How Do you teach on music?

"New Song" or "spiritual song". This says nothing about "traditional" versus "contemporary", or "rock" being the "old song", and "old hymns" being "new" or "spiritual". For some people, rock may be their "old song", but then there are plenty of unbelievers in the world who listen to "traditional"; especially in the past, when that sound was in style, and secular songs matched the sound of the hymns ("Drink to Me only With Thine Eyes", national anthhems, etc). There were unbelievers who listened to that, and that would be their "old song", if we were to take that verse this way. The type of music David and others worshipped to was mideastern and very rhythmic! "New/old" and "spiritual" is not about a STYLE or rhythm, or even a "physical response". Once again, this is Platonism. You have not even identified any sin in that statement. You just assume that any "physical response" is automatically bad. And traditional hymns can have a physical reaction as well. "To God be the Glory" with its lively 3/4 time tends to make me tap. And the other songs, but virtue of making you sit stiffly; that is a "physical reaction" as well, albeit a negative one.

As for BJU, I'm sure you remember the issue about the dating rule during the 2000 presidential campaign. That was supposedly a "recognition of diofference", but it was supposedly based on 2 Cor.6:14, and several OT verses about Israel and its "separation". And those verses are talking about more than just mere "difference". "Unbelievers", "Heathen" etc. what does that have to do with one race or another? It must have come from a time where one race was considered "heathen", though that had been subsequently cleaned up. But nobody even though of it, yet kept using the verses to justify the policy. Then, he grudgingly ended it. And I had joined in discussions on the College Talk board back then, where several students from there mentioned a lot of the stuff the Sr. and Jr. BJ's used to say on race (Whoever is against segregation is against God, etc). The way it always happens, is that they come under fire for this stuff, then tone it down, (and then get mad at the "liberal" media and "politically correct" society for exposing them) but elements still remain, such as the dating rule and music teaching. No, most people do not consciously "feel superior", but then neither do they realize that many of these teachings still do insinuate superiority. I mean, just about all we have heard from many of these fundamentalists, as well as other conservatives, politically, is about how great America, or Western civilization, or capitalism, or "our godly culture before those liberals, atheists, commies and rock musicians destroyed it", or "our Churches before those rebels brought in that jungle beat and other compromises" are. Nobody realizes that all of this is the language of "superiority". Of course, it is not just racial, but political, cultural and moral as well. But it's all the same thing, all about ME and my "extended self" (all of those institutions I uphold and associate with). While pointing out at everyone else today and their "self" orientation, they forget that they srte still human, and have the same self-exalting nature, that likes to think of onesself as "better" in whatever way it can.

This is something I an planning to write an article or something on to have published (rather than putting it up as a website). On one hand, people wonder why race keeps being brought up, but when people are self-exalting, then that wil include their race, and it does come out, even if not consciously. On the other hand, some do focus on race too much, not realizing the the underlying issue of human self-exaltation that drives any race issue, but also comes out in other areas that also need to be addressed. Even King and Malcolm X in their latter years started realizing that class was becoming an issue, and not just race. This is significant to me particularly after the NY transit strike which I was involved in last winter (and which is currently in court now), where people take sides, with conservatives bashing "union thugs" as undeserving and wanting too much, but ignoring the corruption in upper management (which is seen as "hard working" and therefore "deserving"). Workers on the other hand focus on management so much, they gloss over the the ways they do try to get over, which gives management excuses to do some of the things they do.

Anyway, the point is this segment of Christianity has focused so much on what the contemporary church and society is doing wrong; they seemingly have never repented of the errors of their traditions. They have never even acknowledged them. They just tone down the rhetoric when they come under fire for it, and soon, the original meaning is forgotten. How can they see clearly how to judge music when their vision is clouded by stuff like those cultural issues? They simply read it all into the scriptures, when those passages say nothing of the sort.

 

Here's the real problem with this debate. Some look at a situation thinking "what can I do that the Bible doesn't forbid?" Others look at the same situation thinking "what is most likely to line up with all biblical principles?"

I have noticed that the argument to allow rock music is based on philosophy and intellect with very little scriptural basis.

 

I have noticed that the argument to _DIS_allow rock music is based on philosophy, intellect and personal tastes with very little scriptural basis.

How far back, musically, do we want to go?

There was a time when Organ Music was forbidden...

All through History the 'proper' church was resistant to change...

In *many* ways this is a good thing as it slows change down for a proper consideration as to the 'why' of the change...

