Why Is There Such a Battle OVER MUSIC??

[glfredrick]

If I were either allowed or chose to participate in the sport of gambling, I would bet that some of you would toss any 1st Century expression of worship right out of your churches.

Those people were FREAKS! They wore long hair. They wrapped themselves in a toga-like sheet and wore a dress-like robe over that. They walked around in sandals or bare feet. They spoke in a language that was not King James English (yea, nary a "Thee" amongst themeth...). They played musical instruments found in the Psalms, instruments with strings, tamborines, drums, cymbals, horns. They were loud -- as loud as they could play. They had a beat, and people danced while they worshiped!

 

[agedman]

Then we're back to the earlier question.

What is LOUD? At what point (perhaps a certain decibel range) does music become LOUD and change from music with a beat, to beat driven music?

A second question would be; what would you say to those who continue to worship even with LOUD, beat driven sound?

And another question comes to mind. Is worship supposed to be a
non-emotional thing? Do we not go through a range of emotions when we worship?

Asking questions about how loud is loud should be considered as nothing but a distraction.

Did God speak with a loud voice? When?

When God wants intimate fellowship, what voice did He use? When?

If the church is supposed to be worshiping God, then what should be the attitude and readiness to actually hear what God would speak in response?

I am not saying that a loud voice should not be used. As the indication in Scriptures a loud voice is used in worship when the people take a vow, or proclaim distress, or announce warnings of coming judgment.

But the historical evidence of when God actually deals with the believer in the most intimate of worship is when that believer is quiet, still, actively listening, and the Holy Spirit is molding our heart prayers and mutterings of distress.

Is such the setting of the modern contemporary worship? Nope

Is such the setting of most modern worship churches of any assembly? Nope

Should it be? Yes

Will it be attractive to the world and draw lots of people? Nope

But drawing a crowd isn't the assemblies job nor the purpose of the church.

 

[seekingthetruth]

There is a difference between Islam and Christianity. It would help if you were study early church history. Study some of the early church pastors and notice where they lived. What you are saying in essence that Mexico is the same as the U.S.

I never mentioned mexico.

John

 

[agedman]

If I were either allowed or chose to participate in the sport of gambling, I would bet that some of you would toss any 1st Century expression of worship right out of your churches.

Those people were FREAKS! They wore long hair. They wrapped themselves in a toga-like sheet and wore a dress-like robe over that. They walked around in sandals or bare feet. They spoke in a language that was not King James English (yea, nary a "Thee" amongst themeth...). They played musical instruments found in the Psalms, instruments with strings, tamborines, drums, cymbals, horns. They were loud -- as loud as they could play. They had a beat, and people danced while they worshiped!

Yep, and no wonder they were slaughtered by the thousands.

Being such an annoying neighbor. Such clatter would wake the dead.

No wonder the young man feel out of the rafters in his sleep. All the jumping around and whooping up a sweat plumb wore him out. :sleeping_2:

All that is sarcasm to say, perhaps you have the wrong idea of both the music and worship of the 1 - 15th century.

Especially, through the latter half of the 1st and through at least the 3rd, the church was the outcast. Highly persecuted, and the believers regularly rounded up for the entertainment of the heathen.

Like Jews during Nazi occupation, the believers new each other, but kept as undetected as necessary to not only stay alive but to further the Gospel.

Like Christians in the communist controlled areas of even this present time, they thrive in the midst of high persecution. The music did not draw attention to themselves, but most certainly tuned to God in unimaginable circumstances.

 

[gb93433]

About 30 years ago, the training people at work sent around a training film about the difference cultures between younger and older workers. It was titled something like "You are now the way you were then" It was mostly about the different work ethics and goals of the younger workers.

It is different and the talk I hear among so many my age are that they do not know how much longer they can hang on because of the stress. The younger generation is entering the job market and the older generation is stressed. Imagine that!

I have found in pastoring that so many are lazy and it is not limited to any one particular generation. However I find a lot of excuses coming from the older generation saying that they have done their work. Did they not ever catch the vision and were they just about church work? Today I do not find so much talk about church and the buildings but about Christ. The younger generation of pastors that I know personally are more about working and helping people grow in their faith not "doing church."

