MMF - Rock Music Not Conducive to Good Health

[Naomi]

Great song !!
By the way, there are many CCM Artists who I have heard this song from.
I would not make a blanket statement and say that all CCM is good. Yet, I like quite abit of CCM. I would certainly not agree with the people who are causing so much division because they do not like it. Division over this is such a waste.

If we could stop looking at "others" and focus upon Jesus and the lost dying world, perhaps this would be a non-issue.

I am a Christian, my eyes are focused upon Jesus Christ, and I love to share the gospel everywhere I go, and I love people. I also love to listen to good music that praises the name of Jesus! CCM does just that! I praise God for CCM, and the many, many times it ministers to me about keeping my focus, and the things in life that are important.
Naomi

 

[RhondaJoy]

I've decided that it's a complete waste of time to argue about things such as this. Time spent typing to people who have already made up their minds and only want to argue about styles of music could be spent witnessing to the lost.

I know what I would rather be doing.

Goodbye!

 

[superdave]

I find it interesting that many of the arguments historically for music that is only "intellectually" stimulating is based on Gnosticism. Paul was dealing with this heresy heavily in many of the churches in Asia Minor. Anything that was considered pleasing was to be shunned, and there were actually people in Colosse that wanted the church people to beat themselves to put down the flesh.

Paul used similar terms about beating his body metaphorically, but never in a specific physical way. He was not talking about physical or mental supression of physical appetites, because he knew that was not a profitable way to combat fleshly desires.

Now we have a large contingent of Conservative Music "Scholars" who have decided the the musical styles which in any way appeal to the flesh, toe tapping, to an all out mosh, must be sinful. Just as the Gnostics believed that eating enough to satisfy your hunger was sinful, or that you should always make sure you are in pain so your body does not "feel" good.

I know the pendulum has swung far the other way, but I think it is time that many who have held to these positions rethink their belief system, which is wholly devoid of Biblical foundation. Meaning that they profess a valid foundation, and than jump off of it and wallow in the mire of mis-begotten applications

I heard a great message on music recently, and was fascinated to find that the very well thought out Biblical foundation could be easily applied to much of the music I find spiritually uplifting, but would have shocked the speaker, because it would not fit within his own created model for what "Good" music ought to be. Right down the line, his very strong Biblical philosophy of music would support much of the work of Rich Mullins, Steve Green, Newsboys, Jars of Clay, even DC Talk of all people. Amazing. Sad. True.

 

[Eric B]

great point, superdave.
I also the other day ran across the Encyclopedia Brittanica article on "Greek Music" (was actually looking up "Great Awakening"), and it pointed out that the fragments of Greek music found, "show it was predominantly vocal", and that "rhythms derived from metric forms and melodic movement was governed by the rise and fall of the text"
This is precisely what many critics tell us "good God honoring music" should be, compared to "rhythmic" styles of Africa, and also Biblical Hebre worship (Lion Encyclopedia of the Bible). The Greek style was also "homophonic" and derived from "tetrachords". I don't know much about that, but I do know that the critics often praise the old medieval chant style, which I believe is connected with that.
Also, The Ghostics used the Greek scale in incantations, amf Byzantium adopted the modes. The Romans acknowledged the Greek leadership in music and translated its theory to Europe through Boethusius (c500) and Christian mides drew upon this.
Islam also is "heir" to Greek theory through Persians, Arabs and Turks, whose writings influenced European music from the 9th century onward.
So all of this is the proof that "classical" western forms, theories and philosophy of music are not the pure sacred styles associated with true worship of God. They came from people just as pagan as the Africans (while God's people used rhythm similar to the Africans).

 

[Aaron]

Originally posted by superdave:
He was not talking about physical or mental supression of physical appetites, because he knew that was not a profitable way to combat fleshly desires.

Yet the point in Paul's discourse is that fleshly apetites must be subdued, not nurtured or enticed.

But you are wrong to assume that the flesh can be left alone. It must be buffeted to bring it into subjection. For the carnal mind is at enmity with God, for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

 

[Aaron]

Eric,

The Greek modes could sound nothing like Gregorian chant. Both Aristotle and Plato wrote of styles of harmony and rhythm.

Aaron

 

[SorryDude]

Gregorian chant has been used by many underground "gothic" bands and what they say with it generally isnt all that good.

 

[Matticus]

The Greek style was also "homophonic" and derived from "tetrachords". I don't know much about that, but I do know that the critics often praise the old medieval chant style, which I believe is connected with that.

Homophonic music has only one melody at a time. Along with the melody is an accompaniment. Gregorian Chant is Monophonic. As opposed to homophony, there is no accompaniment in monophony.

Most music we have now days is homophonic, including rock music, country, funk, blues, jazz etc...

 

[Eric B]

OK, I was getting "homophonic" confused with "monophonic".

 

[UTEOTW]

I have to agree with RhondaJoy that this is a subject that has on one side people who like something and cannot be convinced that it is wrong and others who do not like it an cannot be convinced that it is good. This may be the equivalent of hitting my head against a brick wall, but I am going to try.

Helen posted something on another thread that I agree with.

Originally posted by Helen:
Think of entertainment in three categories, not two:

1. Godly -- specifically honoring God, talking about Him, praising Him, etc.

2. Worldly but not evil. By this, I mean entertainment centered on the human condition. An awful lot of movies, books, etc. are in this category.

3. Evil. Flat out evil.

Now, what we have is a continuum, sort of like this

Godly.....................................Evil

And all those dots in the middle are category #2.

Now I could look at a song like Simon and Garfunkel's "Bridge Over Troubled Water" and put it in the dot category but way over to the left. It is part of loving one's neighbor to be such a friend.

And are songs which are not 'downright evil' but encourage activities which hurt people, like encouraging defiant attitudes or the concept of 'it's your thing you're doing and as long as you don't hurt anyone else....' which is actually simply an excuse to be terribly selfish. These I'd put pretty far to the right. ( My own tendency is to put anything with cursing, nudity and gratuitous violence way to the right and not touch them, regardless of the rest of the content.)

I think that most music can be put somewhere on that continuum. (I say most because I think that it would be hard to put something like a symphony in there.) And most styles of music will have some overlap. Hymns would be to the left. Not all would be completely to the left. See the recent thread on scriptural problems with the hymnbook. Some CCM would be to the left of some hymns while you would slowly move to the center as you got towards the artists who become more focused on attaining worldly acceptance and let there message slip. There would be a number of country and rock artists who would overlap to the Godly side, those who have some songs with God honoring messages but who still live in the world and also make music destined to appeal to the world. You finally get to the right, and far right, as you move into the more typical rock and country (and other styles, of course) and then to the more hardcore and destructive music.

As an example, consider some lyrics from my favorite rock band, U2. In When Love Comes to Town, the speaker talks about the difference in his life before and after he became a Christian with love coming to town being an apparent euphemism for that. He then says

I was there when they crucified my Lord
I held the scabbard when the soldier drew his sword
I threw the dice when they pierced his side
But I've seen love conquer the great divide

On their last album was a song called Grace which bounces back and forth between the idea of grace and the use of the word as a name for a girl. Some lines.

Grace
She takes the blame
She covers the shame
Removes the stain
It could be her name

Grace
It's a name for a girl
It's also a thought that
Changed the world
...
What once was hurt
What once was friction
What left a mark
No longer stings

Because grace makes beauty
Out of ugly things

If you look at the ablum cover the cover art was shot in the Charles de Gaulle airport in Paris. There is a gate sign to the left of the band that has been altered to refer to Jeremiah 33:3.

(I am not very interested in starting a big debate over their lyrics or lifestyles. They are a rock band after all. A bit of quote mining could likely produce some provocative things. Especially since Bono spent the early and mid 90's trying to play a grand joke on the media by pretending to be the epitome of a rock star. All I am interested in showing is that even when you move beyond CCM into worldly musical styles, it is still possible to find artists who try to work some obviously Godly material in.)

 

[Mike McK]

From a link provided by PinoyBaptist:

If we tool the lyrics of knee slapping "Mississippi Mud" and sang them to the tune of "The Star Spangled Banner", they would seem very much out of place. The reverse is also true. Try to think of the "rockets red glare" or "our flag was still there" [being sung] to "Alexander's Ragtime Band". It would be preposterous. The music would overcome the message and render it useless.

Likewise, Imagine taking the words to "Amazing Grace", "Rock opf Ages" or "Search Me, Oh God"...and setting them to a rock and roll score. Would the message accomplish the same even if the words were identical?

Maybe, maybe not.

I saw Boston a few weeks after Sept 11 and they did an incredible version of the National Anthem that definitely rocked but also managed to be very respectful and conveyed all of the reverence that the song deserves.

One of the old '80s Christian metal bands (my memory escapes me at the moment) did a version of "Oh, Canada" that made the hair on the back of my neck stand up (and I'm an American!), so I'm not sure bibletruth.org's argument works here.

In the same way, I've heard Amazing Grace done to the tune of "Surfer Girl" and my pastor and some friends and I have done it to the tune of the Hollies' "Bus Stop" and the Eagles' "Peaceful Easy Feeling" in church (integrating the chorus: "Now I've got a peaceful, easy feelin/'cause I know God won't let me down/now that He's set me/on solid ground") and I think people got it just the same as if it were the original.

Judging from the reaction we got, I'm not sure it works here either.

