Should some beats be avoided?

[D28guy]

DHK,

You posted these lyrics......

"I can only imagine
What it will be like
When I walk
By your side

I can only imagine
What my eyes will see
When your face
Is before me
I can only imagine"

And then said...

"I know I am going to be shouted down for this, but in my opinion this is one of the most shallow songs I have ever heard. If it were not for the chorus and a couple of other verses, that is, if the one listening on the radio (or whatever), had only heard these first two verses what would he think:
1. That the woship would be directed to Allah, Buddha, or even to Princess Dianna? Who knows? One cannot tell."

I'm not going to "shout you down" at all, brother. Only point something out.

"...had only heard these first two verses what would he think:
1. That the woship would be directed to Allah, Buddha, or even to Princess Dianna? Who knows? One cannot tell..."

Yes, they could clearly tell who it was directed to. They would know by the very lyrics that came immedietly after you stopped quoting!

Here is what comes immedietly after your quote...

[Chorus:]
Surrounded by Your glory, what will my heart feel
Will I dance for you Jesus or in awe of you be still
Will I stand in your presence or to my knees will I fall
Will I sing hallelujah, will I be able to speak at all
I can only imagine

I can only imagine
When that day comes
And I find myself
Standing in the Son

There is absolutly no doubt who is being worshipped. It is as crystal clear as it is in any of those great wonderful hymns.

God bless,

Mike

 

[Sopranette]

I'd like to add that there is no such thing as a "sacred" hymn. To say there is violates the second commandment.

Love,

Sopranette

 

[ccrobinson]

I'd like to add that there is no such thing as a "sacred" hymn.

Huh? You can't even use the word "sacred" as an adjective to describe a hymn? Of course we can call a hymn sacred.

Definitions of the word sacred can be found here. I've copied it to this thread for convenience.

Sacred
1. devoted or dedicated to a deity or to some religious purpose; consecrated.
2. entitled to veneration or religious respect by association with divinity or divine things; holy.
3. pertaining to or connected with religion (opposed to secular or profane): sacred music; sacred books.
4. reverently dedicated to some person, purpose, or object: a morning hour sacred to study.
5. regarded with reverence: the sacred memory of a dead hero.
6. secured against violation, infringement, etc., as by reverence or sense of right: sacred oaths; sacred rights.
7. properly immune from violence, interference, etc., as a person or office.

Here's the commandment in question.

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:

How is calling something sacred making it into a graven image?

Oh, I forgot, you can't answer because you won't see this because I'm on your "ignore list". Could somebody pass my question on to Sopranette?

 

[annsni]

I still don't understand how, if the world likes something, it makes it unGodly. I have a pretty skirt I tried on last week to see if it was something I wanted to get to wear for church. It's a long black moleskin skirt that turned out to be very flattering. Another woman was there and said "Oh - I like that skirt!" Should I have not bought it? does it mean that it was now identifying with the world?

How can a song - even a song that sings of Christ and has a wonderful melody - be "worldly" and an enemy of Christ just because someone of the world likes it? I don't think that's a good measuring stick of whether something is Godly or not. Hey - the Jehovah's Witnesses that came to the door the other day raved about the KJV. I guess that's now an unGodly Bible.

 

[Sopranette]

Is your skirt being used in conjunction to worshiping God? That would be the difference. It's not a question of liking something made by the world. You can like apple pie. It's when it is becoming a part of worship, when it's being used to carry His message, that it becomes something we must be careful about.

love,

Sopranette

 

[Alcott]

How is calling something sacred making it into a graven image?

There are a number of pages in this thread that I ain't gonna bother to read, but this is a point in regard to music, or almost anything. Calling something "sacred" does not make it an object of worship, but it is very possible to be so 'in love' with a song, a building, even a righteous principle that it becomes the object of worship. Example: the Pharisees and scribes who condemned Jesus for healing on the sabbath. They worshipped the sabbath and the principle of desist.

In the case of the building, as I mentioned, how much more money and manpower do we put into the facilities than are actually utilized in helping people? Do we worship our facilities in much the way the Pharisees worshipped the sabbath? The circumstances show it to be comparable.

But songs? Are we going to leave a church or not take part in a ministry because it doesn't 'do' the songs or the type of music or melody that we like? Putting that ahead of justice, mercy, and charity is not consistent with anything in NT scripture.