As a side issue, it also talked about the differences in music. The lecturer in the video indicated that the younger workers would still think that "rock and roll" music was good music when they are elderly. At the time, I could not believe it. I thought that as they mature, they would certainly learn to appreciate good music. Well, I believe that video now. Look what has happened to our churches.

I do not recall the organ and piano being in the early church. If I recall right the piano was played in the world before it was played in the church.

I wonder how many bar tunes are converted as part of CCM. The previous generations sang converted bar tunes that were put in the hymn book.

There are a lot of dead churches that play CCM and a lot of dead churches that play hymns. If anyone thinks that music controls sin then they have not read their Bible, or worked in a prison ministry, or discipled anyone. There are many who were in good churches and went to Sunday School who are in prison for murder. Every few weeks there is an article about the latest pastor who is pedophile too. Imagine what music did for him.

When I was in seminary a staff member told me that when her and her husband were in seminary they were told by the president at the time that everything they saw in the world they would also see in the seminary. I worked in maintenance and we saw godly people but we also saw: spouse abuse, pornography, immorality, greed, people coming to work late and doing a poor job, etc. While I was working at the seminary the chairman of the trustees was caught shacking up with two ladies he had "counseled" in his church.

Didn't Peter cut off a man's ear and Moses kill a man. I wonder how much good the hymns did for those men. Peter was even with Jesus. Did Jesus not guarantee a sinless life for Peter? How many leaders today in churches have cut off a man's ear or killed a man?

Just a few years ago I met a young man who had been involved in Wicca and had grown up in a hymn singing church with a very godly pastor. When I met him he declared himself to be an atheist. Later after meeting with him for awhile he became a follower of Jesus and one year later started meeting with men to help them grow. Doesn't anyone know that the proper American music (being somewhat cultural) is a guarantee of godliness. After all not every country sings to the same kind of music that were the tunes to hymns. Sounds much like KJVO. Or could it be HO (Hymns Only) or CCMO.

Doesn't anyone know that in every generation the new music promoted sin (at least according to the older generation)? If I recall right the hymns written by Isaac Watts at the time were called the Devil's music by the older generation then. Seems like I read the other day the words "sing a new song" in scripture. Psalm 144:9 I will sing a new song to You, O God; Upon a harp of ten strings I will sing praises to You,

 

[agedman]

I wonder how many bar tunes are converted as part of CCM. The previous generations sang converted bar tunes that were put in the hymn book.

I hold that this is not an accurate statement of the music found in the hymn book. I think you are confusing the musical term "Bar Tune" with some concept it came from the drinking pubs.

The term, "bar tune," is the way music was written down in the time of the middle ages.

But if you disagree, perhaps you can list some songs and from what bar they came.

Doesn't anyone know that in every generation the new music promoted sin (at least according to the older generation)? If I recall right the hymns written by Isaac Watts at the time were called the Devil's music by the older generation then. Seems like I read the other day the words "sing a new song" in scripture. Psalm 144:9 I will sing a new song to You, O God; Upon a harp of ten strings I will sing praises to You,

There is a problem with your thinking.

When one is trying to claim that ???? is approved by God because in the past ???? was used, there comes a time when ???? is then based upon the traditions. cultural preferences, icons of the former worship center, and all that is found in the Romanist church.

Rather than trying to justify a specific style or type, the believer would do much better asking a few simple questions:

Right now, right here am I listening to the Holy Spirit's wooing?

Right now, right here am I singing in my heart to the Lord?

Right now, right here am I sober, rational, and honest in meditating upon the things of God?

For God wants first the believer to come to Him in Spirit and Truth to worship.

 

[agedman]

This is an example of "bar music."

 

[Michaelt]

Asking questions about how loud is loud should be considered as nothing but a distraction.

The statement was made that introduced the term LOUD, I was just trying to find out how LOUD is defined? Applicable question I would think.