Mike

http://www.buddygreene.com

 

[superdave]

Originally posted by Aaron:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by superdave:
He was not talking about physical or mental supression of physical appetites, because he knew that was not a profitable way to combat fleshly desires.

Yet the point in Paul's discourse is that fleshly apetites must be subdued, not nurtured or enticed.

But you are wrong to assume that the flesh can be left alone. It must be buffeted to bring it into subjection. For the carnal mind is at enmity with God, for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.</font>[/QUOTE]My point was not that the flesh can be left alone, but that physical "buffeting" does not help subdue the flesh. Another example of the failure of many fundamentalists to teach reach their children's hearts, because of an inordinate focus on a list of outward expressions of compliance. Those things profit little in dealing with the appetites of the flesh. So also, just listening to certain styles of music has little value in restraining the flesh. The over whelming majority of the arguments against CCM are based on the tenets of gnosticism. You said yourself that Satan uses the "earthy-ness" of things to attract men. That is straight out of the gnostic views seen clearly in the Colossian heresy of all things earthly and human being wicked by their very nature. It is not a scriptural position, and was denounced by Paul. His buffeting of the flesh was a mental/spiritual act of restraining the desires.

 

[Aaron]

Dave said:
My point was not that the flesh can be left alone, but that physical "buffeting" does not help subdue the flesh. Another example of the failure of many fundamentalists to teach reach their children's hearts, because of an inordinate focus on a list of outward expressions of compliance. Those things profit little in dealing with the appetites of the flesh.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here or what you mean by physical buffeting. If you're talking about something like flagellation, then I agree.

But if you mean that it is not a Christian discipline to deny your flesh the objects of its lust, you know little of Christianity and the Bible.

Dave said:
So also, just listening to certain styles of music has little value in restraining the flesh.

You don't believe there is such a thing as sensual music. So naturally you would think this. Some people don't think that the SI swimsuit edition is pornography either. But the idea that abstinence from sensual indulgences are of no value is not a Christian idea at all. In fact, that is a sensual, earthly, devilish idea.

Dave said:
The over whelming majority of the arguments against CCM are based on the tenets of gnosticism. You said yourself that Satan uses the "earthy-ness" of things to attract men. That is straight out of the gnostic views seen clearly in the Colossian heresy of all things earthly and human being wicked by their very nature. It is not a scriptural position, and was denounced by Paul.

Baseless and shot through with error from beginning to end. You can find elements in almost any pagan philosophy that will agree somewhat with one or more tenets of Christianity. But you don't judge the truth or falsehood of a notion upon the basis of its abuses.

The idea that Satan savours the things that be of men was expressed by Christ in Matthew 16:23. St. Paul told the Colossians not to set their affections on things on the earth, but upon things above where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God, Col. 3:1 & 2.

And the equation of earthly things with sensuality and devilishness is plain in James 3:15.

No, not straight our of gnosticism, but straight out of the Bible.

Also, you said first that Paul "...was not talking about physical or mental supression of physical appetites, because he knew that was not a profitable way to combat fleshly desires."

Now here you say, "His buffeting of the flesh was a mental/spiritual act of restraining the desires."

Which is it? And, how can one physically indulge his fleshly desires yet spiritually restrain them?

[ June 10, 2002, 07:47 PM: Message edited by: Aaron ]

 

[Matticus]

i would like to quickly point out that CCM is often not a fleshly desire, but a spiritual one

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
As an example, consider some lyrics from my favorite rock band, U2. In When Love Comes to Town, the speaker talks about the difference in his life before and after he became a Christian with love coming to town being an apparent euphemism for that.

SPIRITUAL ENCOUNTERS OF THE U2 KIND
[BY KATE BOWMAN]
I distinctly remember Bono's comments, for instance, before the band started "In A Little While," from their new album. He explained that the song had been the last one punk rock icon Joey Ramone heard before he passed away last month. U2 was honored that their art was comforting to a legend like Ramone as he prepared to die. "So you see," Bono said slowly, "what started out as a song about a hangover is now a gospel number."

I was shocked at first: "In A Little While" was about a hangover?? I was amused by the comment's humor, and then so struck by the full depth of Bono's preface that I nearly cried. A song about something so base, so crass, became the soundtrack to a departure into eternity. The story of "In A Little While" is a gorgeous metaphor for redemption -- the transformation of the worthless into the dignified, ashes into gold, hangovers into gospel songs. It was a living example that "grace makes beauty out of ugly things."

