries. (All issues of man's unregenerate nature,the "old man")

4 In all this, they are surprised that you do not run with them into the same excesses of dissipation, and they malign you;


5 but they will give account to Him who is ready to judge the living and the dead.

6 For the gospel has for this purpose been preached even to those who are dead, that though they are judged in the flesh as men, they may live in the spirit according to the will of God.

7 The end of all things is near; therefore, be of sound judgment and sober spirit for the purpose of prayer.

8 Above all, keep fervent in your love for one another, because love covers a multitude of sins.


9 Be hospitable to one another without complaint.

10 As each one has received a special gift, employ it in serving one another as good stewards of the manifold grace of God.

11 Whoever speaks, is to do so as one who is speaking the utterances of God; whoever serves is to do so as one who is serving by the strength which God supplies; so that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom belongs the glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.


Please note verses 8-11,what is expressed in these passages is FAR MORE important than the passage mentioned by Aaron to prop up his arguments.


Regarding being "riotous"...How about the actions of persons who engage in vandalism after their favorite sports teams win or lose a championship ?

Should we avoid going to games ?


He also likes to quote 1 Corinthians 14:40.


Again,it should be looked at in context:


1 Corinthians 14:1-40:


1 Pursue love, yet (desire earnestly spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy.

2 For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries.

3 But one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation.

4 One who speaks in a tongue edifies himself; but one who prophesies edifies the church.

5 Now I wish that you all spoke in tongues, but even more that you would prophesy; and greater is one who prophesies than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may receive edifying.

6 But now, brethren, if I come to you speaking in tongues, what will I profit you unless I speak to you either by way of revelation or of knowledge or of prophecy or of teaching?

7 Yet even lifeless things, either flute or harp, in producing a sound, if they do not produce a distinction in the tones, how will it be known what is played on the flute or on the harp?

8 For if the bugle produces an indistinct sound, who will prepare himself for battle?

9 So also you, unless you utter by the tongue speech that is clear, how will it be known what is spoken? For you will be speaking into the air.

10 There are, perhaps, a great many kinds of languages in the world, and no kind is without meaning.

11 If then I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be to the one who speaks a barbarian, and the one who speaks will be a barbarian to me.

12 So also you, since you are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek to abound for the edification of the church.

13 Therefore let one who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret.

14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful.

15 What is the outcome then? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also.

16 Otherwise if you bless in the spirit only, how will the one who fills the place of the ungifted say the "Amen" at your giving of thanks, since he does not know what you are saying?

17 For you are giving thanks well enough, but the other person is not edified.

18 I thank God, I speak in tongues more than you all;

19 however, in the church I desire to speak five words with my mind so that I may instruct others also, rather than ten thousand words in a tongue.

Instruction for the Church

20 Brethren, do not be children in your thinking; yet in evil be infants, but in your thinking be mature.

21 In the Law it is written, "BY MEN OF STRANGE TONGUES AND BY THE LIPS OF STRANGERS I WILL SPEAK TO THIS PEOPLE, AND EVEN SO THEY WILL NOT LISTEN TO ME," says the Lord.

22 So then tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophecy is for a sign, not to unbelievers but to those who believe.

23 Therefore if the whole church assembles together and all speak in tongues, and ungifted men or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad?

24But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an ungifted man enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all;

25 the secrets of his heart are disclosed; and so he will fall on his face and worship God, declaring that God is certainly among you.

26 What is the outcome then,brethren? When you assemble,each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation Let all things be done for edification.

27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and one must interpret;

28 but if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God.

29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment.

30But if a revelation is made to another who is seated, the first one must keep silent.

31For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted;

32and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets;

33 for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.

34 The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says.

35 If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.

36 Was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only?

37 If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord's commandment.

38 But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized.

39 Therefore, my brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak in tongues.
40 But all things must be done properly and in an orderly manner.


Again,where's music mentioned ? And,I don't think that "tongues & prophecy" are problems at the churches that we attend.

Aaron can't really see that a church service that includes contemporary worship music can be and more often than not: decent,orderly,and reverent.

But,to each his own...

His demonization of contemporary worship music by linking it to Woodstock,hippies,etc. has no basis.

