music and immorality?

Well, that's what you say, but that doesn't make it true. Would you care to post some supporting facts?

When folks say CCM, they are usually speaking of the popular styles of the day.

Scott Joplin was popular 100 years ago (which is 50 years before 50 years ago). Would you care to direct me to the gospel ragtime hymn, or the dixieland jazz hymn that we were singing fifty years ago?

 

Well, that's not the point I was trying to prove then, was it? Besides, I've never asserted the church was "all godly back then," though it was better.

The point was what the church was doing. We repeatedly hear from the CCM side that the church made a practice of borrowing from the popular styles of the day. That's the point to which I was responding.

 

As I've pointed out to you a couple of times now, hymns such as "Just a Closer Walk With Thee" are standards in jazz and ragtime.

 

Folks, CCM did not exist 50 years ago or one hundred years ago. CCM is a genre, not a description of time. Just as it would have been nonsense to talk about hard rock music in the 1800s, it is nonsense to talk about CCM in the 1800s or 1600s or anything else. CCM is a genre of that last 40 or so years, since the 60s.

 

CCM is a designation of time. The term is Contemperary Christian music. Contemparary is a designation of time. It includes many different genres, Soul, hip-hop, rap, rock, etc...

 

sorry, double post. oops...

 

Why is the "person swaying their hips sensually."? Is it because he/she is enjoying the music to much, and not focusing on the real point,which is to give glory and honor to The Lord?

So bring back the organ!!! (I love the organ)

That's because they're rebellious and let their flesh control them. They don't really want to give God the glory and preeminence they claim they're giving him. I know this, 1. Because I used to be that kind of teen. 2. I have friends who are like that.

Music is not for the listener it is for Gods Glory,if a person is listening for the fealing it gives them, they are useing a substitute Holy Spirit. </font>[/QUOTE]So you're saying that I'm rebellious because I prefer not to hear an organ in church the way you personally think I should? I'm just trying to get that right. Don't get me wrong, I don't go to church for the music. However, if I can choose between two churches both equal in every way and truly preaching the Word of God I would personally choose a mixed or semi-contemporary service.

 

No, Jeff, it isn't. Music that is written now is not necessarily contemporary Christian music. I think part of hte problem with this whole discussion is the misunderstanding that you have. Contemporary is a designation of time to be sure, but not in respect to CCM. CCM is a particular genre of music that includes many different styles.

CCM is a phenomenon of the last 30-40 years. It did not exist before them.

 

I remember years ago when I was a teenager, making the observation that things in the church don't get "sanctified" until they're old. My mother told me about how singing "choruses" was thought to be evil because it sounded like "tap room music." Now gospel choruses are in our hymnals. In its fear, the church is always behind in these matters by about 20 - 30 years. Have you noticed that "Praise and Worship" music sounds like the pop tunes of 20 years ago? That's why it's the "new" thing in the church. And to the old folks that's evil.

So I guess in 2024, rock will be coming in in full force.

 

We will stop here, because the constant belief that the other is misunderstanding. Once this arguement start then we get to argue who is more qualified and it will become an I'm smarter than you game. Understandings of genres and styles have always been different and probebly will always remain so. Let's continue with Tim's original question here. The man really wants answers, and knowing him I would guess Biblical support for those answers.

 

Jeff,

If I sit down and write a hymn this afternoon, it will not necessarily be contemporary Christian music. That is a genre or style distinction. The music is very recent. The style is not CCM. That seems an easy distinction to see. I am not sure why it is so easily missed. I think the problem is that many CCM supporters, in an attempt to justify their position, argue that anything "contemporary" to its use is CCM. But that clearly is not the case, and it is not necessary for the argument in favor of CCM. CCM is a particular style or genre of music; it has nothing to do with how recently it was written or performed.

 

ok, since we are going ahead with this I will point something out. Is Classical a style or time period? Baroqu? Renassance? Modern? These are all classifications pertaining to a time period. Even Modern music is a period beginning in the late 1800s and continuing till today. CCM is a period of Christian music containing many different styles which even include hymns ( which is more a content classification than a style).

 

Just to clarify: The periods of music history are both time periods and styles. We call the period by the name that was the PREDOMINANT style of the day. That is not to say in the Classical period they did not play Bach, of course they did. Some even continued to write new music in that style. But the period is defined by the works that followed in the style that we call classical. We play works of all periods in concert halls today.

In many ways music associated with the church has developed in a similar way. It's just that, in the church, it is a little different and takes a lot longer to get from one "period" to another. And a "hymn" is so called because of the style. You can take courses in hymnology.

 

I knew it would come to this. Now we are arguing over who is correct and it has no impact upon the original question.

 

A content classification is not a bad way to put it, nor is a "period of Christian music." But my point is that CCM is not determined by looking at the authorship date on songs. But all those styles you listed (classical, baroque, modern, etc) are genres of music characterized by certain attributes. Which again makes my point ... that CCM has certain attributes not found in other music that is "contemporary" in the broad use of the term.

 

If I dig an old Baptist Hymnal from the 40's will those songs be in it? Again, these songs were not sung by the church at large, and gospel blues didn't even hit the scene until the 1930's.

Gospel rock would not have become popular if rock and country stars from the 50's and 60's didn't sing it. It didn't start in the church.

The fact of the matter remains. The church largely abstained from using popular musical styles until the '70's.

 

So, the contention is that we can't use today's style of music in the church until a few decades have pased? Where's the scriptural support for that??

And, presuming that's the case, we should then be allowed to have Christian Big band, Christian Jazz and Christian 50's rock music in church. Those genres are 50-80 years old, and my no means "contemporary".

 

Perhaps. Those songs were well known then,

When you say, "the church at large", are you including the black community of believers? Because R&B and jazz influenced styles have long been a part of their tradition.

There is no difference between the music of, say, the Dixie Hummingbirds and many black churches of that day.

I disagree. The only 50's or 60's artist I can think of who sang "Gospel rock" is Dion and he didn't come along until well after it had been established as a genre.

Mostly, it was a grass roots afair.

And, again, you haven't demonstrated that to be fact. Simply saying that it's fact doesn't make it so.

 

That's not true. We associate gospel blues with African American churches because of folks like Thomas A. Dorsey and Mahalia Jackson and those who've emulated them. The old Negro Spirituals are nothing like jazz or R & B. "Deep River," "Were You There?" "I Got Shoes," etc.