What is a backbeat?

Eric,

Actually a good answer to what was intended to be a sarcastic post! :thumbs::applause:

 

I sat through a class in college called intro to church music. In it we were indoctrinated to this ideology. I had to sit through 40 hours of having to hear why this backbeat was sinnful. At the end I realized that if I were to give it credibility that I would also have to give the Davinci Code credibility if I were going to be intellectually honest.

Scripture does nto speak to it. So neither should we.

 

same

Not only would CCM be much improved with that good solid back beat popping, but also with some good long extended improvisational guitar soloing.(or saxophone, keyboards, etc)

Not only does God love that backbeat but He gives guitar players the ability to streach out and solo...and it blesses Him when they do! :thumbs:

Why are christian bands so terrified of improvisational solos?

Mike

 

Eric B said:

Steve Miller's Contemporary Christian Music Debate mentioned a 3/4 "antipestic beat" that some said to be bad.

You mean an anapestic beat. An anapest is a metrical foot comprising three syllables, where the third is stressed (e.g. "and a one, and a two," etc.)

It's been a while since I read Miller's book, but as I recall he is critiquing the research of John Diamond - whose methods are dodgy, to be charitable.

 

5/4 should be sinful 'cause it can be hard to play!!:tongue3: :smilewinkgrin:

 

I thought they used chants in N.T. times. If so, then "Rock of Ages" would be too contemporary.

 

Absolutely correct.

 

I'll answer...

God created music.

You will then say something like, "That since God created all things good, all kinds of music are good."

My answer would then be, "Yes, God created all things good, but He didn't create them incorruptible." I would then appeal to the Fall of Adam as an example and the simple fact that all men are evil at heart despite their having being created good in the beginning.

 

Honesty is the best policy. :thumbs: And, honestly, the Scriptures state that "all things" in Christian worship are to be done decently and in order. The Scriptures therefore do indeed speak to the decency of musical styles in Christian worship. So should we.

 

no pipedude i wouldn't say that. you dont know me enough to guess what i would say.

what i would say is this - if satan can use any music to bring fleshly desires upon christians - HOW MUCH MORE can God use any music to bring up Godly desires upon christians.

then someone may say "but God wouldn't use something ungodly to bring someone to Christ"

quite the contrary - are you limiting God? i've seen God use ungodly people to bring them to Christ - and now they are disciples and out preaching the Truth.

 

Motzart! He had a pitch pipe and played with the Sons of Korah. :smilewinkgrin:

 

ah, it wouldn't be a music discussion without the out-of-context use of the "decently and in order" phrase.

This phrase has to do with tongues...not musical styles. Besides, we come back to the argument...show me where God has defined all post-1850 music as "indecent."

Continuing to use old, ancient, and new for the glory of God,

RBell

 

You thought it was pipedude who responded, but it was I. :type:

Who said that Satan can use "any music to bring fleshly desires upon christians"? Certainly not I.

And yet, we shouldn't knowingly ordain ungodly people to the Gospel ministry. And be careful. Your last statement sounds a lot like a concession on your part that much of CCM is fleshly and ungodly.

 

It has to do with much more than tongues. It's the conclusion of the passage beginning in with:

He then instructed them in the proper decorum for the exercise of several different aspects of worship, touching upon even the behavior of the women, concluding that "everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way."

Even if Paul had never mentioned the word "hymn" (psalm in the KJV), "all things," a comprehensive statement concerning every single act of worship, would certainly have included the use of music.

It defies rationality to insist that 1 Cor. 14:40 is only about tongues.

That's not my argument. My argument is that the Scriptures are not silent concerning musical styles, and that we're responsible to discern between decent and indecent styles.

 

He then instructed them in the proper decorum for the exercise of several different aspects of worship, touching upon even the behavior of the women, concluding that "everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way."

Well, unless the drummer is playing out of time, I fail to see the relevance.

If you just want us to read your unspoken, unsupported assumption into your "argument" (i.e. "certain musical styles/beats are morally bad and objectionable to God"), then you can take that as a given, but it still fails to persuade.

 

That's a given.

 

It is also out of context, which is how they take scripture. What else do you expect?:tongue3: