Hip-hop is...

Where is it written that the music is the sole thing that makes a song spiritual?
Show me Paul wasn't talking about lyrics...

Using your logic, we are bound to music the Hebrews played in the first century, all western music would be immoral...Because, I doubt seriously Paul knew anything about western music.



I understand the scripture, you just don't agree with us?

 

Rhythm is inextricably linked to the character of a song.

Not at all. Paul isn't giving guidelines on Christian worship in these passages. He is instructing us in the character of our day to day interaction. Psalms were invariably accompanied by musical instruments except in the formal worship of the synagogue.

That is true. God hates pride and exhibitionism.

 

It isn't, and neither have I asserted such a thing.

It's implicit in the text. He certainly wasn't advocating hymns to Zeus or Apollo.

No, using my logic your premises are revealed to be arbitrary and without foundation in either Scripture or historical fact. Ancient Greece is the birthplace of Western Civilization, and the Greek modes are the pattern of our diatonic, do-re-mi scale. You're mistaken if you think their music would sound exotic or un-musical to our ears. It isn't a stretch at all to assume that Paul heard music as we hear it today.

 

CCK
You are Dead WRONG!

maybe you preferr the honky tonk sounding gospel over a hip hop sound nevertheless I can sing the words to victory in Jesus with a hip hop sound and the message does not change.
You were dead wrong in the previous thread and you are still dead wrong in this thread, so is anyone who has the same run of the mill legalistic Southern Baptist mentality as you do.

 

Anow which scripture teaches that?

And what does that have to do with rhythm?
I'll grant you that a hymn, by its form was probably rather plain. But the two other forms mentioned were not necessarily plain, but their distinction from hymns were primarily the words or topic. (A hymn was praise, a Psalm was text of scripture, and therefore "spiritual song" would be a general category of spiritual things).

And what was ancient Greek civilization from a Biblical Hebrew perspective but another pagan Gentile civilization? (just like Africa or the far East). And that is discussing scales, not rhythms. So while Paul and others in the NT may have known about the Western scales, it does not mean that they favored Western forms as the sacred "style".

 

Why Just Music

Why is this discussion making me think that for some reason that we use music as that one thing that we can give a broad standard to but we don't in other areas.


We would never say it is OK to wear bathing suits to church because clothing from this region or that one found that to be a form of modesty. Or because all the kids realate to wearing them so if we have them in the church they will come. The first thought that would come to mind would be to explain that that type of dress comes from those who do not understand scripture and are lost. It is very clear that when people came to worship in the Bible they were covered. In Gen. 3 Adam and Eve made leaves and God gave them coats in verse 21. God was showing us there in the early part of scripture that there are distinctions.

It would be obvious that we should not wear a bikini to church,but why is it not obvious that some music is appropriate and some is not. Music is different in a sense that is has many facets and foundations it can sound similar to worldy styles,but clothing does too. But just as you would want a man or woman to take the scriptural and historical and come up with the best way to dress. Why would we not do so with music so that it can be seen as set apart and separate.

 

Those "skins" probably covered about as much as a one piece bathing suit. They were not "coats" like what we wear in the winter.
So we're used to more being covered up than what bathing suits or the original skins covered, but we cannot say that God universally only approves of northern cold climate "coats" based on Him covering Adam and Eve. That is basically the argument people are empoying with this whole "appropropriate rhythms" concept. They assume one culture's sensibilities were perfectly in line with God's standards, while everyone else was "the world".

 

It's not in the Scriptures. It's in nature. (Doth not even nature itself teach you...?)

Why are we focusing on rhythm here? I'm just talking about the valid inferences one may draw from the Scriptures in the OP.

Not necessarily. There is plenty to distinguish a psalm from other forms. For instance, where an hymn or an ode could follow a regular metre, the Psalms, as is characteristic of ancient Hebrew poetry, do not, and neither did their accompaniament.

Perhaps, but upon what do you base these definitions? Besides, the Psalms contain praise and 1st person testimony as well. There are some who believe that only the Psalms should be sung in church, and I can see the enormous benefit of that, though I'm not of that opinion.

