Why Is There Such a Battle OVER MUSIC??

I am not sure how you can deduce that from what I wrote. The fact that young people want nothing to do with many churches lies deeper than just music. It has much more to with the superficiality they see and know about. I have found that the majority of college students I meet with to be far more serious about their faith than the majority I have discussions with my age. College age students are not afraid to ask the tough questions. They are asking tougher questions than I did when I was their age. I have seen adults squirm while young people are listening to straight talk. They do not want sugar water unless they are used to church as a place to just have fun. The fact that all will die and a church that refuses to encourage young people will eventually find that they have no church left or if they those once young people will eventually be the leaders. If one reads Psalm 150 then I guess you could say that heavy metal sounds would be appropriate. It is well known among those involved in music that the instruments used in worship are the same instruments in the world when they were younger. I am unable to find a piano or organ in scripture. What I find rather interesting is that students in college in parachurch organizations who are serious about their faith are singing a combination of CCM and hymns. I find that the churches are lagging behind in that matter. Many pastors I talk with are not aware of what college students are doing and what they are singing. So often they think that CCM is the latest trend in music when it is not. It will be interesting to see what happens when the college students get older.

 

The two problems (there are probably more) that I see in this discussion is that what some call worship is not what the Scriptures call worship.

We are to be sober, rational, quieted, orderly...

I am not opposed to expressions of joy and gladness. But they come as a result of having first worshiped and never should be considered as schemes to get one "in the mood" or "in the spirit" of worship - and that is not the Scriptural use of music, either.


Secondly, the attitude is problematic. Christ said, "Where two or three are gathered in my name, I am in the midst" (agedman's paraphrased edition )

Consider what attitude is displayed by the contemporary (especially more heavy metal sounding) music.

If Christ were to physically appear, would He even be recognized?

Or, would His rhetorical question be answered with, "No."

What was His question?

"When I return, shall I find (real) faith." (agedman's paraphrase )

The last church mentioned in Rev. had this problem. They THOUGHT they were wise and blessed of God, and assumed that such things proved the truth of what they believed.

But being large, blessed, and great wealth were mistaken evidence of God's approval when the truth was they were blind, sick and poor.

That is the state of the modern church, and it is getting worse.

 

Do you believe that Romans 12:1, 2 and Psalms 150 deal with worship?

The historical context behind what Jesus taught in Mt. 18:20 is about how rabbis in training learned. We could learn a lot from their methodology at the time.

[quote[Consider what attitude is displayed by the contemporary (especially more heavy metal sounding) music.[/quote] How would you compare that to Psalm 150? I would wonder what the generation said before you. We know what one generation said about the hymns of today when they were CCM and what happened after about 1000 years of no singing in the church.

Worse than the churches in Rev. 2 and 3? Worse than those who supported slavery (the stealing of people against their will) in America in the 1800s? Ecclesiastes teaches something far different than you suggest. What else is new under the sun? Ever read what was happening in 1 Cor among the rich in their actions and attitude toward the poor. If you were to read a number of the sermons from some of the earlier years of the church you would be surprised at how they would not resemble what we believe to be sound doctrine today. As I study history I find that things are still the same but by maybe by a new name.

 

This is nothing new.

It is always that way.

It is part of the human growth that as a person matures they seek out other than their parents and authority figures of their youth. They turn to any who will listen and share.

Such things are not indicators of any trend.

How do I know? Because over 50 years ago, I was where those students are.

There is no "new" to what you are bringing. Most of us who have attended multiple universities from a half century ago have experienced such things.

Superficiality is as much part of the youth as it is with the adults in their 30 - 40s.

I have met far more adults (50 and above) that are serious about their faith than I ever did on the university campus.


I have seen folks trump out Psalm 150 as some kind of proof that all manner of music is allowed. It isn't.


Praise ye the LORD. Praise God in his sanctuary: praise him in the firmament of his power.

(The setting - Where is the firmament of His power? His power is unchallenged only in Heaven and will be unchallenged in the millennial reign - but on this earth until that time - nope. This is also an indicator of the awe that should be expressed as one recognizes where God abides and what goes on in that place.)

Praise him for his mighty acts: praise him according to his excellent greatness.

(This is as all believers should and do - do.)

Praise him with the sound of the trumpet:

(Ram's horns (word is showphar) used in battle and calls to worship - not the multi harmonic tonal metal instruments of this day)

praise him with the psaltery and harp.

