-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Greg Gilbert - Against Music
- Thread starter christianyouth
- Start date
Nothing. He wasn't trying to fix it. He just created a different version of it. Why can't we enjoy both? Both of them are good. The original is better than the second, well, because it was the original, and John Newton's lyrics are the basis for the new rendition. But the new rendition is still good - very good.todd93 said:
I'm probably more "traditional" than most on here, but your reasoning in this thread has not made much sense.
Last edited by a moderator:
todd93 said:
But why are you elevating a hymn to the status of Scripture?
- Keep in mind...many hymns were written before many of our instruments we have today existed. Should you choose to play "Amazing Grace" on the guitar, you are altering the song, and in your eyes committing a grevious error. Explain to me that logic.
- How did he "ruin" the song? Desconstruct the lyrics and show us the error of them. Keep in mind, he didn't touch the original verses.
When someone changes a hymn like Amazing Grace, it tells me rather clearly that the song wasn't good enough for that person. If Amazing Grace isn't good enough, as it is written, then I don't know what is. We do not sing to Waylon Jennings, we sing to God. When we rebel against the world, that's fine, but when we start changing words to hymns FOR NO REASON then that is rebellion against God, and worship. I'm sorry if that offends you, but it's just simply the way it is. It offends me that the hymns are not good enough, and people think they need worldly melodies, much like that rendition of Amazing Grace was given. That does not speak to God, it speaks to our inner desires and according to scripture, that is wrong.
I have stated that I will not post anymore on this subject, and I won't, as this is my final post on the subject.
God Bless
Todd
I have stated that I will not post anymore on this subject, and I won't, as this is my final post on the subject.
God Bless
Todd
Zenas--I can give you my opinion on what to do, but it is ONLY my opinion.
No matter which side of this issue you fall in on, you have only so many choices that can be made with integrity.
You can work within your church for truly blended services, or for alternative services. (Say an early contemporary and 11 a.m. traditional, or vice versa. ) If the number of folks agreeing with you is very small or non existent, I would NOT feel it is wrong to find another church, or found one if need be.
I DO believe it lacks integrity for folks of either to stripe to join a church settled in to one mode of church service or the other, and set about to change it. That consitutes church stealing, in my not so humble opinion.
So if the church you attend has changed that much, you may have to find another place to worship. I am going through just that-- dispensational traditional church is now Calvinistic and very rock concert mode. I do NOT feel anger toward those leading the changes, or those worshipping there. I DO disagree with their unwillingness to accomodate the about 1/3 of the church still dispensational and traditional.
Ideally we could stay and "work on this". We have been given to understand that asking for accomodation is seen as divisive and disloyal. That being the case, it is time to either attend elsewhere (current shortterm solution) or found another SBC church in this town (probably the best idea long term. It is very needed population-wise anyway.)
Sometimes walking away without rancor and living out your faith with integrity is the very best witness.
No matter which side of this issue you fall in on, you have only so many choices that can be made with integrity.
You can work within your church for truly blended services, or for alternative services. (Say an early contemporary and 11 a.m. traditional, or vice versa. ) If the number of folks agreeing with you is very small or non existent, I would NOT feel it is wrong to find another church, or found one if need be.
I DO believe it lacks integrity for folks of either to stripe to join a church settled in to one mode of church service or the other, and set about to change it. That consitutes church stealing, in my not so humble opinion.
So if the church you attend has changed that much, you may have to find another place to worship. I am going through just that-- dispensational traditional church is now Calvinistic and very rock concert mode. I do NOT feel anger toward those leading the changes, or those worshipping there. I DO disagree with their unwillingness to accomodate the about 1/3 of the church still dispensational and traditional.
Ideally we could stay and "work on this". We have been given to understand that asking for accomodation is seen as divisive and disloyal. That being the case, it is time to either attend elsewhere (current shortterm solution) or found another SBC church in this town (probably the best idea long term. It is very needed population-wise anyway.)
Sometimes walking away without rancor and living out your faith with integrity is the very best witness.
todd93 said:
What makes you think Chris decided that Amazing Grace was not good enough? There are songs that are wonderful in their own right and by adding something else to it, it doesn't mean that it was bad. My husband will do that with songs - he'll do a medly of songs - putting two together that work well that way. He'll add in some more words at times, sometimes planned, sometimes not Just because a song is written a certain way doesn't mean it's Gospel and needs to stay that way. I know we still do Amazing Grace the traditional way and with the new chorus - it depends on the worship package and the message.
Well, I see that we're both offended so I think that we need to toss out Amazing Grace because if it's offensive, then we shouldn't do it. Oh well. I'll miss that dear song in BOTH forms.
Joshua Rhodes
<img src=/jrhodes.jpg>
todd93 said:
No words were changed. In fact, there was a verse sung that I had never even heard until Tomlin's version of Amazing Grace. Incidentally, "The earth will soon dissolve like snow..." was the original last verse of the hymn, until someone came and ADDED the one we sing now. "When we've been there 10,000 years" isn't even an original verse... but I bet you sing it without the grief you've given us over this added four-line chorus!
http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=25039
Interview with Chris Tomlin shows that he was hesitant to write a chorus to the familiar hymn until the Lord put it on his heart to reevaluate the song in light of the abolitionist story of Wilberforce.
t93 said:
Nope, I'm sorry it offends you.
t93 said:
You don't get much more worldly than folk music... which is where the melody for AMAZING GRACE comes from... 60 years after the hymn was written I might add.
t93 said:
Opinion.
t93 said:
OK. See ya around the board!
Last edited by a moderator:
Joshua Rhodes
<img src=/jrhodes.jpg>
rbell said:
Wasn't trying to slam anything... just close it. Of course, we could argue about Tomlin's change of the original 3/4 meter to 4/4 time if you just NEED something to argue about. Some here might.
Which makes one who promotes it to be at best presumptuous.Trotter said:
Here we go again with the ever-morphing definition. When people say "contemporary music," 90% of the time they mean rock or other sensual forms. No one is arguing about when a work was produced, it's ever about the style.
When someone refuses to change to accommodate worldly manners, especially when, as you by default admit, there is no compelling Scriptural admonition, he is doing better than those who would.