Featured Music (oh man its about to go down)

So then, what you're saying is that you've abandoned Biblical eccesiology in order to make church palatable to the unregenerate.

Have you ever thought about what's happening to the sheep while you're busy entertaining the goats?

How do we know you're doing this? After all, you've already shown that you can't get your ecclesiology right.

You know that's an urban legend that's been debunked many, many times, right?

 

When it comes down to any standard established in our lives it is important that we can support what we believe rather than merely bash the opposition. Music is a standard I have been researching in my own life. Sadly, I have found minimal support for either side, mainly because the viewpoints are steeped with opinion and preference rather than substantial evidence.

What I have found concerning rock and roll music is that I could never label this genre as Christian. The term "rock and roll" itself is describing sex. Rock music in most situations saturates itself with sex and rebellion. Ever heard of the group WASP? Their name is short for "We Are Sexual Perverts." The artists who perform rock assert on countless occasions that their music is about rebellion while they themselves carryout lifestyles of flagrant immorality. Remember what the Bible said: "Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft." God is clear about His stance on this. Now this is not all inclusive, but there numerous rock artists clearly involved in Satanic activity or else are obsessed with the darker side of the world and humanity. The nature of this genre does not lend at all to being pulled into the Christian world of music, especially when God commands us to think "on whatsoever things are good, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report."

There is so much more to be researched and analyzed. I hardly consider this post to be substantial in satiating your question and I apologize that I cannot site any of this information; I'm sitting at a residence hall desk right now. I highly suggest researching the topic on your own with the desire to know the truth. This has allowed me to find the answers to so many questions that I have had in life.

 

Thank You......

Thank You...your post is like a breath of fresh air to me. I could not agree more with your statement. So much of what we believe, say and do rides on the root motivations that drive us. If we REALLY WOULD do as Paul taught and learn to DIE DAILY to our flesh with its whims and desires I think there would be a huge difference in the things we would allow in our lives. The old man is constantly trying to assert itself and shall til we depart this life. Your "take" on "Rock and Roll" is spot on! It is part of the filth of this world and can't be sanitized simply by changing the words. Even the Rock musicians themselves know and admit that.

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

OK. Let's say we changed the name of it and called it something else. Now what do you do with that objection?

"In most situations"??? Really? That's odd, because, of the 13,000 songs on my ipod, I can only think of two that even address sex.

WASP??? Really? Way to keep up with current events. Any Bobby Sherman news you want to trot out while you're at it?

Seriously, though, what about those of us who don't listen to WASP or heavy metal?

How do you know? More to the point, how do you know they are actually involved and not just pretend to be involved to cultivate an image?

I mean, look at all of the people who thought David Bowie was a homosexual.

In Don Felder's book, "Heaven or Hell: My Life With the Eagles", he states that rumors have always persisted that the Eagles were members of Anton LeVay's Church of Satan. He explained that he was the most religious member of the group, being a backslidden Baptist, and that the rest of the band didn't have any religious beliefs, Satanic or otherwise. He went on to explain that the band found the rumors amusing and they decided, if people want to believe that, let them. It would be good publicity.

Careful. I'm sure your heart is in the right place, but be careful that you don't cross the line over into gossip and slander.

 

And yet you like Andrew Peterson's music...which many might consider a mild form of "Rock".

I simply think the definitions are lacking, and so one person is thinking of strumming along to "Here I am to worship" on their old 6-string...and they say: "This is Good and God-honoring".

Another person is thinking of WASP singing about fornication and losing all self-control in every area of life...and they say: "This is bad and sinful."

So of course, they are both right.

 

It is #2 that, at least in my mind, I was specifically referring.

"Secular" tunes that were familiar, if not popular in their day that were used to create "new" music. I keep forgetting that there is somewhat of a hypersensitivity anything alcohol related. By saying those songs may have been employed over a pint of ale, in my mind does not constitute a "bar song".

Your assertions of 1 and 3 go beyond my the context of my post, but I am grateful for the insights.

 

Did you or did you not say you were trying to make church more palatable to the unregenerate?

I define it as the ekklesia. How 'bout you?

 

No, that's what you said. We choose to "dress down" not to "make church more palatable" but to create an atmosphere in our worship gatherings where genuine ministry can happen, which would include evangelism, but not be limited to that solely. "Church" by definition cannot be for the unregenerate, since they are still "outsiders". Church is not worship gatherings although in the baptist world it seems some are unable to disassociate the two.

For you accusation/assumption to hold water, a church would maybe allow people to become "members" without them having a credible testimony of faith and/or evidence or perhaps a church would take a low view of sin, allowing those who are members to live in open rebellion. The gospel has and always will be confrontational. We make no bones about that. In light of that, we are kind and hospitable to everyone who connects with on on our campus or in our small groups.

I would as well...

I continue to be stymied at the open hostility and accusatory tone here on BB...

 

Oh, OK. That's funny. I could have sworn it was you who said in post #78, "We are definitely "dressed down" in our worship gatherings as the people we are reaching are either unchurched or dechurched and want little or nothing to do with traditional "church".

Then why are you crafting your church to suit them?

Yeah, odd, isn't it. Particularly the things your side has said to us.

Then why do you include the unregenerate?

 

Last time... church is not a worship gathering. A worship gathering is one thing we do, not the only thing we do. We don't "craft" our church to suit the "unregenerate" only to create an environment/atmosphere where people are are welcomed and comfortable. If you have issue with that, I don't know what to tell you other than "be warmed and be filled".

