Is there any true fundamentalist on this board

Liz, I feel your pain, but don't waste too much time, especially trying to get real Biblical or logical reasons for a position from Michelle.

Most of the support will be in the form of gnostic nuggets like "I know it because I just know" and "if only you had the understanding I do, than you would understand"

There is no difference between the CCM chorus book and the hymnbook, you have to walk like you are in a cow pasture in either place lest you step in something. There is plenty of dung out there that poses as good christian music. If you select your music using Biblical principles rather than making it up as you go and having to constantly update your approved styles guide book, you can be much less dependant on culture to determine your view of what is Godly and get on with more important things.

 

Yes, but how does that translate into music?

Let me put it like this. My very strong personal preference is for hymns, with the traditional words, accompanied by piano, organ, full orchestra, brass band,or any combination thereof, and pitched in keys where I can comfortably sing the alto line (which in practice means in the keys found in old hymnbooks rather than new ones). I have some liking for a very few modern songs, and those are the ones which have real tunes in reasonable keys (ie. lying comfortably within the range of a trained medium voice so not going below middle C and with the general range being mainly around the middle of the treble staff) with words that talk about something other than "me me me".

The other 95% of modern songs leave me stone cold, but then one has to acknowledge that there are plenty of hymns that did not stand the test of time either (Sankey is a prime example!)

Other than issues with the theology, or at least the "me-centredness" of the song, I have no scriptural grounds on which to object to anything. The fact that I don't like it, sadly, is no grounds to reject something. Four part harmony is the best thing in the world as far as i am concerned but I have to accept the fact that the great majority of the population are unable to sing in four part harmony, since it is an acquired skill, and that having hymns pitched high enough to allow comfortable singing of the alto and bass lines by medium voices requires the melody line to be pitched higher than modern congregations are generally able to cope with. Since the advent of the microphone, the tendency in popular music AND in all school teaching of music has been for songs to be pitched lower and lower (such that in popular music men and women frequently sing at exactly the same pitch rather than the expected octave apart). Fighting against this is an uphill struggle and one would need very good scriptural reasons to do it (and one would need to accept that it would immediately alienate most of the congregation)

The Bible makes no specification about what instruments we can or cannot use, and the fact that i might suffer a severe temptation to wrap the lead guitarist's lead round his neck and to stick the drummer's drumsticks up his nostrils is no grounds for Biblical rejection of the electric guitar or the drumkit. If one percussion instrument is allowed, why not a drumkit? If one stringed instrument is allowed, why not a guitar? I have to accept (week in week out) that my own personal preferences are only preferences, that probably in the UK there are no more than a handful of churches, of ANY type, that have music i would like, and that those which do have such music are likely to be unacceptable for other reasons (the best service, in musical terms, that I have been to for many years was in a very high Anglican church where the liturgy included prayers to Mary! I loved the hymns, and I even like chanting psalms as long as its the proper words from the 1662 prayerbook, but obviously I coudn't go again.)

For four years I belonged to a local choral society that is acknowledged to be one of the very best in the UK. Many of the works performed by such choirs are religious in nature and it would often feel to me that i was able to worship more through singing Latin or German religious works (as long as they were protestant ones!) with a choir, though it was a purely secular organisation, than in church singing modern songs in low keys at snail's pace because somehow it was regarded as spiritual to sing them at snail's pace. But I suspect that was a reflection on me rather than a reflection on the music!

Liz

 

Liz,

Give this a listen.

WAY-FM streaming audio

Click the "reload player" link, and choose your connection speed.

Way-FM is a CCM radio station, and they play some really great stuff. Not all of it is perfect, but you can definately praise the Lord with it. Just give it a shot and see what you think about it.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

I am not going to quote actual scripture because quite frankly I am tired and do not feel like making the effort to look them up. If you are a chriatian than you will know what I am talking about.
God does not want us to dress in a fashion that would get the roaming eye of men or women. That is why we are suppose to dress modestly. Cover our bodies not flaunt them.
Same goes true for music. The old time hymns are taken mostly from the Psalms and are there to lift your spirit, give comfort, sing praises to God. The "New Contemporary" music does not do that. They have the beat of the modern world. It takes the beat from the popular music and adds differnt words. Therefore making the listener want to move their bodies. (IE; dancing)
When we dance to such music as that we tend to move our body in a way that can be sexual. To attract the opposite sex. And since God has forbade that, we should also be modest in the way we move.
I also feel this is a big problem with these big contemporary ministries such as Living Waters with Kirk Cameron.
A friend of mine went to one recently and was telling me about all the souls that were saved.
I myself had to question this because their tactics are such that gets the body excited and hyped up. The conteporary music gets the blood flowing and gets a euphoria induced state of mind which in turn makes one think they had the Holy Spirit touch them when in reality the only thing that touched them was the music and ambiance of the rally. I am against such rallys. We need a good ole fashioned Revival!

But I am stearing off the path here. I hope I answered your question to the music.

 

I agree with you absolutely on this point.

This is a gross oversimplification, unless you use hymnbooks that are very different to any i have seen. Off the top of my head, I would doubt that as many old hymns are based on Psalms as modern worship songs.

Yes. The trouble is that modern songs are there for exactly the same purpose.

It doesn't do it for me, and it doesn't do it for you. the problem is that it DOES seem to do it for the great majority of Christians i know.

Perhaps we are talking about different types of songs. The sort i dislike most are not the ones with the lively beat that you can clap to (clapping after all is entirely scriptural) but the slow dirges that are pitched at unisex pitch.