Here's the real problem with this debate. Some look at a situation thinking "what can I forbid under pain of hell itself that the Bible doesn't *actually* forbid?"

We talk of many things...

But, it still comes back to personal taste in many of the disagreements...

I, personally, can not believe that some of the tired dull boring dead hymns sung as Funeral Dirges can possibly be 'sanctified'...

I don't serve a dead God...

My God is **ALIVE**...

And, *any* music, whether hymns or CCM, *MUST* be sung as if we *really* believed what we are singing...

If the lyrics aren't worth (praying?) singing to God...

Then whether Hymn or CCM, perhaps they shouldn't be used...

I intentionally twisted the quotes to show that the argument is bi-polar...

(And, before you get your knickers in a knot... There are *many* Hymns I love to sing.)

Niether side has *absolute* scriptural proof that their personal tastes are perfectly Biblical...

And, even if they could show their personal tastes were perfectly "Godly"...

They can't show that their tastes are the only tastes acceptable or Glorifying to God...

You have the right to use only hymns in your church services.

I do _NOT_ have the right to tell you how to administrate your worship.

That is, in the final analysis, between Pastor and God...

Nor do you have the right to judge how I administrate my worship...

Of course if you see my frequenting night clubs and the like ilk then you have a right to question whether I am truly a worshipper...


Mike Sr.

 

We frequently hear the claim that the modern Christians are more interested in what they can get away with or what God allows, rather than what God requires or how He might be "pleased". This is human nature (including fundamentalists), and the problem has been greatly exacerbated by the excessive rules of some, that aren't even biblical. This would naturally lead people to ask what God really does allow or does not allow. Do we just follow anyone who comes up to us with rules, "if we really care about pleasing God", without question? (Cults have plenty such rules we do not follow). God may have neither "required" it nor be particularly "pleased" by it, unless it was freely done in regard to Him. (Rom.14:6). People urging us to keep Sabbaths or give up birthday and holiday celebrations and "unclean" meats can accuse us of "focusing on what God allows, rather than pleasing Him" when we quote this and other scriptures regarding our "liberty" in response to them. Also, taking the opposite attitude of supposedly "trying to stay as far away from sin as possible" so much that we make certain presumptions of what God doesn't allow (just to be safe) is precisely what the Pharisees and rabbinical Judaism after them had done. It becomes actually a haven of sin, because once one thinks he is doing so good, ('so far from sin') not only does he become self-righteous (what does he really need God's grace for?) but he tends to begin to slide in certain areas, especially ones he does not focus on (e.g. sins he's not even aware of. This, as I will discuss further, is how the past can be viewed uncritically compared to the present, while many sins that occurred then were ignored). Steve Miller, The Contemporary Christian Music Debate, O.M. Literature, 1993 (p.71) warns us that "The adherence to an authoritative teaching of principles that is more strict than the Bible is far from safe ground according to the Scriptures—rather it is a subtle form of worldliness instigated by the enemy. It is not safe to err on the side of the conservative. It is never safe to err." We must beware of actually nullifying God's true commands and worshipping Him in vain by "teaching as doctrine the commandments of men" (Mark 7:7,8/Isaiah 29:13).

 

O.M. Literature?

You're talking Operation Mobilization?

I haven't read anything by Steve Miller..

But, "A Revolution of Love" by George Vewer is up on my site. One of my favorites.

 

The street address is "Mobilization Drive", so I guess it is that organization. I don't know anything about them, though. To me, it was just the publisher, used for citational purposes.

 

I say that the best way to teach good Christian music is to stay as close to the bible as possible. If you are going to teach music in the church (which I think should be done) then it is my opinion that scripture songs and bible songs are the best way to go. You can't go wrong when you are teaching people bible memorization through song. Be careful, though, when doing this that your "scripture songs" quote the bible word for word and don't change anything. We wouldn't want to lead anyone astray when teaching them Christian music. B T W scripture songs are not only for little kids. I am an adult and I still enjoy learning little scripture songs to help me memorize God's holy word.

 

musicforyou,

Question: when you use scripture songs to help in memorization...which version do you use?

And you're right...it's a great way to learn.

 

I use the King James Version only. Through studying I believe that this is the closest English translation you will find to the original texts.

 

OK...just wondering (no version hijack).

I concur that KJV lends itself to a musical meter much more easily than most other versions.

Will stop now...before someone misinterprets my quote as a version hijack