Only a faulty logic that goes as such:

Hippies and the folks that went to Woodstock are "evil" because they took drugs,etc.,

They like the music that was advertised for "Flower Power" CD,

Therefore,the music on the "Flower Power" CD is "evil"!

And:

Contemporary Christian Music has a similar sound to the "Flower Power" CD music,

Ergo,Contemporary Christian music is "evil"!

A similar "arguement" can be made regarding Traditional Christian music & hymns ( FOR ILLUSTRATION ONLY):

Traditional Christian Music and hymns can be equally "demonized" by linking it to slave owners,bigots,KKK members liking it, racial discrimination,etc., ...all part of a "Godly" past.

The above arguement regarding Traditional Christian music & hymns is equally fallacious,absurd,and slanderous !

I just created that "argument" to show how easy things can be "demonized" by associating it with "evil".

Sorry for the long post and extensive Scripture quotes,but I feel that content & context is most important when discussing Scripture.

In Christ,

Dale

 

[Aaron]

Hail from Colorado Springs! We're ascending Pike's Peak this morning. Eric and Dale, I'll shred your posts when I get home! :type:

 

[Aaron]

Don't get too happy too fast, Aaron. Because you have nailed your own argument as well.
People talk about God's standards and not man's standards, but then it is based on an assumption that the s"standards" of the past were equal to God's standards. Then, you take tim's acnowledgment of "propriety" to prove WHERE the line should be drawn . . . blah, blah blah . . . At least this generation in the Church is more honest in admitting it is their own conviction.

Again, you aren't following the argument at all. It wasn't about where the line should be drawn. The argument was that no one really believes the Scriptures are silent about musical styles. Everyone believes a line should be drawn some where, and that's what was proven. If this thread hadn't run out of steam, tiny would have appealed to the Scriptures to justify his feelings about where to draw.

Now, if you want to talk about a lot of the behavior of Woodstock, then you would have a clear biblical case.

But music is behavior, and that's exactly why I do have a clear biblical case.

What your side does is present music as if it were wholly different than it is. You present it as if it were a slab of ribs or a glass of wine, and it isn't anything like meat and wine, which is why 1 Cor. 8 and Rom. 14 don't apply. Now if music were actually something like meat and wine, then we would talk about how you and tiny and every CCM style worshipper abide in violation of 1 Cor. 8 and Rom. 14.

Are you sure you want to take that route?

 

[Aaron]

Please note verses 8-11,what is expressed in these passages is FAR MORE important than the passage mentioned by Aaron to prop up his arguments.

Let me respond with the same amount of thought that you put into your post . . .

Pish tosh!

He also likes to quote 1 Corinthians 14:40.

Again,it should be looked at in context: . . . blah, blah, blah . . . Again,where's music mentioned ?

Verse 26.

Sorry for the long post and extensive Scripture quotes,but I feel that content & context is most important when discussing Scripture.

Agreed, and it would be refreshing if you would practice it.

 

[tinytim]

Let me respond with the same amount of thought that you put into your post . . .[/color]

Pish tosh!


Verse 26.

Agreed, and it would be refreshing if you would practice it.

Welcome back....
Since you have been away, I have been reformed... I now listen only to Gregorian chants.... NOT....:tongue3:

BTW, I see rbell is rubbing off... pish tosh

 

[tinytim]

What your side does is present music as if it were wholly different than it is. You present it as if it were a slab of ribs or a glass of wine, and it isn't anything like meat and wine, which is why 1 Cor. 8 and Rom. 14 don't apply. Now if music were actually something like meat and wine, then we would talk about how you and tiny and every CCM style worshipper abide in violation of 1 Cor. 8 and Rom. 14.

Are you sure you want to take that route?

Although I don't drink Wine, but I would love to have a slab of ribs....

Oh... Man, you had me daydreaming again!

Yuuuuummm...

OK, I am back... It is obvious we are not going to agree...
I don't see, (and I finally saw part of the time life infomercial since you were gone) how hippie music of the 60s and 70s evokes the same reaction as CCM does to worshippers today...

I may be back here to read... but our debating this at this time is futile...
So, God bless you Aaron in whatever music you decide to worship Him with...