In case I have left any doubt, I do say condemning a style of music compares to the Pharisees condmening Jesus for healing on the sabbath. What else is going on with 'that noisy church that can't sing without drums and guitars?' If they're helping widows and orphans, I would choose them over a church that sings only 'classical' hymns with a piano and is self-centered with their priorites being stained glass, new carpeting, and cushioned pews (to be soft where it matters to them).

 

[Sopranette]

It is true that CCM sounds a lot like the music of the world. A lot of it could be mistaken easily for mainstream if the words were changed or omited. But this very thing can be a positive.

Is it ever right to use deception to bring the message of Christ to the unsaved? Would you ever do this when witnessing? Wouldn't it be better if things were more straighforward, when the hymn used is clearly a hymn, and not like anything else they may be used to? This kind of reminds me of how I like to sneak in more vegetables into foods my kids already like, disguising the taste so they'll eat them.


love,

Sopranette

 

[Alex Quackenbush]

Come page 30, come quickly. :laugh:

 

[Ivon Denosovich]

DHK, I'm sure you're a fine human being but you owe it to yourself to drop this.

First you claim,

When the beat becomes prominent, over-riding the lyrics and melody so that the words cannot be understood, then it is evil.

Which of course totally misses the point that just because you... well, I'm SURE you aren't interested in hearing this point again since you have ignored several times to date.

But then, for some unfathomable reason, you decide to admit you CAN understand the lyrics:

If it were not for the chorus and a couple of other verses, that is, if the one listening on the radio (or whatever), had only heard these first two verses what would he think[SNIP]

So if it weren't for the explicit lyrics the lyrics wouldn't be explicit eh? And if a person weren't paying attention to the context of the song then they would miss the context eh?

For those keeping score:

1) If DHK can't understand the lyrics then the music is evil regardless of who else may be able to.

2) When DHK does understand the lyrics he still must ponder what if he hadn't heard or understood the lyrics.

At the risk of sounding condescending, DHK, find peace with logic.

 

[Alcott]

Is it ever right to use deception to bring the message of Christ to the unsaved? Would you ever do this when witnessing?

For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I may win more.
To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law;
to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law.
To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some. I do all things for the sake of the gospel, so that I may become a fellow partaker of it.

I Corinthians 9:19-23

 

[Sopranette]

And I have seen some preachers take that to bizarre extremes more than once.

love,

Sopranette

 

[Trotter]

Deception? That would be a stretch. No one has a monopoly on musical styles.

I participate in our church's FAITH ministry. We go out and visit people in their homes to share Christ. We don't pound on the door, tell them they are a sinner and going to hell, though. We talk to them, and we listen. We seek to establish a connection with them. then, once we have trust with them, we ask if we may ask them a personal question. From there we move into the FAITH outline and presentation.

Would this be called deceptive? We are sharing with them the message of eternal life, but we didn't start out that way. CCM uses many of the same notes and style of worldly music, but the words, meanings, and focus are completely different.

God uses many things to draw men to Him. I have seen carnivals, cookouts, fishing tournements, sporting events, and many other different things used to draw people to hear the Good News. Would these be considered deception?

People that reject CCM must do so by way of personal preference. There is not any real basis for rejecting it outside of this. To try to make a reason requires a real stretch or some heavy-duty eisegesis.

 

[rbell]

Is it ever right to use deception to bring the message of Christ to the unsaved? Would you ever do this when witnessing? Wouldn't it be better if things were more straighforward, when the hymn used is clearly a hymn, and not like anything else they may be used to? This kind of reminds me of how I like to sneak in more vegetables into foods my kids already like, disguising the taste so they'll eat them.


love,

Sopranette

So our standard is that it must "clearly sound like a hymn? Where is the Scripture that tells us what a hymn sounds like? (Hint: Not there).

Furthermore...our standard for worship is, according to you: "something you're not used to." I've known some non-Christians who were comfortable with the "standard Baptist service" and some very mature Christians who were comfortable worshiping in less-than "traditional" settings (caveat: As long as the Word is central to the worship).

Since when did personal preference deserve to be elevated to this standard? (and yes, that obviously can cut "both ways." And I have seen it do so.)

 

[Bro. James]

Making a Joyful Noise

How about 10,000 male voices singing "How Great Thou Art"--acapella--indoors?

