More Thoughts on CCM

[Jordan Kurecki]

What are your thoughts on this article?

http://www.baptistboard.com/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=12

particularly these statements:

"Contemporary Christian Music openly and proudly uses any type music in the service of the Lord and refuses to separate from music that is openly used in the worship of the flesh and the devil.

What is worldly music? Worldly music is music that sounds like the music used by the world for sinful activities. John defined the world as “the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life” (1 Jn. 2:16). Music that is characterized by these things is worldly music, and that is certainly true for blues, jazz, rock, rap, reggae, and other forms of modern dance music. This type of music has an intimate association with immorality, drunkenness, drug abuse, gambling, prostitution, and other evils, and it is impossible to disconnect the music from this association. “Sex, drugs, and rock & roll” is not just a popular saying; it is a true saying because “sex, drugs, and rock & roll” go together like peas in a pod."


But also what is your response as whole. please read the whole article and let me know what you think.

 

[Winman]

Wrong link, you need to fix that.

 

[evenifigoalone]

Specific types of music don't have to be about sinful things. They've been made to be about those things by people.
If sin is solely what a very specific type of music has been used for for a long time, then yeah, you might have a problem until it becomes widely used and people stop associating it with evil. But it's the way it's used and the associations people make with it that's the problem, rather than the music inherently representing sin. Sin starts with people, not sounds or objects.

Rock music, in particular, has been used for a lot of things. It's a very diverse music style, really. Music is about communicating emotion. (Even hymn music. Trust me, I play the piano and practice hymns on it regularly.) Rock music can communicate many emotions, not just bad ones.

 

[preachinjesus]

Like Winman said, I think you've got the wrong link. However, I've always maintained there is no difference between worldy music in style and "sacred" music in style. Music is music, it has no theological consequence. Lyrics are different. Lyrics are what makes something sacred and something secular.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

sorry heres the correct link.

http://www.wayoflife.org/database/opposedtoccm.html

 

[preachinjesus]

It's funny, they're opposed to "modern music" with a beat but not the "modern internet."

This is a shining example of why I have nothing do with fundamentalism.

I'm so sick and tired of this "sensual music" line from fundamentalists when it comes to music. Even their hymns were once regarded as "sensual" by their ancestors. It's a terrible argument.

Just a disappointing argument that has hurt many folks that I grew up with. The real challenge is that so many of my friends who were raised in well meaning fundamentalist homes, as soon as they got the chance to get out the door bolted from the church because of this kind of hardline stance. They rejected all of it and went so far to the other side they don't even acknowledge their former life. It's sad, they were pushed there. Certainly there is a measure, a high measure, of personal responsibility on their own part...but also responsibility on their hardline leaders.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

It's funny, they're opposed to "modern music" with a beat but not the "modern internet."

This is a shining example of why I have nothing do with fundamentalism.

I'm so sick and tired of this "sensual music" line from fundamentalists when it comes to music. Even their hymns were once regarded as "sensual" by their ancestors. It's a terrible argument.

Just a disappointing argument that has hurt many folks that I grew up with. The real challenge is that so many of my friends who were raised in well meaning fundamentalist homes, as soon as they got the chance to get out the door bolted from the church because of this kind of hardline stance. They rejected all of it and went so far to the other side they don't even acknowledge their former life. It's sad, they were pushed there. Certainly there is a measure, a high measure, of personal responsibility on their own part...but also responsibility on their hardline leaders.

when you say pushed to the other side, do you mean they went to the world and went to sin?

Because if so that shows a much deeper problem that you cannot blame on the standards.

People who stopped living for God because they had high standards put on them have no excuse for doing so, if David could bear the yoke of King Saul trying to kill him (which was clearly wrong) than people can bear higher standards of music and dress.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

I'm so sick and tired of this "sensual music" line from fundamentalists when it comes to music. Even their hymns were once regarded as "sensual" by their ancestors. It's a terrible argument.

Could you please prove that the fundamentalist hymns were once regarded as sensual?

I find this to be hard to believe.

 

[evenifigoalone]

Thanks for the full article.

To me the article represents a mindset I left behind a few years ago, one I no longer agree with--I've come to be wary of treating anyone with differing beliefs or even some doctrine as somehow less Christian than I am.
I know a Christian biker, with tattoos and all, who is more spiritual and on fire for God I, unfortunately, am. He's out there witnessing to people on a daily basis. I don't get the logic behind judging him on his choice of appearance, rather than his behavior...you get me?