Did God speak with a loud voice? When?
When God wants intimate fellowship, what voice did He use? When?

When I hear God speaking to me, a majority of the time it's from His word, or from an urging of the Holy Spirit. I can't for certain say I've ever heard an audible voice.

If the church is supposed to be worshiping God, then what should be the attitude and readiness to actually hear what God would speak in response?

I am not saying that a loud voice should not be used. As the indication in Scriptures a loud voice is used in worship when the people take a vow, or proclaim distress, or announce warnings of coming judgment.

In the Psalms it states that we're to tell our brethren, and in the midst of the assembly to praise Him. It also says to give thanks in the great congregation, and to praise Him among a mighty throng. So the question could be asked, how far would a soft voice travel in a mighty throng?

But the historical evidence of when God actually deals with the believer in the most intimate of worship is when that believer is quiet, still, actively listening, and the Holy Spirit is molding our heart prayers and mutterings of distress.

My most intimate times of worship are not at the church. My most intimate times are at home, when it is quiet, still, peaceful. Should our worship time together with other believers be the same intimate, soft, quiet times as well? I'm not debating, I'm actually asking if our worship in the church building should be totally solemn and still?

Is such the setting of the modern contemporary worship? Nope
Is such the setting of most modern worship churches of any assembly? Nope
Should it be? Yes

So I would ask then, what is the "manner of worship" when we gather with our brethren? What is the correct guidelines for a church service, and does that ever change according to geographical or cultural boundaries??

Will it be attractive to the world and draw lots of people? Nope
But drawing a crowd isn't the assemblies job nor the purpose of the church.

That could be a discussion all in itself I'm sure. :thumbs:

 

[OldRegular]

A Solution!

Disband the choir and put them back in the pews, those who stay!:thumbs:

Throw out all musical instruments and put the players back in the pews, those who stay!:applause:

Fire the Music Man!:tonofbricks:

Read the Psalms!raying:

 

[mandym]

When people are using their energy to work and do what is right they will not have energy enough to be selfish and complain about petty things.

What is petty is relative.

 

[agedman]

In the Psalms it states that we're to tell our brethren, and in the midst of the assembly to praise Him. It also says to give thanks in the great congregation, and to praise Him among a mighty throng. So the question could be asked, how far would a soft voice travel in a mighty throng?

The voice merely has to travel from our heart to God's ear. Certainly (as indicated in the Scriptures) a loud voice is occasionally used. Corporately the Israeli folks cried out to God at the dedication of the temple and at other times. However, the daily worship was not of such boisterous character.

My most intimate times of worship are not at the church. My most intimate times are at home, when it is quiet, still, peaceful. Should our worship time together with other believers be the same intimate, soft, quiet times as well? I'm not debating, I'm actually asking if our worship in the church building should be totally solemn and still?

When did Christ say He would be in our midst? When two or three are gathered in His name. Is that not a place when the most intimate of worship should be availed to the believer? Before the Scriptures were complete, it was at the assemblies that the prophets (speaking under the direct leading of the Holy Spirit) were heard and the tongues interpreted. It was at the assembly time when the actual instructions to the local assembly were read and presented.

I am not diminishing the alone with God time! Rather, I am making a statement as to how vastly far from actual worship occurs in the modern church of all types, and more particularly those whose scheme is to incite the emotional aspect.

So I would ask then, what is the "manner of worship" when we gather with our brethren? What is the correct guidelines for a church service, and does that ever change according to geographical or cultural boundaries??



That could be a discussion all in itself I'm sure. :thumbs:

Yes, it could be a very good discussion.

 

[Michaelt]

The voice merely has to travel from our heart to God's ear. Certainly (as indicated in the Scriptures) a loud voice is occasionally used. Corporately the Israeli folks cried out to God at the dedication of the temple and at other times. However, the daily worship was not of such boisterous character.

When did Christ say He would be in our midst? When two or three are gathered in His name. Is that not a place when the most intimate of worship should be availed to the believer? Before the Scriptures were complete, it was at the assemblies that the prophets (speaking under the direct leading of the Holy Spirit) were heard and the tongues interpreted. It was at the assembly time when the actual instructions to the local assembly were read and presented.

