Using organ in the church is a sin!

Dr. Bob, yes! And Miriam dancing and playing her tambourine! David dancing in the streets in his linen epoch (undergarment) with common folk!!

The JOY of the Lord is my strength! Praise HIM!

God inhabits the praises of HIS people!

Let everything that hath breath praise the Lord!

It's all about the heart........ in my humble opinion!

Diane

 

ScottEmerson writes:
>>PLease challenge this post, if you can. Somehow
>>I doubt it'll see much response from those who
>>would use such argmuents. Aaron? S.W.?

I am a little late on this, but I am afraid I am missing something.
The point attempting to be made, although satirical, does not even contain one Scriptural passage that reinforces the argument. If this were offered to me as doctrine, I would reject it on that basis alone.

My question: how is this to be applied to the argument for/against CCM? I know that this question was directed at the people you mentioned in the last sentence, but could you explain this to me?
(That is an honest question, not an attempt to answer.)

 

By your own admission it appeals to the non-believer, are you telling us it appeals in a spiritual sense, whereas hymns don't?

 

Scott, I honestly don't know any young non-believers who frequently listen to hymns. Whereas you can and have confirmed that they find CCM appealing.

You further concede that it is 'the sound' that is appealing.

We should be seeking to appeal to people spiritually through the lyrics of a hymn/song, not allowing the the sensual appeal of music to get in the way of this. For this reason the music must be kept in the background, or it should be done away with altogether.

Instruments are there only to aid the singer in keeping in tune, they add nothing to the worship in God's eyes. An inanimate object cannot worship God.

 

I must speak on this as a church musician. I do believe there are times in worship (singing hymns, choruses, solos, choir selections, ect) that instruments become the backdrop for a/the vocalist. But, to say that instruments are there only to aid a singer and that they add nothing to the worship in God's eyes is insane.

God gave the muscian the gift and ability to play. I have never seen a church pianist, accompanying a congregational song or choir anthem, sing while playing. I have had many say that while the don't sing, that they are worshipping God through their playing. Is God not pleased with their worship?

How many instrumental solos, specials, offertories, have been played in churches by way of the piano, flute, harp, guitar, trumpet, organ, orchestra, ect? Did God look down and say, I'm sorry you have wasted my time and added nothing to my worship?

No! God inhabits the praises of His people, Not just the singing of His people.

 

Thank you, Gib, for saying that.

As the church organist, I feel that I contribute to the worship of the Lord in playing the organ.

Music is many things to different people. It can set the tone of a worship service.

And I love to hear people singing to themselves the postlude that I play.

 

Thank you, Scott.
For the record, you and I are on the same page.

 

enda writes:

>>Instruments are there only to aid the singer in
>>keeping in tune, they add nothing to the
>>worship in God's eyes. An inanimate object
>>cannot worship God.

Have you ever heard any of J.S. Bach's religious music?

 

Gib,

I can see where you are coming from, I didn't make myself clear in my last post.

I am an artist (painter) and can relate to musicians in this sense. I consider my talent to be a special creative gift from God, I have studied this subject deeply over the last few months.

I consider musicians to have a similar creative gift to my own. Of course in using these gifts we are honouring and glorifying God, and we have a duty, I feel, to use these in our daily lives. John Calvin goes further in saying "God is despised in his gifts except we honour those on whom He has conferred any excellency".

So please understand I am not belittleing the gifts of musicians.

However, when we meet for corporate worship we meet together as a body with a diversity of gifts. I don't dispute that the organist is worshiping God in playing their instrument whilst the congregation sings. I would dispute that this worship is any more acceptable to God than the hymn sung by the most tuneless singer in the congregation (thats me in our church )for God is the giver of all good gifts.

There is a time and place to honour those with gifts, but to do so by giving them special place in a service where we are seeking to worship God is very wrong IMO. That is why I feel that the music should be kept in the background, in this way it doesn't take prominence over or interfere with the worship offered by others.

God Bless

Enda

PS Hope that post better explains my thoughts and is less offensive to all you musicians out there.
Sorry Gib, Sorry Thankful, Sorry Bach.

 

Okay. But I don't remember saying anything about this for you to dispute.

 

If you read my post, I never said that an instrumental solo was more important than a song being sung. You are putting words in my mouth that others may have said to you.

But, I believe (not dispute) that instrumental preludes, offertories, solos or whatever you may call them are just as cherished by God as a vocal solo or hymns and songs being sung by a congregation or choir.

I have seen no proof that God puts more importance on singing in worship than any other act of worship. We can swap Bible verses to support our beliefs. But we never find the ultimate verse that says singing Godly songs is more worshipful than any other form of worship.

 

Nice try Scott, but thats not what I said and you know it. Worship in Spirit and in truth is the only form of worship which is acceptable to God. Sensual worship is not acceptable.

I am merely assuming that the musician can overcome the sensual nature of their gift and I am suggesting that the music shouldn't be loud or prominant enough for its sensual nature to interfere with the worship of others.

Further, I ascert that a solo instrumental in no way enhances the worship of the congregation, it is merely an act of worship by the musician at best. At worst it is placing the musician in a place of prominance, encouraging the congregation to focus on them rather than on God and thus robbing God of the Glory that is due to Him alone.
Sorry if that dents anyones pride, but thats how I see it.

 

Sensual: pertaining to the senses, as DISTINCT from the mind, carnal (fleshly). (The Greenwich English Dictionary)

Everyone, here's how Hymn singing is NOT sensual:

It is NOT distinct from the mind. The words are formed and find meaning in the intellect. The music, if it is used, should be in the background and not interfering with the intellectual and spiritual aspect of singing praise to God.

And here's how Praise and Worship music is :

The music is prominant, with great variety of instruments, it does not appeal only to the intellect, it is sensual in nature, in that it appeals to the flesh.

Just look around you, what is the most popular pastime of todays spiritually dead non-believer?
Answer: listening to music.

 

Once again, non of this explains why. As I said, it could have been money or many other things. But not the philosophy later leaders added to try to legalize this absence:

What "apostolic literature"? Right away, we see people making up "apostolic literature", but it is not in the canoni9zed Bible. Which says a lot. If all this stuff they are saying is so true, then why didn't God bother to inspire someone to say "instruments are not apart of New Covenant Church worship"? Once again, these people are trying to fill in the blanks, but there speculations are no better than my suggestion that it may have been lack of money.

What is this based on? This person's own opinion, without a shred of biblical evidence.

Here we begin seeing the gentiles' contempt for the Jews beginning to surface with Justin, and full blown by Aquinas' time. The gentiles coming into the church saw the stubbornness of the Jews condemned, and then thought the tables were turned, and that they were now the "chosen", and that the Jews were now the heathen dogs, as the Jews thought about them, but in doing this, they were making the same exact error the Jews had made in the first place. And what they were replacing the Jewish mindset with was pagan philosophy. At least the Jews got their worship directly from God! Once again, if this association of instruments with the blindness of the Jews was true, then why didn't Paul and the others teach it?

All any of this shows is that pagan gentile influence in the church first banned instruments, and that after it became more established and formed the grate Roman heirarchy, some decided to bring them back in. But notice, the monks opposed. Since when do we follow their notion of spirituality? It was their monastic/ascetic philosophy taking hold that got the instruments out and made the music and worship somber, so of course it would be they who opposed bringing them back in. But we do not look to them to set the standard of true worship.

So the instruments have no bearing on this "style" issue, so why do you keep bringing it up? You use instruments now, but only in a plain style, and lively and even jazzy styles can be done without instruments. The plainest a-capella chanting can be done by heterodox semi-pagans, having a form of godliness, but denying the power, so what state does this leave them in, but "natural", "fleshy", Sensual", no matter how straight laced and somber they may be. So all of this means nothing.

 

enda writes:
>>The music is prominant, with great variety of
>>instruments, it does not appeal only to the
>>intellect, it is sensual in nature, in that it
>>appeals to the flesh.

HUH?
How can you possibly say this? You say that you don't intend to dent any egos, you apologize to Bach, and then write yet another post that undoubtedly is going to offend someone. Perhaps your praise and worship music differs from mine, but the music in my church is NOT sensual in nature - in any manner in which this term is applied.

>>Just look around you, what is the most popular
>>pastime of todays spiritually dead non-believer?
>>Answer: listening to music.

Sounds as though you have some sort of concrete evidence behind this statement that you have not shared with us.

Don't misunderstand me: if you have a personal conviction against praise and worship music, then that is fine. But remember that it is personal.