We use hymn books and vocal cords to make a joyful noise unto the Lord. Some do not need the books. What God has made is beautiful. Man likes to perform. Man likes to applaud--himself and others.

Most modern day worship(?) is entertainment of the flesh--tickling of the ears and gyrations of the body.

When does God get the glory for the great things He has done?

..and the beat goes on...

Shalom,

Selah,

Bro. James

 

[Sopranette]

Wow! I would have loved to have seen and heard that, brother James. I have heard Lutheran hymns sung a capella done in a Word Painting style, and it was incredibly rich, a tapestry of sound.

Well, I guess we're nearing the 30 page limit soon, so I'd like to say before the thread is closed thank you to all who have participated in this discussion. I have learned a great deal, on both sides, and I am seeing things in a whole new light.

warm, fluffy fondness,

Sopranette

 

[rbell]

Most modern day worship(?) is entertainment of the flesh--tickling of the ears and gyrations of the body.

and your post was going so well....

I suppose you have empirical evidence for your claim. "Most" indicates a majority. "Tickling of the ears" means it is only meant to please the listener. "Gyrations of the body" indicates a sexual undertone and purpose.

So.....a majority of modern-day music sung in corporate worship does that?

You can't back that up.

 

[Joshua Rhodes]

How about 10,000 male voices singing "How Great Thou Art"--acapella--indoors?

Bet that was cool!

We use hymn books and vocal cords to make a joyful noise unto the Lord. Some do not need the books. What God has made is beautiful. Man likes to perform. Man likes to applaud--himself and others.

Most modern day worship(?) is entertainment of the flesh--tickling of the ears and gyrations of the body.

When does God get the glory for the great things He has done?

..and the beat goes on...

Shalom,

Selah,

Bro. James

Um yeah... men wrote the hymns too, James.

 

[Bro. James]

Backing it up

I have been unable to find in the NT where churches used musical instruments in worship. I did observe that John the Baptist was beheaded at the behest of a dancing girl at a birthday party. There is a spiritual message here somewhere.

I have participated in "musical" worship in Catholic, Mormon, Methodist, Non-D, and various Baptist groups. I also led singing in a number of "Baptist" settings, over the past 40 years; most of which time I was not "converted". Yep, like so many, I was playing church--with a big P.

Jesus, turned me around. He also convicted me about how to worship God in Spirit and in Truth.

In the area of musical worship I became convinced there is no need for Beat in worship. The Lord gave most of us beautiful voices--they make a joyful noise with harmony and melody only--yep, a capella. That may not be a good technical description; but I know the hymns sung unaccompanied make me just close my eyes and rejoice. I do not get that response from hymns with strings, drums, and brass--while I do tap to the beat. I am convinced that tapping music entertains me only and only the rejoicing pleases God. It is so simple and beautiful. This is why I ask: Are we entertaining ourselves or praising God when we worship?

Three weeks ago I visited a Bible Church with a friend. The last "song" before the message was an instrumental rendition of I am not sure what, played on a piano Liberace/beergarden style. Many applauded the performance. The speaker thanked the performer profusely. It took me several minutes to get into the message--which also tickled my ears.

This is why I say most(an alarming number) of modern worship services are entertaining the flesh--through the music.

Shalom,

Bro. James

 

[Joshua Rhodes]

THanks James for recounting this conviction.

This does not mean that because YOU were convicted of something, it holds sway over everyone else. Our worship services are not about entertainment. There is no gyration... I weigh 260 pounds and I doubt anyone is stirred to sexual thoughts by me, no matter what I sing.

 

[annsni]

In the area of musical worship I became convinced there is no need for Beat in worship. The Lord gave most of us beautiful voices--they make a joyful noise with harmony and melody only--yep, a capella. That may not be a good technical description; but I know the hymns sung unaccompanied make me just close my eyes and rejoice. I do not get that response from hymns with strings, drums, and brass--while I do tap to the beat. I am convinced that tapping music entertains me only and only the rejoicing pleases God. It is so simple and beautiful. This is why I ask: Are we entertaining ourselves or praising God when we worship?

This is why I say most(an alarming number) of modern worship services are entertaining the flesh--through the music.

However, what is the difference? You closed your eyes and rejoiced. That was a fleshly response and wrong according to many here.

I get the same way with some of the modern songs. What's the difference?