 

[Eric B]

Again, you aren't following the argument at all. It wasn't about where the line should be drawn. The argument was that no one really believes the Scriptures are silent about musical styles.

I know your approach. You try to do it step by step, and once you get the other side to admit one of your points, then you feel that much closer to getting your whole view affirmed. Like give you an inch, you take the whole mile. So we admit there is a line, and while you did not yet say anything about where the line is [yet!], you then move in, with your "music is behavior" philosophy, and that leads to the old cycle argument of beats and rhythms and sycopation and movements, and supposed natural effects and the behavior of people at Woodstock and other concerts; yada yada; that supposedly mark this "behavior" that defines the music. So I was cutting to the chase, and pointing out that while yes, we may admit that there is some sort of scriptural boundary involved, you have not proven that it is your list of "acceptable" and "unacceptable" styles.

But music is behavior, and that's exactly why I do have a clear biblical case.

Where does the Bible even say this? That sounds like philosophy, and while you may find some proof-text to justify that in some roundabout way, still, the Bible does not break it down the way you do. People getting drunk or gyrating to a piece of music is behavior. The music itself is not the behavior. Whether you think it caused the behavior or not; else nobody would ever be able to listen to it and not react that way.

What your side does is present music as if it were wholly different than it is. You present it as if it were a slab of ribs or a glass of wine, and it isn't anything like meat and wine, which is why 1 Cor. 8 and Rom. 14 don't apply.

That's your reading into what we are saying, and basically filtering it through your philosophy. It's either "behavior" OR it's a physical object! That's rich!

Now if music were actually something like meat and wine, then we would talk about how you and tiny and every CCM style worshipper abide in violation of 1 Cor. 8 and Rom. 14.

Are you sure you want to take that route?

I don't even get what you are saying here. If music is what you say we say it is, then we are in violation of 1 Cor.8 and Rom.14, but if it is as you say, they according to you, we are still in violation of those scriptures. (So what difference does it make whether we believe is is behavior, or a physical object?) I think you're erecting your own straw men.
On the other hand, you continue to violate those two passages by trying to force your own musical philosophy on everyone else, regardless of how much you try to read it into scripture.

So you were on Piker's Peak in CO? Did you happen to run into Philip Yancey? He lives over there and always climbs those mountains in his exercize, as he mentions in his books.

 

[Aaron]

I know your approach. You try to do it step by step . . .

A very logical approach, wouldn't you say?

. . . and once you get the other side to admit one of your points, then you feel that much closer to getting your whole view affirmed.

It's only natural. My view is logical and systematic. It's the CCM adherent that appeals to feelings and ecstatic experiences.

So we admit there is a line . . .

It's the only rational conclusion.

. . . and while you did not yet say anything about where the line is [yet!], you then move in, with your "music is behavior" philosophy . . .

Actually I began with that premise.

. . . and that leads to the old cycle argument of beats and rhythms and sycopation and movements, and supposed natural effects and the behavior of people at Woodstock and other concerts . . .

You'll find that I say very little about beats, however, the responses of an audience to a certain style of music is eminently relevant to the discussion.

. . .you have not proven that it is your list of "acceptable" and "unacceptable" styles.

The most common argument from your side is that no line should be drawn. Once that argument is answered, the discussion runs out of steam long before we get to just where the line should be drawn.

People getting drunk or gyrating to a piece of music is behavior. The music itself is not the behavior.

That's the snag. As long as you think that music is something other than human interaction (behavior), you won't see where the Scriptures can be brought to bear on music.

It's either "behavior" OR it's a physical object!

I have always asserted the former.

I don't even get what you are saying here. If music is what you say we say it is, then we are in violation of 1 Cor.8 and Rom.14, but if it is as you say, they according to you, we are still in violation of those scriptures.

I'm saying, if I grant you your premise, that music is like meat and wine, then you are in violation of the afore-mentioned chapters when you trample the consciences of others for the sake of your own desires. Then we can argue the scope of the Paul's instructions in those chapters.

If you grant me my premise, that music is human behavior, then the chapters don't apply. It's that simple. You lose when you invoke the chapters, and you lose when you can't.