(Psaltery was a jug shaped instrument like David used to calm the wild side of Saul - definitely not the electric guitar used in the contemporary music)

Praise him with the timbrel and dance:

(timbrel is a tambourine like instrument and the timbrel dance was a dance that described both who and what you are - think native american dance displaying the character of an animal such as an eagle. It is NOT the jumping, hand waving, emotionalism that passes as dancing in the spirit of this modern age.)

praise him with stringed instruments and organs.

(stringed instruments is the word "men" and indicates the use of cords. Because frets were not common in the days of David, the plucking of strings making chordal progressions is indicated. Organs are air blown instruments made from reeds)

Praise him upon the loud cymbals: praise him upon the high sounding cymbals.

(a cacophony of sounds similar to what might occur in a Buddhist temple when gongs and rattles are used. The high sounding refers to shouts needed for battle instructions. An illustration: In the pacific islands a type of music uses a leader that shouts out a command (like the drill Sargent) and the choral group changes in accord to the command - be it tonally, staccato, mode, ... This is indicated in this verse.)

Let every thing that hath breath praise the LORD. Praise ye the LORD.

(The word breath is divine inspiration of intellect, soul and spirit. This is exactly what the Lord would desire of every believer - their heart, mind, soul, and strength).

 

Could you help me understand how hymn #93 in The Baptist Hymnal 1991, "It Came Upon The Midnight Clear" written by a Unitarian minister and published in December 29, 1849 could possibly have a link to scripture?

 

Already been there and done that.

However, by your support of the contemporary music, you are stating support for the conformity to this world.

If you are truly presenting Christ in a musical fashion, then present something radically different than what is accepted and attractive by the world standards. Drag out a showphar and get some real attention about why it is such an important instrument in the Scriptures.

No doubt.

I am certain that you are using extremes in your examples. Church music has thrived in all ages. Certainly the Romanist under Gregory wanted only certain approved types, but people sing and express the message of Christ through songs, hymns and spiritual songs in all ages. There was no 1000 years of no singing in the church.

Absolutely it is worse.

The church of Laodicea is the worse of all churches. Because they were blinded in thinking that what they thought was God approved was exactly the opposite of what God really desired. Read about it and see.

Some (as J. Vernon McGee) claim that this is the only church that won't enjoy the rapture, but will actually go through the tribulation. I don't particularly agree with him, but it remains to be seen. He was a man of sound doctrine.

I have read many of the early writings. I think you are right. The modern day church couldn't stand the teachings of Issac Watts and John Newton. They would be run out of town as extremists.

Most of the youth and modern church folks have never read Pilgrim's Progress, and don't have a clue about My Utmost for His Highest. They would want to consider the cost before they bought in on living a pure, holy, life. They would rather be emotionally teased by a movie version of the crucifixion than to come to terms with being crucified daily for Christ. Even then, they would have to consult the latest feeling book on the shelf of the local book store. I sometimes think the modern church folk mistake the feelings of constipation for the Holy Spirit and the itching eared teaching as Scriptural.

The typical modern church has no problem violating what Paul instructed about men touching women, and women being silent.

The typical modern church would be appalled to think that they actually had to "add to your faith" before they could achieve the level of really expressing God's type of love.

If the modern church were to undergo the massive persecutions that are recorded in Foxes book, there would be such a scattering of "faithful" that scarce one could be found to martyr.

There were only two churches in the Revelation that had no criticism given by God, and the modern church is so far from those two examples there isn't even the slightest resemblance.

 

I don't.

Any more than We've a Story to Tell to the Nations can be considered completely doctrinally sound.

However, if you are to embrace the CCM in rejection of the old, then you will need to apply the same standard of doctrinal and musical soundness.

There are two great tests that must be applied to all music.

The first is that the music must be musically sound.

The second is the great test of time.

Example:

Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring (Bach) is a wonderful song using consistent call and response between the instrument and the chorus. It is repetitious, yet not so much as to be mindless. It teases the listener and the performer into greater understanding and worship of God. It is sound musically and doctrinally. It also has stood the test of time.

I don't know any youth that are not attracted to this centuries old song.

Another example would be Amazing Grace. Doctrinally sound. Musically sound. Used and recorded by more artists in the last 20 years than any other song ever written.

 

In the church I go to, all of the music is tied to scripture. Most of it is CCM. Some are hymns. The leaders are godly people who are actively living the Christian life. I am not in favor of all CCM nor am I in favor of some of the junk in the hymnbook. I am not in favor of "It came Upon The Midnight Clear." There is absolutely nothing is that piece of junk that is tied to anything in scripture. It is not scriptural at all. Yet it is in the Baptist Hymnal. It was written by a Unitarian pastor.

