Why is my pastor so picky about our music?

Will do.

And it escapes me how one can make such broad and sweeping generalizations about music when the Bible doesn't say one way or the other which styles of music are good or bad.

Why not?

I'm still waiting for you guys to introduce the relevant scripture that you keep saying exsists on this subject.

And I don't see how you can say that your argument is reasonable when you lump in musics that have nothing to do with the argument at hand, you imagine that all music affects people the same way it does you and you speak axiomatically about something that the Bible doesn't even address specifically.

What part of that is supposed to be "reasonable"?

Nor do I. It's good to see that we do see eye to eye on something.

So how is contemporary music "hateful"?

But who declared it taboo? Was it the Bible or the traditions of man?

Since I can't find anything in the Bible that speaks one way or the other about it and none of you spiritual giants have shown any, I have to assume it's the latter.

I came into this world at the tail end of the sixties so I can't speak to that end, but I can say that by most accounts, my church (just speaking for my own church) is pretty conservative.

Um, OK. I wasn't planning on it.

Besides, what rebuttle is there to someone who is convinced he speaks for God?

Well, as a Bible believer (and a pretty conservative one, at that) I have a problem with "leaving it at that" because (a) you haven't defined "the world", (b) you haven't demonstrated that contemporary music is of "the world" or (c) defined "modernists".

Why don't you think we would tell them about Jesus?

Oh, no. Of course not. Why would anyone think that was personal?

 

Uh Mike;
Have you followed the entire thread or not?
Try these;(All given in the King James Bible) Rom; 12:1-2, 1 Cor.2:9-16, 1 Cor. 6:1-3, 1 Cor. 8:9, 1 Cor 10:21, 1 Cor.15:33, 2 Cor. 2:17, 2 Cor. 3(all of it), 2 Cor. 10 (all of it),
2 Cor. 11:3-4, 2 Cor. 11:13-15, Gal. 3:20, Gal 5:19-21, And THOUSANDS MORE! All commanding us to stay unlike the world, to be seperated from the world, to be HOLY, to be PECULIAR. Unless one is reprobate concerning the faith, it would be impossible to read the Bible and NOT come away KNOWING that God commands Holiness and not conformity to this world's corrupted ways.

*snip provocative statement*

AV1611Jim

[ December 08, 2002, 07:49 PM: Message edited by: Aaron ]

 

I understand all of that, Jim, but the problem is that you've never defined what it means to be "like the world" and you haven't shown why rock music, as a whole is bad.

You can certainly make the case that there are specific bands or artists who Christians probably would be better off to stay away from, but if you're condemning contemporary music as a whole, then I think it's up to you to show why it's a bad thing.

Mike

 

Mike;
Contemporary; marked by characteristics of the same period of time, modern.
By definition Mike, "contempoary christian music' is a misnomer. Why? Simply because it is identified by the SAME characteristics as those of the secular music world. Therefore to be both christian and contemporary one would have to nulify all the Scriptural admonitions to be SEPERATED FROM the world in this area of music. You continue to 'bang the gong' insisting that I show you in the Bible HOW the modern music is bad. To which, I reply with many Scriptures which are telling us NOT TO BE CONFORMED TO THIS WORLD. I sense that you are of the camp which believes the lie that music is nuetral and only has meaning or impact when "holy-sounding' words are added.
Must I remind you of the truth that music can TAME the savage beast? The other side of that coin my friend is that music can CREATE a savage beast. Remove the words of such trash as Jars of Clay or P.O.D. and you will find Jimi Hendrix, or Robin Trower re-incarnated. Or perhaps Seals and Croft. Or even Barry Manilow. But nevertheless you will find secular STYLES and beat. Do you pretend to deny that the worlds music is DESIGNED to incite passion and sex and rage and rebellion? *snip*...this old world's junk would never be acceptable to a Thrice Holy God? I don't care how nicely you dress it up. It is still spawned from the pits of hell and it is unholy.
Unfortunately, I have two choices of radio stations in this tiny town I live in. One is a Country music station full of farming news and Garth Brooks. The other is sponsered by the Calvary Chapel network of "praise". I tell you in all honesty and humility that many times I shut off my radio simply to get a break from the RAGE!!! that comes from the air waves of the network of "praaaaaiiiiiisssse" (said in a most sanctimonious manner) Often times I am disgusted by the crassness of the artists who would profane such beautiful songs as "Jesus Lover of my soul" by adding a stupid DRUM beat to it! I am sorry but you will never convince me that the CCM artists are not out for a buck rather than praising God.
Perhaps there ARE some songs out there that would be appropriate for worship. I doubt it, but perhaps there are. If so then I challenge any and all CCM artists out there to remove their copyrights and give the songs away. You won't see it happen my friend, because they are out for a buck and not the "glory of GAWD".
Perhaps I am getting a bit sarcastic and maybe too straight up and biting for this board. If so then delete my comments. Although I am not a saint of the caliber of Peter, John or Paul, I am a saint. And as I read the Book of Acts, it is clear that HARD and STRAIGHT preaching was then and always should be the order of the day.
You wanna be like the world? Fine. But do the church a favor and stop calling that junk 'christian'. At least *snip* admit that this CCM feeds the flesh more so than the spirit. It is too obvious.
Jim