On the other hand, you continue to violate those two passages by trying to force your own musical philosophy on everyone else, regardless of how much you try to read it into scripture.

Talk of rich! Since the '70's the CCM crowd has trampled consciences and split churches to force rock music into the church, and you lay this at the door of the "traditional" side?

So you were on Piker's Peak in CO? Did you happen to run into Philip Yancey? He lives over there and always climbs those mountains in his exercize, as he mentions in his books.

Wouldn't have known him if I had. We took the Cog Railway up to the peak. I'm the only one in my family who didn't get altitude sickness. I had just finished a quart of Gatorade prior to the ascent. It was all my girls could do to keep their lunches down. After being in the mountains a while, I don't know why anyone would live in the Midwest if he had a choice!

 

[Eric B]

A very logical approach, wouldn't you say?
It's only natural. My view is logical and systematic.

More sneaky, I'd say, and using fallacious logic.

It's the CCM adherent that appeals to feelings and ecstatic experiences.

Many do, but I, and most likely, others here, don't.

You'll find that I say very little about beats, however, the responses of an audience to a certain style of music is eminently relevant to the discussion.

The beat is ultimately what is identified as creating the "responses".

The most common argument from your side is that no line should be drawn. Once that argument is answered, the discussion runs out of steam long before we get to just where the line should be drawn.

I can't answer for everyone, but I have never argued that.

That's the snag. As long as you think that music is something other than human interaction (behavior), you won't see where the Scriptures can be brought to bear on music.

But even if music is "behavior", the "behavior" in my example is not the music, nor can you blame the music for it.

I'm saying, if I grant you your premise, that music is like meat and wine, then you are in violation of the afore-mentioned chapters when you trample the consciences of others for the sake of your own desires. Then we can argue the scope of the Paul's instructions in those chapters.

And I say, that yes, many in faovr of CCM have violated the chapters! (Not me, as I have never forced CCM onto everyone, brought it into any church, etc.)

If you grant me my premise, that music is human behavior, then the chapters don't apply. It's that simple. You lose when you invoke the chapters, and you lose when you can't.

Talk of rich! Since the '70's the CCM crowd has trampled consciences and split churches to force rock music into the church, and you lay this at the door of the "traditional" side?

YES. BOTH were guilty of doing the same thing back and forth! The traditionalists opposed it for unbiblical reasons, (from those cursed Africans, it's too fun and such pleasure is bad, it makes people sin, etc), and then tried to stamp it out of existence, even when the CCM crowd left and started their own churches! The youth then rebelled, as was happening in every other issue where the older generations were being hypocritical and overbearing. But as the traditionalists claimed to know and obey the Bible more, they should have known better! Paul is telling people to yield to legitimate issues of conscience, not bigotry or neuroticism masked as some conscientious issue.

 

[DHK]

YES. BOTH were guilty of doing the same thing back and forth! The traditionalists opposed it for unbiblical reasons, (from those cursed Africans, it's too fun and such pleasure is bad, it makes people sin, etc), and then tried to stamp it out of existence, even when the CCM crowd left and started their own churches! The youth then rebelled, as was happening in every other issue where the older generations were being hypocritical and overbearing. But as the traditionalists claimed to know and obey the Bible more, they should have known better! Paul is telling people to yield to legitimate issues of conscience, not bigotry or neuroticism masked as some conscientious issue.

You sound like you are reasoning from emotion rather than from intellect, Eric.
There are sound Biblical reasons to avoid rock. Those reasons are based in history, science, and in Biblical principles concerning what the Bible has to say about the believer and the world. Study James 4:4; Romans 12:1,2; 1John 2:15,16. Now consdier this quote (some new research--it is only a part of the ariticle, found at the URL given).

LONDON (AP) - Living fast and dying young has long been part of rock 'n' roll lore.

And now there are statistics that affirm the image, according to a study released Tuesday. Researchers at Liverpool John Moores University, whose report appeared in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, studied a sample of North American and British rock and pop stars and concluded they are more than twice as likely to die a premature death as ordinary citizens of the same age.