Since dancing is entirely scriptural, i don't see how this argument is going to help you.

Agreed again. But it is entriely possible to dance in a non-sensual manner. Liturgical dance springs to mind.

Liz

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and are there to lift your spirit, give comfort, sing praises to God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes. The trouble is that modern songs are there for exactly the same purpose.
__________________________________________________

Depending on what type we are talking about. We have one "Chriatian" radio station where I live and it playes conteporary music. Pop music in my own opinion. Me being once of the secular world and a dancer, I seem to want to move my hips when I hear this music. I look at other chriatians who listen to this music and I take notice of their movements and actions, and they tend to move their bodies in an intimate way.
__________________________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The "New Contemporary" music does not do that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It doesn't do it for me, and it doesn't do it for you. the problem is that it DOES seem to do it for the great majority of Christians i know.

__________________________________________________
Once agin, depends on what type of music we are talking about.

__________________________________________________

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore making the listener want to move their bodies. (IE; dancing)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since dancing is entirely scriptural, i don't see how this argument is going to help you.

__________________________________________________

Dancing is scriptural, but the way you carry yourself and the way you dance is what I am talking about. Once again, refer to my first reply here. Dancing in a sexual manner. Scriptural people did dance, looked more like Steve Martin dancing than Brittney Spears.
Waving of arms, hopping, jumoing etc... Not swaying of hips, and jirating all around.
__________________________________________________

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When we dance to such music as that we tend to move our body in a way that can be sexual. To attract the opposite sex. And since God has forbade that, we should also be modest in the way we move.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agreed again. But it is entriely possible to dance in a non-sensual manner. Liturgical dance springs to mind.

Liz
__________________________________________________

Agree..... I do not think all dancing is bad, even though my pastor would tell me different.
I believe a slow dance between husband and wife in a manner in which is respectable is ok.
My main focus here is dancing in a sexual manner. That is why most fundamentalists will be aginst dancing and that is why they are not for the contemporary music. Among other reasons.....

 

But are you a Fundamentalist in the historical sense? Just believing or holding to the Scriptural fundamentals does not make one a Fundamentalist in the historic context of the term. Machen and others who were orthodox and believed the fundamentals were never really Fundamentalists and rejected the label.

 

Amen, that IS a fundamentalist, no matter what some would like to add to that belief.

I consider myself to be a fundamentalist because of my belief in the exact truth you are describing, and nothing else is operable in the application of the term.

an IFB if you will, despite the fact that I denouce many of the teachings that are part of the connotative definition of the term IFB conjured up in some circles. </font>[/QUOTE]Well, the purpose of words is to define and give meaning. Words must mean one thing and not another. Words must delimit. One cannot make up his own definitions as he goes along and still retain meaning and usefulness of words. When words mean different things to different folks, they lose all meaning altogether.

You have stretched fundamentalist beyond any such meaning of Fundamentalist in a historic context. The term Fundamentalist is different from orthodox, evangelical, neo-evangelical, liberal, modernist, neo-orthodox, etc. Many of these, including neo-evangelical, believe in the same fundamentals that you profess. However, since everyone wants to play spiritual oneupsmanship and be the strongest, most pious Christian, everyone wants to be called a fundamentalist without being identified with the stigma of separatism and behavioral standards. Following the lead of C. S. Lewis, words must mean something or they mean nothing. In this instance, fundamentalism has been prostituted to mean nothing.

 

Nope, It has not, It has the exact same meaning it did in the past.

In my experience the Spiritual one-upmanship is most often praticed by those who would add specific behavioral standards to a belief in the historic fundamentals and separation from those who do not believe them, which is the historic definition of a fundamentalist. Currently what the majority of people would label as a fundamental Baptist is far removed from what was meant when the phrase was coined, I agree with C.S. Lewis.

(I did not reference Separation, so I won't even address it, suffice it to say that I believe it is necessary for one to be a fundamentalist)

I do not however believe that any behavioral standards that are not directly commanded by Scripture are relevant to the discussion about "Who is a fundamentalist" Those things do not a fundamentalist make. (And I am not talking about standards that are a result of poor interpretation and extrapolation, although many would think that such standards are a requirement to be a fundamentalist.)

 

You're rambling and babbling. You have not addressed a single issue in post, so your response is no response.

 

A response that once I re-read it, looks much like your previous one

Rambling and babbling, without addressing any issues.

You made the same point I did. Words mean something. When people seek to change the connotative definitions of words those who hold to the historic view of the meaning are more correct in many cases. At the same time, the meaning of words do evolve over time, else the need for updating of Webster's dictionary would be unneccesary. Or should we still be using the 1611 edition of that?

 

If IFCA International Doctrine is correct in its description of a fundamentalist Charles Spurgeon would not qualify since he was not a dispensationalist.

 

Regarding the original post-

I have a fundamentalist foundation, with a few non-fundy add-ons.

 

I find it interesting that no one has to defend the sacredness of the old hymns, but the sacredness of CCM has to be defended. Why do you suppose that is?

 

So you don't have to defend the hymn "It Came Upon A Midnight Clear?" You just swallow it hook, line and sinker?

 

Some people repeat themselves with advancing age!

 

Yes, I've noticed that about that particular demographic as well.

Its not that you don't have to defend the sacredness of hymns, its that people think they don't need to because of the weight given to tradition by our organized religion.

The theology of many hymns cannot be defended, you have to use discretion and discernment in both Genres, the new and the old

 

[post snipped - non baptist].

[ December 05, 2004, 07:40 AM: Message edited by: dianetavegia ]

 

Someone's making stuff up ...