One thing I'd point out is that you can't broadbrush an entire genre or subgenre over the not-so-stellar things that musicians within that genre may do. When militant atheists or antitheists do this to Christianity based on the less-than-ideal behavior of many Christians, we call them out on it. People aren't perfect, and Christian musicians are people, so they aren't perfect either.

Some of the things the article mentioned are honestly pretty subjective. Not all Christians believe tattoos are wrong. Not all Christians belief secular music is automatically evil. Not all Christians have the exact same ideas about clothing styles (ie, some believe women wearing pants is wrong, some don't).
I listen to some secular music, providing it's clean. Plus, there actually are some Christian artists out there who are under a secular label company. They may do this because music isn't their main outreach, or they may have the mentality that people are going to be turned away by a Christian label and they have a better chance of maybe having an influence on them that way. (Whether the latter is right or wrong, I'd be loathe to assume that it's just an excuse, or that they're kidding themselves. I can't read people's hearts. Maybe they're not sincere, but maybe they are.)

And lastly--CCM comes from people of all denominations, so naturally there are going to be artists who may be charismatic, or Catholic, or some other denomination. (Some are baptist.) They aren't part of some grand scheme to create a one world church, they're just people with differing denominational and doctrinal alignments. It's not hard to avoid an artist if you happen to find them too doctrinally different.

The last point about CCM leading to lowering standards all around is, I would say, impossible to prove. And I believe it's also guilty of the fallacy known as post hoc ergo propter hoc: X followed after Y, therefore Y is the cause of X. It fails to consider other factors.


Those would be my thoughts. Now, if you find CCM to be a problem or it causes problems for you--then, certainly, avoid it. I as a fellow believer have no right to judge you for it, and I am commanded to respect your feelings and be careful not to be a stumbling block to you.

 

[evenifigoalone]

Could you please prove that the fundamentalist hymns were once regarded as sensual?

I find this to be hard to believe.

While I at this time know of no documentation, I'm told that some of the music used for some of the old hymns (remember, there are thousands) were originally tunes played in bars and stuff. (Or maybe it was that it was the same style of music.) Although it's possible this might not be true, I'll admit, I don't find it much of a stretch. It seems plausible. After all, music styles change over time, and that was what they had back then. So naturally worldly places would play the music popular at the time.

I tend to think it's probably true, to at least some extent, that Christians at the time may have been skeptical, because...well, they say history repeats itself. I doubt Christians wanting to stick to the "old stuff" is something that only came about in the latter half of the 20th century.

 

[preachinjesus]

Could you please prove that the fundamentalist hymns were once regarded as sensual?

I find this to be hard to believe.

Okay, I've fact checked these two quotes and found them to be reputable:

"I am no music scholar, but I feel I know appropriate church music when I hear it. Last Sunday’s new hymn – if you can call it that – sounded like a sentimental love ballad one would expect to hear crooned in a saloon. If you insist on exposing us to rubbish like this – in God’s house! – don’t be surprised if many of the faithful look for a new place to worship. The hymns we grew up with are all we need."

This was found in a letter written in 1863 about the hymn "Just As I Am".

Another said:

"What is wrong with the inspiring hymns with which we grew up? When I go to church, it is to worship God, not to be distracted with learning a new hymn. Last Sunday’s was particularly unnerving. The tune was un-singable and the new harmonies were quite distorting."

This is from 1890 and is about "What A Friend We Have In Jesus"

 

[evenifigoalone]

Ah, that's right--I just remembered that Isaac Watt's hymns were not always well received in their time, either.

 

[ShagNappy]

William Booth - "Satan would have to be battled within his own strongholds, and any means was justifiable, William decided, if it would attract sinners to listen to the message of salvation ... Thus it was that as the work grew, the music and street parades attracted increasing crowds of people who scorned the regular churches. 'Why should the devil have all the best tunes?' William replied when chided for appropriating music of popular tunes for his hymns ... "

"The saying that 'the devil has no right to all the good tunes' has been attributed to both William Booth and Charles Spurgeon. But it was George Scott Railton, who was to become William's lieutenant general in 1873 and was well-known as an author and songwriter, who concluded an article 'About Singing' (1874) with this impassioned plea: 'Oh, let us rescue this precious instrument from the clutches of the devil, and make it, as it may be made, a bright and lively power for good!'"

Francis Crosby was another famous for appropriating music to use for hymns.

Manfred F. Bukofzer, 'Popular and Secular Music in England', The New Oxford History of Music 3: Ars Nova and the Renaissance, 1300-1540, ed. Anselm Hughes and Gerald Abraham (London: Oxford University Press, 1960), p. 108

Been doing a fair bit of studying of Church History and the History of Music at Luther Rice. The truth of the matter is, whatever you consider appropriate church music, a generation or two prior called it the devils music and wanted it banned. Even the precious old hymnals.