Not everything done in a secular society is profance. Man can from nature discern discern good and evil, decency and profanity, law and justice. Those things that are good, decent and just are things that God has freely given us to enjoy. I would note here that Paul excluded paeans and dithyrambs from his list.

 

You're forgetting one very important thing, the clothes Adam and Eve made for themselves did not meet God's approval. God has standards in everything.

4joys, That is an insightful comparison! Keep it up! :thumbs:

 

And that can become subjective. Some things may be universal, but Paul clearly tells us here the example of what he is talking about (hair length). But you have to show where the scripture supports your notion that THIS particular conviction of yours in music is universal, and not your own weakness. That is addressed elsewhere in scripture, so a person is not allowed to take just any conviction they may have and try to force it upon everyone as "what nature teaches". It has to be known by all (even if all men do not obey it).

Because Rhythm is generally the deciding factor in your arguments about music. The OP is about rap, and rap in itself is just lines of spoken poetry. It's the addition of the rhythm that makes it "hip hop", and is what people were condemning. If people were just writing lines of rhyming words, and there was not rhythmic form attached to it, you all would be saying "oh, look at those poets. How nice".

That still doesn't suggest they were all the same "plain" form people seem to think defines "sobriety"; especially with what you just said about the Psalm not following regular metre. This is one of the things we have been trying to show your side all this time.

Well, the scripture makes a distinction between them, so they're not all the same thing, even though they can overlap.

Aren't "paeans" really teh same thing as "hymns"? I saw a definition of "hymn" that said "a paean". they both seem to be similar in form ("odes"), and based on praise. It's just that "paean" is named after an actual god. That would probably be why it is not mentioned.

From Wikipedia: "Musically, the paean was a choral ode, and originally had an antiphonal character, in which a leader sang in a monodic style, with the chorus responding with a simple, informal phrase; however, later in its development, the paean was an entirely choral form".

I was talking about the "skins/coats" God made for them. You don't think he dressed them in Eskimo coats do you? Or was it suits and ties, and long A-Frame dresses fundie wives wear?:laugh:

 

Where You There

I just wanted to know if you were there to see how long the coats were ? How do you know this ?

Thanks Aaron for the support.

Wear a t-shirt to church,I will try it and see how well it goes over when I tell my pastor that it is OK. Arewe looking for an out to make ourselves comfy instead of using common sense and the Holy Spirit. If a hip hop church was not an issue this thread would have died along time ago. It is not about who can prove the best point it is about making our churches distinct enough for people to see the gospel without mistaking that God is not pleased with worldliness. When you have to ask it usually means you should'nt. The bigger picture is what does God want, not how we can justify doing something we have to question this intently.

 

Which one of these guys do you identify with?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=pYdD-Qc7lbY&mode=related&search=


Or this one...
http://youtube.com/watch?v=tXKXG6fzL0E

Or this one...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=etHujh8Ao7Y

I love these series!

 

HA :applause:
I Love it

 

That question goes both ways, if you are trying to suggest they were "dressed" quite as much as we are today. Most depictions of the early "clothes" show them as scant compared to ours for a reason. They were in a very warm climate. Just as long as the private and other possibly "tempting" areas were covered, that would be enough. Then, when the modern civilization was shaped by more northern cultures, we became used to even more covering, and less would look "indecent".

Meanwhile, Islamic culture takes this "covering" to the extreme, and has the woman covered from head to toe, even in the hot desert. They call Western "Christian" dress "indecent" and even blame it for all our "immorality".

"common Sense"? A bathing suit, yes. But you're talking about a T-Shirt, now. That is not even showing anything indecent. It's just not "dressed up". But as I always ask, since when did a Western, secular business suit become "sacred garb", where that is God's standard? That is not "common sense" at all, and it is not a universal conviction of the Spirit either.
If your p[astor objects, that is his own personal conviction based on tradition, not a universal command of God.

