Where do/does you/your church stand on music?

Nope, I didn't know there were "happy" blues. If they're happy, then they're not the blues, right?

I'm accusing the 77s of imitating "Led." I didn't know this was still under debate.

I've been trying to listen all morning, but I think my realplayer is dead. Maybe the Lord just doesn't want me to listen to the music!

[ December 17, 2002, 02:22 PM: Message edited by: Refreshed ]

 

Our church has a choir song, prayer, another choir song, a congregational and then a special or three. The music takes up the first half hour of each service. We also sing at the end during the invitation.

The music is traditional.

We have a 300 voice choir, and an orchestra. We have a strong music department.

So, I would say we are pro music.

But we don't allow dancing.

 

Maybe this will clarify.

I *have* heard the Led Zeppelin version, probably a thousand times, I'm not exaggerating. They were my favorite group when I listened to rock music. I read in a review that the 77s did a note-for-note rendition. Look at the reviews on CD-NOW. This is the basis upon which I judge at least the Led Zeppelin version. Familiarity.

I am honestly trying to listen to the 77s version to verify what the reviewer said, but I cannot get the link to play.

 

Oh, I see. How do you know they aren't a Christian?

Better yet, on what basis do you judge the review to be non-Christian?

[ December 18, 2002, 11:47 AM: Message edited by: Refreshed ]

 

Sounds like most "Christian" bands, or should I say rock bands composed of "Christians."

You've got the profit motive, you've got open hostility to the "old paths, (traditional Christianity)" and moral relativism, so what's the difference?

By the way, I just listened to part of the 77's version. Yup, it imitates Led (not very well by the way). There, that part is settled, now that you have wasted several posts on this issue, and attempted to drive this discussion off-track.

 

Because you made me prove *every* little point I was saying about the 77's and Led Zeppelin, totally ignorning the implications of my being right, which I was. Shall I again post what was to be my final post to this thread many moons ago? I think I will:

[EDIT]I was going to list the entire thing, but it is at the top of page 4 if anyone wants to read it.[/EDIT]

[ December 18, 2002, 06:04 PM: Message edited by: Refreshed ]

 

You know, that's a good question. If we can prove that the 77s were imitating the world (obviously Led was not Christian and postured against Christianity if only in their lifestyle, and therefore, was of the world), this would clearly put the 77's at odds with the bible as we are supposed to be different from the world. Then we still have to think about all the other bands who covered secular songs as well.

We keep running circles, though, because you don't believe it is wrong for a Christian to listen to any type of music or that any style of music is anything but neutral. We just have fundamental differences in what we believe in this area, and we'll have to call it at that, I'm afraid.

Thanks,

Jason

 

Why would it? You still haven't shown that the song is "like the world" or defined what "being like the world is", in the first place.

Nor have you shown that merely performing a song someone else did, which itself was a cover of a Gospel song, is imitating the world.

Do you know what circular reasoning is?

Yes. Let's think about that but let's be fair and evaluate each song and artist on their own merits instead of this guilt by association trip you're on.

Really? When did I say such a thing?

I haven't had the opportunity to say it here but I've been more than clear in other threads that there is music out there that is not conducive to a healthy spiritual walk.

That having been said, I think that each artist and sing needs to be taken on it's own merits and that the standard varies from individual to individual.

If you're going to put words in my mouth, please show where I said it.

That I did say and until someone can demonstrate otherwise, I stand by it.

OK.[/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]((edited for clarity))

[ April 12, 2003, 06:02 PM: Message edited by: Mike McK ]

 

To get us back on track...

My church primarily uses more traditional music in the worship service.

Piano, sometimes organ, full orchestra

Mostly Hymns, 15% Chorus style music.

No soundtracks, everything is done live.

The Philosophy basically states that this is their choice for musical style, and that there are other styles that may be appropriate for other situations, sunday evening/wednesday night, youth group meetings, etc. And that the music used in church is not the only music that the congregation needs to be listening to. ie. there may be other types of music that they would not choose to use in church, but they are not making a value judgement on any particular style.

The Goal is for our church to be word-centered, music is important only in the sense that it be scripturally based, doctrinally sound, and glorifying to God. Being word centered and being commited to that makes it really tough to focus on the "fundamentalist" rules that commonly are taught, but cannot find any basis in scripture.

18th century classical style music as the only biblical form being one of the most pervasive

 

I agree,Superdave. Your church sounds a lot like our's!

 

bump

 

Kick

 

What bothers me about the music/worship wars going on in today's churches is that the proponents of a certain genre of church music feel that their genre is the only legitimate/acceptable way to praise God.

 

Why is it that a Christian is only supposed to listen to Christian music? Do you read only Christian newspapers or watch only Christian television? Do you only shop at Christian stores? Do you work at only Christian workplaces?

My experience is that many people who listen only to the "old-fashioned hymns" do so because it makes them feel superior to us poor carnal Christians who cannot get victory over this "worldly music." For me, I listen to classic rock, the best music ever written, IMHO.