I am not diminishing the alone with God time! Rather, I am making a statement as to how vastly far from actual worship occurs in the modern church of all types, and more particularly those whose scheme is to incite the emotional aspect.

Yes, it could be a very good discussion.

Let me ask this (and it's getting away from the music discussion but follows along your thought a bit);
I've read before or listened to discussion that the church worship service should be for believers and church members only. Would you agree with that? I think the point was that only certain people went into the temple to worship, then the priests would come into the courtyard and preach or teach the "common folk" or those who weren't believers or followers.

Does that ring a bell at all?

 

[agedman]

Let me ask this (and it's getting away from the music discussion but follows along your thought a bit);
I've read before or listened to discussion that the church worship service should be for believers and church members only. Would you agree with that? I think the point was that only certain people went into the temple to worship, then the priests would come into the courtyard and preach or teach the "common folk" or those who weren't believers or followers.

Does that ring a bell at all?

This is MY opinion and others certainly may see things through their own eyes.

First, yes, the assembly is for the believers. That is not to shun or exclude the unbeliever, but there is no spiritual gift given to the unbeliever that would edify the body.

Second, the teaching of the assembly is to edify the body. It is not to evangelize. It is to build up the believer's knowledge so that they may be fully equipped to evangelize.

Third, the worship of the assembly is to commune with God in the presence of Christ. There is no communion of the unbeliever with God.

Fourth, the fellowship of the assembly is toward helping the needs of other believers. If one is needing medical, emotional, physical... aid, the assembly is obliged by Scriptures to offer and extend that aid.

Fifth, the assembly is to prepare for the coming of Christ by holding fast to sound doctrine, abstaining from even the appearance of evil, teaching believers to observe all things, discerning the Spirit, ...

As the members go into the (all the) world to do their daily business dealings, they are to put into practice what they have learned of the Scriptures. They are to be the evangelists, the teachers, the helpers to the unsaved as God gives them Spirit insight.

But, the church assembly is NOT for the unbelievers.

Can the church sponsor evangelistic gatherings?

Certainly, but that gathering is not "church" anymore than me attending a Billy Graham Crusade meeting can be considered attending "church."

 

[Michaelt]

This is MY opinion and others certainly may see things through their own eyes.

First, yes, the assembly is for the believers. That is not to shun or exclude the unbeliever, but there is no spiritual gift given to the unbeliever that would edify the body.

Second, the teaching of the assembly is to edify the body. It is not to evangelize. It is to build up the believer's knowledge so that they may be fully equipped to evangelize.

Third, the worship of the assembly is to commune with God in the presence of Christ. There is no communion of the unbeliever with God.

Fourth, the fellowship of the assembly is toward helping the needs of other believers. If one is needing medical, emotional, physical... aid, the assembly is obliged by Scriptures to offer and extend that aid.

Fifth, the assembly is to prepare for the coming of Christ by holding fast to sound doctrine, abstaining from even the appearance of evil, teaching believers to observe all things, discerning the Spirit, ...

As the members go into the (all the) world to do their daily business dealings, they are to put into practice what they have learned of the Scriptures. They are to be the evangelists, the teachers, the helpers to the unsaved as God gives them Spirit insight.

But, the church assembly is NOT for the unbelievers.

Can the church sponsor evangelistic gatherings?

Certainly, but that gathering is not "church" anymore than me attending a Billy Graham Crusade meeting can be considered attending "church."

Ok, so I had heard it somewhere before then. So in the midst of how churches are now, what would that look like mainly? Two services? One for believers/members (the teaching/discipleship,etc) and possibly another service more evangelistic in nature? Now I'm thinking (and could be in error) that you wouldn't want to turn visitors away, but probably not "invite" non believers to a believers only service? That could get confusing and I'm sure ruffle some feathers.
It's an intriguing thought, and honestly I'd never really thought of it before I heard or read about it not too long ago.