And you have to show that God does not want hip hop or any other modern style, and that He DOES want "traditional" Western styles. Thatis where your side fails. We don't choose 200 year old music just to "look different" just for the same of looking different. Meanwhile, all anyone hears from the same Churches that do that is the same old human tendencies to be self-righteous and look down on others, using music and worship among other issues for that goal. That is where, for all their musical "distinction", people will see them as the same as everyone else in the world, and your "different music" will not impress them at all. Trying to use music for our "difference", you will have completely missed the boat.

As I say on my page on this issue http://members.aol.com/etb700/ccm.html
"...both approaches of trying to avoid styles to look "different", OR the depending on of the use of those styles as our means of winning people are misguided."

The reason the issue or the thread doesn't die is because there are people whose convictions think hip hop is wrong. The problem is, them trying to make that a universal preference of God, in favor of some other equally "worldly" style, when He says not such thing at all. The scripture does not say, for issues like this, "if someone, anyone anywhere questions it, for any reason, just avoid it". It tell us we should consider the feelings of those who question it, and not engage in it around them. But the problem here is not people bringing hip-hop or other styles into old Fundamentalist churches, it's that the Fundamentalists are trying to stamp the styles off the face of the earth, even when people use them in their own churches, and not imposing them on those who don't like it. That is defintely not supported by scripture. Rather than reacting at something being imposed on them, they're the ones trying to control and impose upon everyone else, and thus are shown to be the ones in violation of the scriptures on resolving issues of conscience like this.

 

Very good post, Eric B
I can't stand hip hop, but I will stand shoulder to shoulder with Christian brothers and sisters that want to worship this way...

It is all about the autonomy of the local church.
In our church, NO, we would not have a hip hop style...

But... if the church down the street wants to.... get this....

IT IS NONE OF MY BUSINESS!!

I am not in that church.
Legalists need to quit meddling in other churches.... They need to stay behind their own door, patting themselves on the back, telling each other how holy they are because they don't hip hop, read MVs, listen to CCM, Don't wear street clothes.... etc.

This way the legalism will die when their church does!

NOW before the true fundamentalists get mad at me, I am not talking about you.
You all stand for the true fundamentals of the faith... the original fundamentals before the UFOs took over, and ruined some IFBs...
I am talking about all the ones that want to impose their legalism on other churches...

I know there are good fundies out there... I am a traditional fundy myself.... but there are some out there that really stink up IFBdom

 

Answer...yes.

 

He'll want to give you your own poll...because he can't admit he's wrong in the way he worded it in the OP

 

Amen :thumbs:

 

Though I enjoy our exchanges, you need to know that you have a terrible habit of leaping to conclusions. When I say that we know by nature that the rhythm is inextricably linked to the character of a piece isn't saying anything about the morality of a certain rhythm. Okay? All men know when they're hearing music and when they're not. They don't have to be taught that. Neither do they need to be taught that certain modes sound "sad" or "happy" or "solemn" or "triumphant," etc. They just know, and they know it by nature. Paul appealed to that knowledge in 1 Cor. 12 as an example in the proper use of tongues.

That's simply not true. They may have had a twinge of conscience about it, but the natural man is groping about in darkness and his foolish mind is easily blinded, and he can be so reprobate that he cannot tell his right hand from his left, morally speaking, Jonah 4:11.

Not by a long shot.

So much more goes into the genre other than the beat.

You're right! The styles do overlap. Exactly what the differences were no one really knows, but we can infer generalities. For instance, a dithyramb was a "wildly exuberant, orgiastic" style sung in honor of Dionysus, the god of wine. In that case, it's easy to see the distinction between that manner, and the manner communicate by an hymn. Paul makes that distinction, too. "Be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess..."

Clothing is for modesty, protection, gender distinction, and rank or occupation. I believe the clothes God fashioned for Adam and Eve met all these purposes, and that they were perfectly tailored. I certainly don't buy the suggestion that they were mere pelts draped over half-naked bodies.:type: Hmm, a leather suit tailored by God, Himself. That suggests a lot of dignity to me.