The team studied 1,064 stars from the rock, punk, rap, R&B, electronic and new age genres in the "All Time Top 1,000" albums published in 2000. They compared each artist's age at death with that of European and U.S. citizens of similar backgrounds, sex and ethnicity.

Mark Bellis, leader of the study, said his research showed the stereotype of rock stars was true - recreational drugs and alcohol-fuelled parties take a toll.

The report found that, between two and 25 years after the onset of fame, the risk of death was two to three times higher for music stars than for members of the general population matched for age, sex, nationality and ethnic background.

In all, 100 of the stars studied had died - 7.3 per cent of women and 9.6 per cent of men. They included Elvis Presley, Jim Morrison, Kurt Cobain, Janis Joplin and Jimi Hendrix.

The average age of death was 42 for North American stars and 35 for European stars.

http://start.shaw.ca/start/enCA/Entertainment/EntertainmentNewsArticle.htm?src=e090445A.xml

 

[D28guy]

Tiny Tim,

"I can't imagine teens enjoying old time bluegrass style Gospel... although it would be possible I guess in some of the redneck areas of our country."

I find that quite odd that you would say that, considering you live in West Virginia. What I mean is, just about the entirety of the "northern" states would say that you and I both live in "redneck" country. Agreed?

I can say this though, I wouldnt want to live any where else. Kentucky and West Virginia and Tennessee and Virginia, etc are SPECTACULAR places to live, and I feel sorry for everyone that doesnt get to live here!

Btw...I know LOTS of teenagers who crave good old bluegrass gospel music. :thumbs:

God bless,

Mike

 

[Eric B]

You sound like you are reasoning from emotion rather than from intellect, Eric.
There are sound Biblical reasons to avoid rock. Those reasons are based in history, science, and in Biblical principles concerning what the Bible has to say about the believer and the world. Study James 4:4; Romans 12:1,2; 1John 2:15,16. Now consdier this quote (some new research--it is only a part of the ariticle, found at the URL given).

It's not emotion; in fact, it has been your side that has argued the most from emotion in the past, when condemning their youg generations (even when they leave and take their music with them to their own church) and being totally unreasonable. The "science and history" claim was then taken as the last ditch "proof' of their preconceived beliefs. (they had previously shunned fields like "science", now all of a suden appealed to it).
It's all a matter of taking one side of "history, research, etc" and assuming it to be conclusive, and dismissing the other side's appeal to history. (the generational issues I have mentioned are certainly historical, and well known, and constantly mentoned by Conservaticves. It's just that the fundamentalist's side spins the facts of this cultural upheaval to make it everyone else's fault-- liberals, communists, minorities and rock & roll. But they ignore how their heavy handedness and unreasonableness confused the kids.

So the issue of science/history data is one of INTERPRETATION of the data. Your article, like many others cited, takes entertainers who are living wild, who happen to use rock n roll, and blaming the music for it, and then holding that up as some "intellectual" argument against a beat, and Christians who use it. (Remember when your side tried to cite data on rowdiness at rock concerts compared to classical concerts, and then there was instances cited of rowdy behavior at a classical concerts). No, that is a just as emotionally-driven spin on the facts. True history shows BOTH sides to have been wrong, as the Bible says all have sinned. (Note the burden of BOTH sides in Col. 3:20 and Eph. 6:1)!

These chapters deal with all of these issues:

http://members.aol.com/etb700/ccm.html#subjectivity
http://members.aol.com/etb700/ccm.html#communication
http://members.aol.com/etb700/ccm.html#rebellion

 

[DHK]

It's not emotion; in fact, it has been your side that has argued the most from emotion in the past, when condemning their youg generations (even when they leave and take their music with them to their own church) and being totally unreasonable. The "science and history" claim was then taken as the last ditch "proof' of their preconceived beliefs. (they had previously shunned fields like "science", now all of a suden appealed to it).

Eric this is all emotion:

And I say, that yes, many in faovr of CCM have violated the chapters! (Not me, as I have never forced CCM onto everyone, brought it into any church, etc.)
YES. BOTH were guilty of doing the same thing back and forth! The traditionalists opposed it for unbiblical reasons, (from those cursed Africans, it's too fun and such pleasure is bad, it makes people sin, etc), and then tried to stamp it out of existence, even when the CCM crowd left and started their own churches! The youth then rebelled, as was happening in every other issue where the older generations were being hypocritical and overbearing. But as the traditionalists claimed to know and obey the Bible more, they should have known better! Paul is telling people to yield to legitimate issues of conscience, not bigotry or neuroticism masked as some conscientious issue.