[ December 08, 2002, 07:53 PM: Message edited by: Aaron ]

 

Well, I just read this whole thread. As some already know, I am anti-Rock music of any form. Please see this topic: Other post on music

I have a compromise for the local church. Since I was saved out of rock music and the style makes me remember things and have feelings that are sin to me, then out of respect for the person saved out of rock music, the church should not use that style in order to avoid throwing a stumbling block in the path of a brother I Cor 8:9. Right? This is a serious question we have to ask. This is also the weakest of all approaches to this issue but it does work for this issue.

That's all for that point. Take it as seperate from my next one.

This issue over "to promote CCM or not to promote CCM" is causing division. Now, since God is not the author of confusion, it appears that Satan is causing division and strife in this area. Since Satan works by providing a subpar substitute to the things of God, "Yeah, hath God said..." which song is the one that Satan introduced into the church, "How Firm a Foundation," or the one that says "Holy" 28 times repetitiously (I think this number grows any time someone posts).

I will emphasize (if you read the other thread, you already know this about me), that I am not coming from the perspective of tradition on this (rock music was not only my tradition, but my life before I was saved), I am not a "stick-in-the-mud," and I am not a legalist. Be sure of the definition of that word before tacking it onto a brother or sister in Christ.

Rock music was created by the world for the world, and contains some of the most wicked and perverse people, living lifestyles that are shameful. If even a reprobate (do I have to qualify everything I say??? talking about those who have not been redeemed by the blood) can tell the difference between "cool" music and "bible-thumper" music, shouldn't the burden to do so be ever so much more on the Christian? Oh, by the way, I was that reprobate. I plead with the Lord daily that I don't return to my vomit like a dog, II Peter 2:20-22!!! That passage warns of a very distinct danger that can occur to the person that initially saw the need for seperation.

Just some thoughts I'd like to interject. (Donning flame retardant suit), FLAME AWAY!

 

NOT TO BE CONFORMED TO THE WORLD. But what exactly does this mean? We wear the worldly clothes, use the worldly computer, drive the worldly car, read the worldly newspaper, follow the worldy sports team. So what exactly does it mean? I think that it means not to be conformed to the attitudes, the lusts, the materialism, the selfishness of the world. This is NOT meant as some rule saying that we must distance ourselves from anything that was produced, or is even remotely associated with the world. We were set apart by the love and sacrifice of Christ. Now we show the evidence of that sanctification by our love, our works, our attitudes, our focus on Christ; not with what we drive, or wear, or listen to. Anyway, it's a mute point, since the music I, and many others, listen to is most certainly not of the world.

Take the words away from A Mighty Fortress is Our God, and what do you have? A pretty tune, but is it holy? Why or why not? Take the words away from I Have Decided to Follow Jesus. Is it still holy even though you now have the tune of an Indian folk song?
Anyway, have you ever listened to POD? Very good band IMO, and no, their music is defininetly different from Jimi Hendrix or whatever other band you want to throw out. Go out on the street and play just the music of Alive. Then ask a couple teenagers to name the song, I'd bet that you'd find that many will recognize it. But how if all rock is the same? Simple answer: It's not. Just because you haven't listened enough to tell the difference doesn't mean there isn't one.
Sorry, but the rest of your post was too insulting to respond to. Next time address the issues and don't attack the integrity of someone who you've never even met.

Refreshed, thanks for your post, it's nice to read something that can make an argument without hurling generalizations and insults.
For your first point, yes, I would not listen to my rock music in your presence. However, I believe it was Martin Luther who said "In the case of a weaker brother I will curtail my rights. In the case of legalism, I will flaunt them." IOW, while in your presence I wouldn't listen to my music, in the presence of those who hate rock music just because it's different from tradition(worldly), then I wouldn't hesitate to turn on Supertones or Skillet.
I would agree that Satan is causing division on this issue, however the problem comes with what to do? Satan also divided the church using Judaizers, did Paul tell the Christians to just give in to them to avoid division? No, he corrected the point, and I think we should attempt to correct the point here.

The flaw here is assuming that Satan must have introduced one of these two songs. I disagree strongly. Look at Revelation 4:8
"And the four living creatures, each one of them having six wings, are full of eyes around and within; and day and night they do not cease to say, "HOLY, HOLY, HOLY, is THE LORD GOD, THE ALMIGHTY, WHO WAS AND WHO IS AND WHO IS TO COME."

That seems rather repetitious. Day and night, over and over and over... But obviously God doesn't mind too much! There is NOTHING wrong with telling God a thousand times over he's holy!! It's a fact that will be proclaimed for all eternity!!