 

[agedman]

Ok, so I had heard it somewhere before then. So in the midst of how churches are now, what would that look like mainly? Two services? One for believers/members (the teaching/discipleship,etc) and possibly another service more evangelistic in nature? Now I'm thinking (and could be in error) that you wouldn't want to turn visitors away, but probably not "invite" non believers to a believers only service? That could get confusing and I'm sure ruffle some feathers.
It's an intriguing thought, and honestly I'd never really thought of it before I heard or read about it not too long ago.

Unbelievers should be welcome at any time - with the exception of a discipline matter being discussed and action to be taken upon some member(s).

I am very much opposed to closed door meetings - even of deacons, elders, or whatever. Anyone should be able to sit in and listen. They may not vote, but if folks have nothing to hide, then there is no suspect of hidden agenda.

As far as the services, I don't hold to assemblies having separated services (one for believers an one for unbelievers) and calling them worship services.

The unbeliever service should be called an evangelistic meeting or meeting of inquiry or ... - for the unbeliever cannot worship God.

In the evangelistic meeting, their may be music, or whatever that would not be appropriate in the worship service.

This is what has confused the church of the last 100 or so years. Finny et al. methods and music were brought into the "worship" service and worship was discarded. Much of the modern manner of what and how a "worship service" has been polluted by the inclusion of icons and trends that have no business in the worship of the assembly.

I think much of the "battle over music" is the believers becoming more aware that something has gone awry, and have selected out one area in which to stake out some claim of ground and grasping at arguments that degenerate into preferences.

That isn't to say music is benign. NOT!!!!

If music were benign it would not be so effective in therapy to the severely psychologically/emotionally needy.

Which brings up another aspect of the thread that hasn't been explored.

Why do we only see "a" new song in heaven. With as many composers and lyricists it would seem an abundance of songs would overflow in the heavenly. Why one? Is it to prevent Bach being contentious with David? What of Christ? It is only found that He sung once - no other record. Ah to hear the savior sing. What an awesome experience that must have been!

Is the lack of music in heaven and Christ because the more one grows and matures in Christ, the less use music has as a need to bolster and psychologically support the believer?

Is it possible that the modern contemporary music is because the typical believer from that setting has little actual growth in the scriptures and needs to support with music the feebleness?

What of the older - do they not face a similar condition?

Why did the apostle instruct that we are to make melody in our hearts unto the Lord, and why didn't he give this statement to the church to do corporately?

Is there only one song in heaven, because finally being complete in Him with no tears to shed, there is but one theme to be sung?

A lot to ponder.

 

[jaigner]

Why is there such a massive debate over traditional worship music over praise and worship music?

More context at:

http://calebgordon.com/?p=3065

Because music is important. We seem to think we can worship however we feel like, but theology is utmost.

 

[Michaelt]

Unbelievers should be welcome at any time - with the exception of a discipline matter being discussed and action to be taken upon some member(s).

I am very much opposed to closed door meetings - even of deacons, elders, or whatever. Anyone should be able to sit in and listen. They may not vote, but if folks have nothing to hide, then there is no suspect of hidden agenda.

As far as the services, I don't hold to assemblies having separated services (one for believers an one for unbelievers) and calling them worship services.

The unbeliever service should be called an evangelistic meeting or meeting of inquiry or ... - for the unbeliever cannot worship God.

In the evangelistic meeting, their may be music, or whatever that would not be appropriate in the worship service.

This is what has confused the church of the last 100 or so years. Finny et al. methods and music were brought into the "worship" service and worship was discarded. Much of the modern manner of what and how a "worship service" has been polluted by the inclusion of icons and trends that have no business in the worship of the assembly.

I think much of the "battle over music" is the believers becoming more aware that something has gone awry, and have selected out one area in which to stake out some claim of ground and grasping at arguments that degenerate into preferences.

That isn't to say music is benign. NOT!!!!

If music were benign it would not be so effective in therapy to the severely psychologically/emotionally needy.

Which brings up another aspect of the thread that hasn't been explored.