How many people on this board refer to rock as from those cursed Africans?
If that is not an emotionally charges statement, then what is?

It's all a matter of taking one side of "history, research, etc" and assuming it to be conclusive, and dismissing the other side's appeal to history. (the generational issues I have mentioned are certainly historical, and well known, and constantly mentoned by Conservaticves. It's just that the fundamentalist's side spins the facts of this cultural upheaval to make it everyone else's fault-- liberals, communists, minorities and rock & roll. But they ignore how their heavy handedness and unreasonableness confused the kids.

I am not taking one side of history. Look at history in general. Look at people's "hero's of today. Look at the one's mentioned in the article and what kind of music they play and what kind of culture they bring with it. Then look at other people's "hero's" and what kind of culture they bring with it. For example many people's "hero" (I use the term very loosely) is Charotte Church. Others look up to George Beverley Shea (he's 96!). Yes, music and culture are intertwined, so much so that it affects the lifestyle, and even the average length of one's life, as the article points out.

So the issue of science/history data is one of INTERPRETATION of the data. Your article, like many others cited, takes entertainers who are living wild, who happen to use rock n roll, and blaming the music for it, and then holding that up as some "intellectual" argument against a beat, and Christians who use it. (Remember when your side tried to cite data on rowdiness at rock concerts compared to classical concerts, and then there was instances cited of rowdy behavior at a classical concerts). No, that is a just as emotionally-driven spin on the facts. True history shows BOTH sides to have been wrong, as the Bible says all have sinned. (Note the burden of BOTH sides in Col. 3:20 and Eph. 6:1)!

This article was done by unsaved secular researchers who have no involvement with Christianity whatsoever. How can you say that it is biased against either Christianity or against rock? It isn't. It was looking for the truth in music. How does music affect us? The study was neutral.
It also proves the point that music in and of itself is moral; that is, it is not amoral. It has a moral and lasting effect on people. When a study done by unsaved secular people comes to the same conclusion that saved people on this board have been telling you all along, I think it is worth considerig.

 

[tinytim]

Ok, let's say that music does have an effect...

Which effects are sinful?

So what if a musical piece excites us...
Or if a musical piece calms us down...

Colors have the same type of effect...
Green has been proven to soothe
Red has been proven to excite or make angry...

So on this logic, red carpet in churches is sinful...
OH Boy!!! There is a fight and a half!! lol

I will agree that music, just music, has effects on people...
But what effects are sinful, and which ones are not...

Is it sinful to get excited in church?
Is it sinful to be emotional in church?

Sorry, but God designed us this way, and gets pleasure from our emotions.

 

[DHK]

Ok, let's say that music does have an effect...

Which effects are sinful?

So what if a musical piece excites us...
Or if a musical piece calms us down...

So what? We are emotional. And some emotions are sin, especially if not controlled.

Colors have the same type of effect...
Green has been proven to soothe
Red has been proven to excite or make angry...

I am a missionary, and consequently have traveled across America and Canada, having visited literally hundreds of churches. I have never yet been in a church that has bright red walls in its auditorium. Many nurseries have soft green for that soothing effect that you speak of.

So on this logic, red carpet in churches is sinful...
OH Boy!!! There is a fight and a half!! lol

Many churches have a stately red that fits into their decor. But I have never seen a plain bright red carpet or even a fluorescent red carpet. Your whole post here it totally irrelevant and illogical.

I will agree that music, just music, has effects on people...
But what effects are sinful, and which ones are not...

There is soothing music such as the music that David played to Saul.
There is angry music--like heavy metal and often rap.
There is rebellious music--rock was born out of rebellion.
There is sad music like the blues.
There are many types of music, many of which are not glorifying to God, and everyone of them affect the emotions.

Is it sinful to get excited in church?
Is it sinful to be emotional in church?

That depends on the type of emotion (excitement).

Sorry, but God designed us this way, and gets pleasure from our emotions.

Does he get pleasure when you lose your temper--that is an emotion also.

 

[Aaron]

I'm glad we're all agreed that music has natural effects. There are many natural (or carnal) things that are not evil, but none are spiritual, and the worship of Christ is to be a spiritual form of worship.

So a better question than which emotions are good or evil is, which emotions are spiritual? If one is getting excited as a natural response to the music, then the response is carnal, not spiritual and can't be called true worship.

So, back to the OP. The "It's the Real Thing" feelings manifest in the Flower Power ad were evoked by the music. They're therefore natural. Carnal. Not spiritual. The feelings in CCM are likewise evoked by the music.

 

[Eric B]

Eric this is all emotion:

How many people on this board refer to rock as from those cursed Africans?
If that is not an emotionally charges statement, then what is?

Hate to put it this way, but you just hung yourself with that word "emotion". You did not even grasp the CONTEXT of the statement, or at least it slipped at that moment even though you were participating in the context. I wasn't talking about what anyone on this board said; we were discussing the PAST --when CCM'er supposedly forced rock into churches. Nothing to do with this board today.
Now THAT was a sign of an emotionally charged reaction!
and this is the same type of misinterpretation that I have been addresssing as happening elsewhere in this issue.

I am not taking one side of history. Look at history in general. Look at people's "hero's of today. Look at the one's mentioned in the article and what kind of music they play and what kind of culture they bring with it. Then look at other people's "hero's" and what kind of culture they bring with it. For example many people's "hero" (I use the term very loosely) is Charotte Church. Others look up to George Beverley Shea (he's 96!). Yes, music and culture are intertwined, so much so that it affects the lifestyle, and even the average length of one's life, as the article points out.

I discuss this in the link somewhere. If peope's hearts are set on wild lliving; then they most likely are not going to be listening to straight laced stuff like Shea. They are going to choose the most pleasing rhythms and often the most extreme sounds they can find. Still, you have the cause and effect backwards. This does not mean that that rhythm, or even the sounds (depending on exactly which ones we are talking about) are always bad. They do not cause the behavior. They just happen to be what those people like.
Perfect example is guns. From the gun debate, we see that many conservatives, including Christians, are just as much into guns as any thug rapper. One is using them offensively, and the other, defensively. Someone who wants to commit crimes or otherwise intimidate others will naturally find guns useful and preferred. But when liberals and others take that and try to make them bad for all, you all don't like that generalization then!

Also, keep in mind, I have never defended hard styles, which is usually what those articles are discussing. People try to use thesed articles to condemn anything with as much as a backbeat, or certain kinds of harmonies. Then, the argument cycles into using articles about hard styles to prove everything called "rock" or even "jazz" as being "bad", and from there, "condemened in scripture" without even being mentioned, and even if they are otherwise nothing like the hard styles. All of that is just going too far.

This article was done by unsaved secular researchers who have no involvement with Christianity whatsoever. How can you say that it is biased against either Christianity or against rock? It isn't. It was looking for the truth in music. How does music affect us? The study was neutral.
It also proves the point that music in and of itself is moral; that is, it is not amoral. It has a moral and lasting effect on people. When a study done by unsaved secular people comes to the same conclusion that saved people on this board have been telling you all along, I think it is worth considerig.

I shouldn't have made it sould like the article blames the music, because it doesn't, actually. It is clearly addressing the LIFESTYLE, or "lore" as he calls it. Notice: "recreational drugs and alcohol-fuelled parties take a toll." It is not addressing the style or rhythms, or even suggesting those CAUSE the behavior.
I also don't recall saying the article was "biased" against either rock, or let alone Christianity. So again, you are the one that seems to be reacting more subjectively as if driven by emotion, to things that are not even being said! Your whole perception is being colored by something. Yet you all keep throwing the "emotion" card at us!

All of this further illustrates what I have been saying regarding INTERPRETATION. You misinterpreted what I say, and you misinterpreted what the article says.
This is why with all the fervor your side displays, and all the evidence you try to gather, you do not have the proven, infallible case you think you have. You all are interpreting a lot of things wrong. That is why it is your side that needs to do the (re)considering.