The early church based its worship practices a lot on Temple worship since the Jews had a system that worked, and many were, Jews. And temple worship was something to see. In modern vernacular, they threw down because they were praising the Creator. About 100 years after Christ that the whining and complaining started. It reached the point anything other than singing was not allowed in church. It remained that way for quite some time. And it has been a war every since it started to change back. At one time any church that had a piano in it was consider heretical.

There is no such thing as "evil" music. It is in the lyrics and the intent and anything more than that is someone who just refuses to accept the fact that their way is not God's way and people want something different.

 

[InTheLight]

"Contemporary Christian Music openly and proudly uses any type music in the service of the Lord and refuses to separate from music that is openly used in the worship of the flesh and the devil.

What is worldly music? Worldly music is music that sounds like the music used by the world for sinful activities.

I don't have time to read the whole article, I will try later. I will say this though--at one point almost every song style and certainly every musical instrument was first used by worldly performers. Think about it. When was the piano introduced into church music? Well, that would be after it was used in "worldly" performances by popular songwriters of the day (early 1800's). What about the clarinet? Wasn't that originally used by orchestras and bands giving "worldly" performances and then adopted by the church?

Just what is the difference between a hymn from the Sword of the Lord Hymnal in a 3/4 tempo accompanied by a piano vs. a popular song from the 1870's in 3/4 tempo accompanied by a piano? Answer: the lyrics.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Can anyone recommend a good book on Music?

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

I'm getting kind of tired of seeing this legalistic pap on here. The Bible nowhere condemns any particular style of music. The Bible nowhere declares any particular musical instrument to be ungodly. The Bible mentions numerous kinds of string instruments and wind instruments. While the Bible does not specifically mention drums, it does mention other percussion instruments. Nearly all of the forms of modern music are variations and/or combinations of the same types of musical instruments, played at different speeds or with heightened emphasis.

Words/lyrics are important to consider, but even if we don't like the way a message is presented, if it is a godly message -- a message that speaks biblical truth, is edifying, uplifting (maybe not to you, but that's not what's important, it might be uplifting to someone else) -- there is no reason to condemn it. If you don't like it, don't listen to it. But don't condemn it universally. That's not your job.

There are those for whom rock-style music is practically an addiction. For them, I would recommend they not listen to music that puts them back in the action of the rock lifestyle. That said, there is no biblical basis to declare any particular style of music to be ungodly or outside of God’s will. So stop doing it.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

I'm getting kind of tired of seeing this legalistic pap on here. The Bible nowhere condemns any particular style of music. The Bible nowhere declares any particular musical instrument to be ungodly. The Bible mentions numerous kinds of string instruments and wind instruments. While the Bible does not specifically mention drums, it does mention other percussion instruments. Nearly all of the forms of modern music are variations and/or combinations of the same types of musical instruments, played at different speeds or with heightened emphasis.

Words/lyrics are important to consider, but even if we don't like the way a message is presented, if it is a godly message -- a message that speaks biblical truth, is edifying, uplifting (maybe not to you, but that's not what's important, it might be uplifting to someone else) -- there is no reason to condemn it. If you don't like it, don't listen to it. But don't condemn it universally. That's not your job.

There are those for whom rock-style music is practically an addiction. For them, I would recommend they not listen to music that puts them back in the action of the rock lifestyle. That said, there is no biblical basis to declare any particular style of music to be ungodly or outside of God’s will. So stop doing it.

1st off, I have never stated that any type of instrument is sinful, I am talking about the way these instruments are used.

Secondly, having high standards does not make on a legalist, a legalist is someone who claims you must keep the law or live a certain way in order to earn salvation, just because they have a higher standard than you doesn't mean you can call them a legalists, everyone has a standards.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

... a legalist is someone who claims you must keep the law or live a certain way ...

Not to earn salvation, as you went on to claim, but to be able to claim "true Christianity." What I quoted, with that clarification, is exactly what is going on in this and the original CCM thread.

... just because they have a higher standard than you doesn't mean you can call them a legalists, everyone has a standards.

"Than you ... " meaning me. And that isn't a judgment?

This is legalism, plain, pure and simple.

Here's a newsflash, Jordan: Christ is the only standard we have. None of us measure up. No one ever has. No one ever will. As long as I proclaim Christ, honor Christ, serve Christ, what I listen to, read, do relative to accomplishing those things is my way of living as a Christian, and no one has the right to judge it. Whether your realize it or not, your threads here are an attempt to get everyone to conform to how you view it. Sorry, but I choose to disagree. God bless.