And for the record, I have absolutely no idea what "side" you perceive me to be on. Did I run over your puppy or something? Seriously, what are you talking about and who are you lumping me with?

 

So you have this community wide, open door "worship service" in addition to your regular services?

And why on Earth would you invite the unregenerate to "worship" somebody they're at emnity with, anyway?

But you didn't say "people". You named a specific group of people, namely, the unregenerate.

 

Aren't lost folks welcome in your worship gatherings? Oh no wait a minute, you guys have ushers checking for WWJD bracelets at the door. If you don't have the right ID, you send them home. Do you hear what you're saying?

Inviting lost people to connect with us in a worship gathering isn't so they can "worship"... we recognize they are incapable of doing so. They will hear God's Word proclaimed exegetically and have an opportunity to respond to the gospel. I would rather guests connect in a small group off campus before they ever come to a worship gathering. That way, they can witness what biblical community is for themselves... see the gospel being lived out by our people.

We love the lost and are willing to do anything and everything we can (short of compromising the Gospel) so they will come to a saving faith in Jesus.

You ignored my final question... who's side do you perceive me to be on?

 

They're welcome to visit but they're visitors, not the focus of the service.

I hear that you're lying about what we believe, which, given your other posts here doesn't surprise me in the least.

But isn't that what evangelism is for? The Biblical model of evangelism is always for the church to go out into the highways and byways to proclaim repentence to the lost, not to invite them in and tailor the order of the service around them.

The side you're currently arguing for.

By the way, when you allegedly preach the Gospel, whatever "gospel" it is you preach, do you use a real Bible or do you use that Living Translation mess? Or do you even know the difference?

 

Wow... I'm not sure how you got all bent out of shape, but let me clarify something... I'm not arguing, you are. You have crossed a line and have now accused me of lying and preaching a false gospel.

However I have offended you, I ask for your forgiveness. If you have more to say to me, please do so through PM. I will be more than happy to continue our discussion there.

 

In many local churches today, there is a battle between what we call traditional and contemporary music. For those who like what we call traditional, what we are talking about is a liking for hymns written between say 1750 to the mid 1900s. There is nothing wrong with that. Also, there is nothing wrong with contemporary music. Taking a longer view, it congregations today had to sing the hymns from Biblical times like the Psalms, they would probably dislike them as much as they do contemporary if not more. There is no telling how many cycles of this we have been through since Acts. The bottom line is does the song honor the Lord. Modern day songs like "Drop Kick Me Jesus Through the Goal Posts of Life" certainly do not.

I do not recall where, but there used to be a website that tried to recreate the music of the Psalms.

 

So, are you saying that you weren't lying when you said:

"Oh no wait a minute, [your church] have ushers checking for WWJD bracelets at the door. If you don't have the right ID, you send them home. Do you hear what you're saying? "

 

The Psalms also "encourage" animal sacrifice, but their allusions to types and shadows under a dispensation that has expired cannot be interpreted as commandments to the church except in their spiritual significance. That's what I mean by your "take," not whether or not you can read the word "loud."

You must have missed my Spirit exception. But there is nothing under the sun with which a man has to do that the Scriptures do not touch upon. (Those who cite cars and computers understand neither cars, computers nor the Scriptures.) But music is part of human nature, and there is no "style" that is really new. There is no new thing under the sun.

No, what we're going to say is that excess in anything except the Spirit is condemned and sensual.

Paul new the word. So did the Ephesians. And they knew that hymns aren't dithyrambs. The point is, that the character of Christian interaction is such that it excludes them as a style, their manner lacking the virtues of moderation and self-control.

Learn to recognize metonymy. He is speaking of a profligate lifestyle.

Sure, when you tell me what Scriptures describe "a proud look." We know the Lord hates a proud look. So when you can show me the Scriptures that describe the angle of the nose, tilt of the head, postions of the eyebrows, etc. so that we can know when crossed the line from gravity to pride, I will give you a music theory lesson from the Scriptures.

 

Changing the name still wouldn't remove the original intent.

Perhaps the term "rock culture" would have been better in that sentence. Also, you alluded the conjoining word "rebellion".

I guess if association is not an issue.

I am well aware of Conservatives who have gone overboard accusing every rock artist of being a full blown Satanist. I know that there are definitely exceptions. So pretending to be a part of a cult that completely blasphemes God, but not actually being involved is okay as long as it is cultivating an image. Good to know.

Sorry if some of my quotes were too all inclusive. I realize the exceptions, and perhaps should have clarified. Nonetheless, much of what I said was factual and could hardly fall under gossip/slander. You seem to imply that the information is possibly the exception and not the norm. That is your conclusion, and it is plausible that I'm not knowledgeable enough at this time to assert otherwise. We are both accountable to God for what we know and how we respond. May we always seek to glorify Him in every aspect of our lives including standards.

 

First of all, if it's the "original intent" and not the name, then why did you make a point of pointing out that the name indicates illicit activity?

Second, do you mean the original intent of the name or the music? If you mean the name, then why wouldn't changing the name solve the problem?

If you mean the music, then what's your evidence for this and how do you account for all of the music that isn't about sex?

But aren't the 13,000 songs on my ipod representative of the "rock culture"?

It's not.

I don't think it's OK, but I am smart enough to see the difference.

I personally don't care for violence in movies, but don't you think it's a little ridiculous to equate an actor playing a murderer with actually murdering somebody?

What about what you said that's not factual and does fall under gossip and slander?

It's what I call the "Bob Marley Defense". That is, claiming that not shooting the deputy somehow makes you less culpable for shooting the sherrif.