How Do you teach on music?

Mellowed, maybe...

I am starting to think that to be really Spiritual I'd need to be able to effectively worship with anything from Gregorian Chants, to Hymns, to Rock...

Because if one's heart is truly "right" their Worship won't depend on, or be devalued by, the musical accompaiment... Or the lack there of...

In this respect I have a **lot** of growth to go through...

As I am far too dependent on the aesthetics of the music to help me worship...

We may disagree on Musical Styles...

But, we do agree on Jesus.

Mike Sr.

 

I know your focus is on music. But if you are interested in expanding the course to include worship as a whole, I would recommend the book Worship is a Verb by Robert Webber. The excerpt gives a pretty good introduction to the book.'

It may be a little too radical for where you and your church are at this point, but I highly recommend it for those rethinking their view on music and worship.

Excellent discussion on this thread so far on a topic that often degrades rather quickly.

 

Gold Dragon,

Have you read any of the books on my list?

Mike Sr.

 

No I haven't. Thanks for bringing them to my attention though.

 

I agree, Gold Dragon. This is the first time I've entered a discussion about music on the BB, but this looked interesting.

I consider music to be "liquid emotion," with far more heat than light in most discussions. But if we can keep to the Bible itself....

 

I started another book I don't know yet if I'd recommend, but so far it looks as if I would. The main reason is because he is dealing with the subject of a musical style properly. He treats the music of a culture as an extension of an idea, a thought.

It's called The Rise of Gospel Blues: The Music of Thomas Andrew Dorsey in the Urban Church. by Michael W. Harris.

He said in the introduction:

I don't know yet if Harris professes to be a believer, but he treats even the black ministers who resisted "this heathenish mode of worship" with disdain. Ventura in his essay treats all of Christianity with disdain. But they are both consistent in that they treat music as a thought instead of an object.

This is, of course, the only way one can truly deal with it. If you describe music as a thought instead of a self-existing object, it should be easier to see that the Scriptures have many things to say about style.

 

Are there certain rhythms, harmonies, patterns that are inherently spiritual? Or others that are inherently demonic? Only today, as I was rehearsing the organ score for "Worthy is the Lamb" from Handel's Messiah, I thought of that story of old Handel saying that as he wrote the Hallelujah Chorus, he thought he saw the heavens open and the music pour out. And yet it is obvious that he used the genre of his day, with all its cultural accretions.

Sometimes it feels as though what is spiritual in music is nothing more than long association with spiritually relevant words and long usage in the church. And yet sometimes there is that something more ... which Dorsey was able to touch even when others around him didn't.

 

I don't know yet if Harris professes to be a believer, but he treats even the black ministers who resisted "this heathenish mode of worship" with disdain. Ventura in his essay treats all of Christianity with disdain. But they are both consistent in that they treat music as a thought instead of an object.

This is, of course, the only way one can truly deal with it. If you describe music as a thought instead of a self-existing object, it should be easier to see that the Scriptures have many things to say about style. </font>[/QUOTE]Interesting post, Aaron, I'm going to be mulling it over.

 

Dear mnw,

You also should read this paper from the All National Leadership Conference held at Calvary Baptist Seminary: http://seminary.cbs.edu/content/events/nlc/2006/papers/PW7-RGaumer.pdf

The conference was held in Feb. 2006 : http://seminary.cbs.edu/content/events/nlc/nlc-notes.asp

There are quite a few documents on this page.

And read "Contemporary Worship Music: A Biblical Defense" by John M. Frame. Dr. Frame is a theologian and a classical musician who put his musical preference "on the shelf" to look objectively at Contemporary Worship Music" (CWM).

From Russel Yee's review at Amazon.com: " Frame writes as a classically-trained musician and theologically sophisticated Presbyterian/Reformed seminary professor in his 50's who adopted praise music late in life and with much initial resistance. He provides an extensive musical and scriptural evaluation--and eventually qualified affirmation--of praise music. He has read and understood his opponents (especially Marva Dawn) and he interacts with them in detail. He is especially good at providing detailed evaluation of actual hymns and praise songs and coming to reasoned conclusions about them. (So much of the debate over praise music involves more strong feelings on both sides than considered evaluation by either.) Along the way he gives the lie to stereotypes like, "praise songs are narcissistic." Frame concludes that praise music is indeed still uneven and incomplete, but that--especially at its best--it is a spiritually, musically, and lyrically worthy genre of music for worship. His parting words are, "What we must not do is to lash out as one another with false pretensions to knowledge, sophistication and rationality, and with intellectual arguments that are little more than masks for underlying anger." Amen!"

And Dr. Frame lists 100 contemporary worship songs that pass teological & musical "muster".

My pastor is using Dr.Frame's book as a basis for our church's Wednesday night Lenten teaching series.