The church I attend uses all kind of instruments. They do have cymbals. At times the music gets rather loud. The pastor one time talked about that we are not going to apologize for loud music that praises and honors God. We want the world to know when they visit that we are excited about knowing and serving God.

Two of the musicians are accomplished classical pianists trained by their parents and then went onto study music more in depth. Every musician I have met is serious about living out their faith. They will tell you that it is not about a performance but about Christ. They do not call the platform a stage because stage implies performance. So they call it the platform.

I have not majored in music so I am no expert. I am just repeating what I learned in seminary. We know that Isaac Watts when he produced CCM then was told that his music "was of the devil." We call those hymns today. What I look at are the words and does the music and lyrics focus on Christ and motivate one to praise and honor God.

The first time I met him I was a young Christian working in the mountains in CA. I was getting to know him so I could share my faith with him. I got a shock when I asked him what he did for a living. he told me. I did not know who he was and had never listened to Christian radio. He was very humble in explaining to me what he did. I have never forgotten our interaction. When I told some of my friends they were shocked that I met him.

I have found what you wrote among the older but not so with the youth I have dealt with. I am a straight talker and find youth to respond but the church gang wants it sugar coated. Years ago when I was teaching high school one of the students was talking about a subject that was not the best in class. I told him that he needed to keep his pants on. That hour was spent fielding questions from the students. We did not study what I had planned. I have found the youth to listen more than so many adults. Several years ago I preached at a youth conference that drew from about 700 churches. I spoke three messages on the death, burial, resurrection, and running the race to win from 1 Cor. 9:24-27. You could have heard a pin drop as they listened. One of the elderly men told me that he had been helping for 31 years and there was a higher percentage of those present who made serious commitments. He told me that he had never seen so many. I can tell you that what I saw and experienced was truly a work of the Holy Spirit.

A few years ago I spoke in a church for 65 minutes. Several people told me that is what they needed to hear. Afterwards I told the pastor that something is wrong with his wife and I did not know what it is. He found out later that she had been having an affair with another man in an other country. I just do not buy the idea that people will not listen. I do not want to listen to two seconds of sugar water nonsense but I can listen for a long time to those who have studied well and have passion from God.

I have seen that by adults too. Years ago when I was pastoring a church I noticed a young man who seemed to be a little frisky with the young ladies. About 6 months later he completely changed. I was preaching through Genesis and took what I said and asked me to help him as he led a Bible study on the high school campus. I heard back from some of his teachers about how much he had changed. He got real serious about walking with God.

It won't happen to the dead, because Satan already has them where he wants them.

 

This thread is an interesting contrast of opinions. Especially as there are grains of truth within both sides of the discussion. IMHO.

I'm just adding my 2-cents on what I see based on my limited vision of the subject.

Last night I saw a local news piece on one of the fastest growing churches in the nation, according to the story. http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/video?id=8514836 Their website: http://www.newhopenc.org/Our-Church/Who-We-Are.aspx

This news piece and this discussion pose a question. Where do we draw the line between worship and entertainment?

It's easy to see the lure of entertainment everywhere. Notice filled sports stadiums, packed crowds at the State Fair, along with full parking lots of tourist traps all over. How many people will be attending, watching, and talking about Super Bowl Sunday? Similar situation when a big name music groups appear at local entertainment venues.

Back in the day Elvis Presley recorded an LP of hymns that would be appropriate, from content standpoint, in any worship service. If he were still here and scheduled to appear at our church, we wouldn't be able to handle the crowds coming to our services. To worship the Lord? No. To be entertained? Yes. The desire to hear his (lower case h) music would pack the church. How many will come back the following Sunday, when only the choir will provide special music?

Is the desire to provide entertainment to grow numbers doing the same thing to the word of God that entitlement programs are doing to the Constitution?

Amos 8:11 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD:

Has the line between worship and entertainment already been erased?

 

I highly suggest stopping in for a visit of Sojourn Church in Louisville, KY.

There, you would find a church that features cutting edge music, much of it written and recorded within the walls of the church by their own musicians and in their own recording studio, AND a church that represents the gospel in a way more complete, more at work, and yes, more radical than most of the congregations I've seen that are more typical in their worship style.

Can you imagine asking people in your church to move into a crime and drug ridden part of the city -- and they do -- and within 2-3 years begin transforming that part of the city so as to make it a haven for new young families?