Why do we only see "a" new song in heaven. With as many composers and lyricists it would seem an abundance of songs would overflow in the heavenly. Why one? Is it to prevent Bach being contentious with David? What of Christ? It is only found that He sung once - no other record. Ah to hear the savior sing. What an awesome experience that must have been!

Is the lack of music in heaven and Christ because the more one grows and matures in Christ, the less use music has as a need to bolster and psychologically support the believer?

Is it possible that the modern contemporary music is because the typical believer from that setting has little actual growth in the scriptures and needs to support with music the feebleness?

What of the older - do they not face a similar condition?

Why did the apostle instruct that we are to make melody in our hearts unto the Lord, and why didn't he give this statement to the church to do corporately?

Is there only one song in heaven, because finally being complete in Him with no tears to shed, there is but one theme to be sung?

A lot to ponder.

Indeed it is.

 

[gb93433]

If I were either allowed or chose to participate in the sport of gambling, I would bet that some of you would toss any 1st Century expression of worship right out of your churches.

Those people were FREAKS! They wore long hair. They wrapped themselves in a toga-like sheet and wore a dress-like robe over that. They walked around in sandals or bare feet. They spoke in a language that was not King James English (yea, nary a "Thee" amongst themeth...). They played musical instruments found in the Psalms, instruments with strings, tamborines, drums, cymbals, horns. They were loud -- as loud as they could play. They had a beat, and people danced while they worshiped!

What you wrote made me laugh. That is the start of a good message. Reminds me of the perfect way to select ministry leaders found in Acts 1:26 "And they drew lots for them, and the lot fell to Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles."


Introduction to a sermon titled Church Splitting from James 4:1-12

·Do not ever clap in church because someone might sue the church for damaged hands.

· Do not sing any of the Psalms because for over 1000 years the church did not sing at all.

· Do not bring on any new leadership because the younger generation lacks experience in using formaldehyde. They need to know its proper use so that they can pickle others around them. The older generation, the Geritol gang, needs to teach the younger generation how to lead in undertaking because they certainly would not want the young people to know who the uptaker is first.

· Pool tables should not be in the church. Those were found at bars and will only get damaged.

· We need to save our money for a rainy day because we might need it later. That church lost everything except $3,000 in a poor investment.

· The younger generation needs to sit under the teaching of old folks for many years so they know how to do church right. After all Paul told us how to do it right and the young people should know that just like the congregations Paul started with the old believers from antiquity that had been Christians for about three years or less.

· Certainly we would not want air conditioning in a church because that would cater to modernism and that is not found in the Bible.

· We should not translate the Bible because the people might misinterpret scripture by reading a translation.

· A piano has no place in the church because it was once found in bars.

· Ladies should not wear makeup because only prostitutes wore makeup.

· Women should never work outside the home because Proverbs 31 says that women are to buy a field and plant it.

· God never intended people to drink coffee and tea because those could stimulate the body.

· God never intended a church to own property because it should always be the property of the pastor and that will be his retirement when he sells it to the next pastor.

· Paying for a pew space must be done to ensure an income for the church and to give the rich the best pews in the church because they are the prominent people in society and the church. After all it would not look good to see poor people in the front pews.

· We certainly would not want to sing any CCM music that Isaac Watts wrote. Especially some of the modern music such as “When I Survey The Wondrous Cross.”

· Do not ever sing any of the new songs because they have a beat and a beat is from Satan.

· If people want to know Jesus they will come to church just like a person who wants a drink will go to a bar.

· At one time all of these have been issues in the Christian church. A lot of churches have split and people have died over some of those issues. Are any of those issues worth dying for?

 

[Squidward]

I can simply sum my opinion up as everyone has their own cup of tea. I'm sure this music argument has taken place for generations in the church. The hymns that were written in the middle ages are much different than the ones we are familiar with now. I personally prefer contemporary worship. I really like to reflect on the words and their meaning as I sing. Many bring me nearly to tears as I read the words and think of what Jesus did for me when he didn't have to.