I searched Google for articles and papers written by Dr. Frame and this paper is pretty good and would substitute nicely for his book: http://www.sbts.edu/icw/pdf/ContemporaryWorshipMusic.pdf

I hope that this provdes the balance needed in understanding the use of CWM.

In Christ,

Dale McNamee

 

A lot of that stuff is hyped up, and it is used to create an argumentative cycle that allows one to move to the next hypothesis when one hypothesis is debunked.
Some sounds may go along with some immoral or spiritualy bad behavior, but then that does not mean it can never be used for good. Much of that argument is about "association", but when this is disproven, it shifts to an attempt to say the music is intrinsically evil because of beat accents and syncopation, and sometimes also harmonies. Sounds can also lend themselves to feelings of sadness, anger, or jolliness, but there is a time for each of these, though some seem to want emotionless passive robots marching to the traditional styles they seem to think are the only God-honoring music. So when that is disproven, it goes to unproven "lab tests" (a lot of which are misinterpreted or are purely speculative anyway, and not widely accepted) and eventually circles back around to association.

I have thoroughly addresed the issue here: http://members.aol.com/etb700/ccm.html

 

I started by doing an extensive word & topic study on all the instruments, singers, etc. in the Bible. This will greatly shape your opinions of the effects, uses, and purposes of music.

 

As I say on the page:
Next, various rockers are quoted admitting they are trying to influence the youth sexually with the beat. Often they will even affirm that their music is "anarchy" or even "antichrist[ian]".
So from this it is assumed that...it's the beat that makes people sin, and changing the words is of no use. Yet...neither scripture nor history supports this broad sweeping judgment.
But...many factors are omitted in these references, which are assumed to prove "all rock is always bad, and traditional is what is good".
[then, much further down]:
One important point we should keep in mind when assessing the contexts music (or anything else) is used in, is that the Bible teaches, "to the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure, but even their mind and conscience are defiled". (Titus 1:15) Of course, there are things, such as music that directly refers to or mimics sex that are universally impure, but with elements like a beat, syncopation, harmonies, etc. it is all based on the spiritual condition of those using it. All the quoting of rock musicians and songs illustrates just what I am saying. All that is, is the music being impure to the impure, and that's what all the critics constantly citing this stuff as the ultimate proof of their case don't understand. Their hearts are impure, so they find the most pleasant beats they can find, and use them for impurity, and revel in it. Just like drugs they use. These substances are natural things God created "good" like everything else, but they misuse those too for pleasure. That doesn't mean that there could never be a good use for them (some medicinal drugs can become addictive or harmful if overdone, or taken at the wrong time, but are otherwise used for good).

 

In other words, just ignore the evidence.

 

Of course, there are things, such as music that directly refers to or mimics sex that are universally impure, but with elements like a beat, syncopation, harmonies, etc. it is all based on the spiritual condition of those using it. These substances are natural things God created "good" like everything else, but they misuse those too for pleasure. That doesn't mean that there could never be a good use for them (some medicinal drugs can become addictive or harmful if overdone, or taken at the wrong time, but are otherwise used for good). </font>[/QUOTE]Eric. Did you know that God created the primary colors? There is nothing inherantly evil about them. Therefore, Playboy magazine is only evil to those that are evil...
Music is not "evil to those that are evil," etc.; the secular world tells you that phisiological responses to all people in response to music. God made beat, melody, harmony, etc. and we CAN CONSTRUCT IT IN AN IMPROPER WAY, just like Heugh Hefner can twist colors into carnal images. Did you ever study music in the Bible? There are clear evidences that certain elements of music effect certain responses from people. Most important of these is that there is NEVER dancing w/o percussion, showing that rhythm affects the physical responses (yes, not necissarily in a bad way). From this, we see that music that is overly rhythmic over-stimulates the flesh, which is in opposition to every Biblical principle. Come on, buddy! Make your arguments based on things YOU have researched, or it can become embarassing!
Besides, you are arguing with the rock musicians that know how they are affected by their own music, and the ideas behind it all.

 

I have researched this, and you are answering snippets of my page that I have posted. This other stuff you are saying is already answered on there. (see link in above post). As for pornography; here's another section that originally began here as a response to ol' mr Aaron:

But pornography is a totally different story. God tuned our senses to be aroused by the oppostite 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". 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, [including dancing] 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 [various] 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.

So "Affecting the physical responses"+"the rock musicians used it for evil and knew what they were doing" does NOT equal "all contemprary music is bad". That is merely the "cycle" argument I mentioned.

No, don't ignore it; just don't misinterpret it and build an overgeneralized assumption from it, that's all. Evidence for what? All even accent beats are bad? Sorry, you're a long way off!

 

[duplicate posts]