Can you imagine asking your people to give up aspects of their life for the sake of the gospel -- and they do -- so as to find the church expanding in a demographic that everyone else seems to think is "un-reachable?"

Can you imagine that this church is "Reformed" in doctrine and has no "altar call" in a way recognizable to most typical congregations, yet they now exceed 1200 members in 10 years -- plus have an AVERAGE ATTENDANCE over four campus locations around the city of over 2800, and who give over 2 million a year in tithes and offerings plus another 2 million or more a year for building projects, all while remaining under the average age of 30?

Most people cannot even envision such a congregation, but it exists in Louisville, has NO programatic content, and builds its congregation on the gospel -- period -- oh, and features the sort of music that most here rail against. :wavey:

 

I agree...

Especially the part about asking the hard questions and talking the strait talk...

 

Sojourn's liturgy from last Sunday. Yes, liturgy... Not in the sense of some canned sheet from some "book of prayer" but hand written to match the theme of the day's sermon.

http://www.sojournmusic.com/2012/01/psalms-hymns-spiritual-songs-sojourns-liturgy-recap-1-22-2012/

For those who take the time to click in, let me know how this service is arranged to be "attractive to draw a crowd" and also how it is "watered down" so as to not present Christ according to the Scriptures. :thumbs:

 

Not sure I've visited a church that had "beat driven noise"?

However, if you're talking about music, ALL music is beat driven, is it not?

 

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.

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.

 

NO. The beat only supports the music in traditional music and also in good worship and praise music.

 

Of course rock and roll is good music - the term rock and roll originated to describe engaging in intimacy.

For it to be brought into the church is just what comes natural.

Goes along with such things as:

immodesty,
flagrant boisterousness,
lack of humility,
being puffed up about your group in comparison to other assemblies,
placing wealth, status, health as indications of God's approval.​

My father and his bothers were heavily involved in the big band era. And that music permeated throughout society. Yet, that was never part of the church.

Sousa went about the US promoting band music, and nearly every town of any size had some type of "orchestra" as a result. To this day, the school systems have bands and orchestra's largely as a result of his influence. Yet, that was never part of the church.

Unlike the modern believers, there was a certain discernment about what was "of the flesh" and what was "of the Spirit."


But, along comes ruffled sleeved Ralph Carmichael, appealing to the natural rebellious shallow hormonally driven looking for any excuse to be in your face against authority discontented youth of the 60's, and the church bought into the enemy's scheme. Carmichael was never a friend of the separated unto God believer, but throughout his life has been engaged in repeated compromise and appeal to the world and bringing shame to the name of Christ.

He is credited with being the "father of the modern church music."

What an absolute shame that the church forgot discerning what is of the flesh and what is of the spirit!

And the modern believer is much like the church - Discernment is so lacking they will actually believe the "angel of light" is God rather than discerning it is the enemy, Satan and Satanic forces as transformed.

 

Actually, to the common person (and as a result of common usage - the dictionary reflections of common use) beat and rhythm are being consider synonymous.

However, dispite the modern age considering the beat and rhythm to be the same, they in fact are not.

The conductor indicates the beat. The performers keep the beat. Sound can be made on the beat.

But, the beat is that internal impulse that every human recognizes. It is never heard, but always felt.

Sort of like the heart beat. It can be felt and only heard through some instrument (stethoscope as an example).

Having that principle in hand, then one can begin to enjoy the journey of rhythm and beat and find a great amount of information about the physical, emotional, psychological impacts rhythm presents.

 

I'm betting you're using a bit of sarcasm?

 

You know, the weird thing is that ALL of us who are yet capable of doing much of anything in the church have been raised on Rock music. Elvis started making hits in the 1950s, that was about 60 years ago, which means that someone just about to enter their 80s was a late teenager during that time. Elvis was not first, there were others earlier, but he is well known. The Beatles introduced what we might call modern rock to the USA in 1965.

ALL of us have heard it, and grew up within a culture that played that sort of music every day. Just the way it is. This is the year 2012 after all. We're no longer in 1990, 1980, or 1970...

 

I loved Elvis as a teenager and before. Same thing with the Beatles, etc. in college. But my generation didn't try to bring this kind of music into the church. My parents enjoyed big band type music, but they didn't try to bring it into the church either. In fact the church music I grew up with was pretty much the same as it had been for over 100 years. So why do the younger generations feel the need to bring their kind of music into the church? I don't get it. Do they want to make church seem less like church and more like a rock concert.