Greg Gilbert - Against Music

Wow....so a hymn can never be changed?

Wow.

I've heard of KJVO.

Now we have AG(OV)O

"Amazing Grace (Original Version) Only"

 

Okay, then what was wrong with Amazing Grace that required him to step in and "fix"?

 

Nothing. He wasn't trying to fix it. He just created a different version of it. Why can't we enjoy both? Both of them are good. The original is better than the second, well, because it was the original, and John Newton's lyrics are the basis for the new rendition. But the new rendition is still good - very good.

I'm probably more "traditional" than most on here, but your reasoning in this thread has not made much sense.

 

But why are you elevating a hymn to the status of Scripture?

• Keep in mind...many hymns were written before many of our instruments we have today existed. Should you choose to play "Amazing Grace" on the guitar, you are altering the song, and in your eyes committing a grevious error. Explain to me that logic.
• How did he "ruin" the song? Desconstruct the lyrics and show us the error of them. Keep in mind, he didn't touch the original verses.

I don't even begin to understand why this upsets you.

 

When someone changes a hymn like Amazing Grace, it tells me rather clearly that the song wasn't good enough for that person. If Amazing Grace isn't good enough, as it is written, then I don't know what is. We do not sing to Waylon Jennings, we sing to God. When we rebel against the world, that's fine, but when we start changing words to hymns FOR NO REASON then that is rebellion against God, and worship. I'm sorry if that offends you, but it's just simply the way it is. It offends me that the hymns are not good enough, and people think they need worldly melodies, much like that rendition of Amazing Grace was given. That does not speak to God, it speaks to our inner desires and according to scripture, that is wrong.

I have stated that I will not post anymore on this subject, and I won't, as this is my final post on the subject.

God Bless

Todd

 

Zenas--I can give you my opinion on what to do, but it is ONLY my opinion.

No matter which side of this issue you fall in on, you have only so many choices that can be made with integrity.

You can work within your church for truly blended services, or for alternative services. (Say an early contemporary and 11 a.m. traditional, or vice versa. ) If the number of folks agreeing with you is very small or non existent, I would NOT feel it is wrong to find another church, or found one if need be.

I DO believe it lacks integrity for folks of either to stripe to join a church settled in to one mode of church service or the other, and set about to change it. That consitutes church stealing, in my not so humble opinion.

So if the church you attend has changed that much, you may have to find another place to worship. I am going through just that-- dispensational traditional church is now Calvinistic and very rock concert mode. I do NOT feel anger toward those leading the changes, or those worshipping there. I DO disagree with their unwillingness to accomodate the about 1/3 of the church still dispensational and traditional.

Ideally we could stay and "work on this". We have been given to understand that asking for accomodation is seen as divisive and disloyal. That being the case, it is time to either attend elsewhere (current shortterm solution) or found another SBC church in this town (probably the best idea long term. It is very needed population-wise anyway.)

Sometimes walking away without rancor and living out your faith with integrity is the very best witness.

 

That's probably a good idea, because your arguments are getting weaker by the post.

 

No words were changed. In fact, there was a verse sung that I had never even heard until Tomlin's version of Amazing Grace. Incidentally, "The earth will soon dissolve like snow..." was the original last verse of the hymn, until someone came and ADDED the one we sing now. "When we've been there 10,000 years" isn't even an original verse... but I bet you sing it without the grief you've given us over this added four-line chorus!

http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=25039

Interview with Chris Tomlin shows that he was hesitant to write a chorus to the familiar hymn until the Lord put it on his heart to reevaluate the song in light of the abolitionist story of Wilberforce.

Nope, I'm sorry it offends you.

You don't get much more worldly than folk music... which is where the melody for AMAZING GRACE comes from... 60 years after the hymn was written I might add.

Opinion.

OK. See ya around the board!

 

Well, I guess that slams the door shut...

:saint:

 

Wasn't trying to slam anything... just close it. Of course, we could argue about Tomlin's change of the original 3/4 meter to 4/4 time if you just NEED something to argue about. Some here might.

 

Which makes one who promotes it to be at best presumptuous.

Here we go again with the ever-morphing definition. When people say "contemporary music," 90% of the time they mean rock or other sensual forms. No one is arguing about when a work was produced, it's ever about the style.

When someone refuses to change to accommodate worldly manners, especially when, as you by default admit, there is no compelling Scriptural admonition, he is doing better than those who would.

 

So by lifting the words "all kinds of musick" out of context, we can come to that conclusion? 'Fraid not.