I was astounded, too, by less overt examples of spirituality, especially in the band's appreciation for allegory and symbol. At one point during the concert, Bono slithered to the edge of the stage on his belly and reached his arm towards the outstretched hands of the audience. He slowly extended his index finger and lay still, his relaxed hand hovering above the hand of a fan, only inches separating them: a perfect reproduction of Michaelangelo's Sistine Chapel ceiling panel showing God and Adam. Some of my friends were appalled at Bono's audacity, but I wasn't. I just figured Bono knew the power of iconography (which has been all but abandoned in the evangelical church, lest it be mistaken for the sin of idolatry), the power of incarnation and, as usual, the power of irony. Besides, Bono had no trouble portraying the Devil later in the show, arching his fingers into horns, crouching low to the ground and facing off with the Edge.

Once again, a commanding allegory: as the Edge advanced towards his opponent, he struck note after frenzied note on his guitar, the dischordant yet beautiful cacophony increasing until it caused the "Devil" to wither to the ground, twitching, defeated. And everyone cheered.

The climax of the concert, for me, came during the encores. The band performed a searing version of the politically charged "Bullet the Blue Sky," into which Bono injected impromptu paraphrases of Revelation: "He is knocking at the door," he said urgently over the driving pace of the instruments. "Do you hear? He is scratching at the door!" And then, concluding numbers "One" and "Walk On" were laced with exuberant cries of "Unto the Almighty!" and "Sing hallelujah!"

And so we did, as the music faded out. I held my friends' hands and listened to the echo of "hallelujahs" sung by thousands of people who probably didn't know the full magnitude of what they were uttering. I don't know if Bono realized it, but he had led us all into worship. I thought about how my sarcastic comment to skewer churches had become prophetic -- I had a deeply spiritual experience, manifested in all the ways my generation connects at soul-level: visual art, music, community, story-telling, important causes. And I thought about how much the church ought to learn (from a 40 year old, leather-clad rock star, no less) about these things if they want us to start coming home. Until then, I and many others will make our communion among friends, accompanied by soul music, where the truth is revealed -- rather than concealed.

http://www.relevantmagazine.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=88&mode=&order=0

From what I have read this is not a spiritual band, their spirituality is superficial, and not necessarily directed toward the God of the Bible.
DHK

[ June 11, 2002, 11:57 PM: Message edited by: DHK ]

 

[Matticus]

DHK, U2 is not always a spiritual band. You are right there. 3 out of 4 of them are christians. On one of their albums, there is a reference to a bible verse (either Jeremiah 33:3 or 3:33, i've forgotten) I would like to know what you have heard about them and where from, though.

God Bless
Matt

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Matticus:
DHK, U2 is not always a spiritual band. You are right there. 3 out of 4 of them are christians. On one of their albums, there is a reference to a bible verse (either Jeremiah 33:3 or 3:33, i've forgotten) I would like to know what you have heard about them and where from, though.

I am glad for an honest admission Matt. What puzzles me is that U2 seems to be a favorite band of many of the CCMers that post here. But from what I have read it's lyrics, much of the time are really quite shallow. Here are some links to follow:

http://www.relevantmagazine.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=276&mode=&order=0

http://www.relevantmagazine.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=20&mode=&order=0

http://www.relevantmagazine.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=88&mode=&order=0

Grace
She's got the walk
Not on a ramp or on chalk
She's got the time to talk

She travels outside
Of karma, karma
She travels outside
Of karma

http://lyrics.interference.com/u2/lyrics/albums/all-behind/index.html

This New Age song on grace could just as well be describing a Hindu deity than the God of the Bible. Christ is never mentioned. But the eastern concept of Karma is. Karma is not Biblical. Karma is the culminating value of all of one's life actions, good and bad which together determine one's next rebirth after death. Does that sound like Christianity? That is Hinduism.
DHK

 

[Mike McK]

First of all, notice that the lyric says, "she travels outside of karma".

Secondly, you only printed part of the lyric. When taken as a whole song, I think the message is much clearer.

They have several songs which draw on Christian principles, either directly or indirectly such as "40", "Gloria", "With a Shout", "Rejoice" and "Tomorrow". Yeah, I prefer the older stuff.

Mike

[ June 12, 2002, 01:50 PM: Message edited by: Smoke_Eater ]

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Smoke_Eater:

Secondly, you only printed part of the lyric. When taken as a whole song, I think the message is much clearer.

In the song "Grace," How much praise is given directly to Christ? How much is Christ directly mentioned?
DHK

 

[Mike McK]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Smoke_Eater:

Secondly, you only printed part of the lyric. When taken as a whole song, I think the message is much clearer.

In the song "Grace," How much praise is given directly to Christ? How much is Christ directly mentioned?
DHK</font>[/QUOTE]Commonly, only the first three verses of "Amazing Grace" are sung today.

None of them mentions Jesus specifically. Does that make it bad? Should we throw out all but the fourth verse?

The song is about grace and I think it makes it's point.

Mike