Not really totally sure what your trying to say with your last point. However, why is there a distinction between "cool" music and "bible-thumper" music? There's a song I'm sure you've heard of by Larry Norman, Why should the Devil have all the Good Music. Why'll I don't totally agree with the song, it does have some valid points. Why can't there be "cool" music that calls for revival(Escape from Reason), or that tells of our desparate need for Christ(The Thirst is Taking Over), or tells the world that we have a wonderful friend(Superfriend), or tells of what I feel like since I've found Christ(Alive). Why must we keep our music in the church, basically lighting a lamp and hiding it under a bowl. Because we're afraid of change? My friends, we are not still in this world to meet in churches and sing pretty hymns, but to show the world our beautiful Savior.
God Bless,

~JD

 

Oh, by the way, I can compile a list of Bible verses to show where I'm coming from. If anyone is interested, PM me, and I will send them the post with verses put in. I just think you guys have gone over most of them prior to my rude interjection into this discussion.

[edit]I was going to post another reply, but I'm hogging all the bandwidth. I wanted to answer the question that started this topic:

Your pastor is so picky with music because it is his job to oversee the local congregation, and God is one day going to hold him accountable for everything that came through that church while he was pastor there. He takes his responsibility seriously and loves your church members so much so that he does not want to give Satan any back door into your congregation. By the way, have you asked him?

[ December 07, 2002, 03:28 PM: Message edited by: Refreshed ]

 

Can't you just feel the love?

 

While the Church should beware copying just for the sake of it, that doesn't mean we have to deliberately follow one or two centuries behind (with the styles that were "secular" then), leaving classical/traditional as the only "sacred" alternative to contemporary. That is just as conformed (shaped by) the world, even though it is negatively, and centuries behind.
To some, rock may genuinely be a stumbling block, but to many, it is a cultural issue, based on fear of anything associated with Africa (e.g. the beat/rhythm, and notice how their "traditional" style is always what winds up as the acceptable style as if it weren't produced by "the world" as well), and this is not a genuine "stumblingblock" all the brethren should yield to, but the critics themselves are the ones who need correction in such case. If the church shaped itself around issues like this people bring up, without truly, honestly discerning if it is biblical, then we could do nothing, as people make an issue out of everything you could think of.
Believe it or not, the marching style rhythm of many of the so-called "sacred" traditional style songs and classical reminds some people of the Third Reich, as that was their style, and that should end this whole insistance that traditional styles are always associated with good things and only contemporary is used for bad.

CCM Controversy

[ December 07, 2002, 09:05 PM: Message edited by: Eric B ]

 

[1]con·tem·po·rary
Pronunciation: k&n-'tem-p&-"rer-E
Function: adjective
Etymology: com- + Latin tempor-, tempus
Date: 1631
1 : happening, existing, living, or coming into being during the same period of time
2 a : SIMULTANEOUS b : marked by characteristics of the present period : MODERN, CURRENT
- con·tem·po·rar·i·ly /-"tem-p&-'rer-&-lE/ adverb
synonyms CONTEMPORARY, CONTEMPORANEOUS, COEVAL, SYNCHRONOUS, SIMULTANEOUS, COINCIDENT mean existing or occurring at the same time. CONTEMPORARY is likely to apply to people and what relates to them <Abraham Lincoln was contemporary with Charles Darwin>. CONTEMPORANEOUS is more often applied to events than to people <contemporaneous accounts of the kidnapping>. COEVAL refers usually to periods, ages, eras, eons <two stars thought to be coeval>. SYNCHRONOUS implies exact correspondence in time and especially in periodic intervals <synchronous timepieces>. SIMULTANEOUS implies correspondence in a moment of time <the two shots were simultaneous>. COINCIDENT is applied to events and may be used in order to avoid implication of causal relationship <the end of World War II was coincident with a great vintage year>.

Pronunciation Key

© 2001 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated
Merriam-Webster Privacy Policy

Sorry, but, given the commonly accepted definition of "contemporary" I do't see the problem.

Unless you've discovered some form of time travel we're not aware of, we have no choice but to be "contemporary".

Why? You still haven't demonstrated why. C'mon! If it's as self evident as you seem to believe, it can't be that hard.

It would be nice, yes.

But, other than simply being of the same time period, you still have not demonstrated why you think they're like the world and, frankly, it's starting to become annoying. You're just repeating yourself again and again to hear yourself talk, all the while, saying nothing.

No, I believe that all music hassome meaning, words or no words but until a meaning is appplied to the music, it is neutral.

Actually, that's from a poem by Longfellow.

Really? Demonstrate, please.

Actually, the five artists don't sound anything alike and the Bible teaches that "it is apppointed once for man to die and then the judgment", so I sincerely doubt that any of these men is a reincarnation of the other.

What is a "secualr style and beat"?

Yes I do deny that. I don't deny that there is some music that is designed for that purpose but I can't take seriously the idea that contemporary music as a whole carries that purpose.

To be honest, if a song like Jimmy Buffett's "1921" or "Little Miss Magic" or Steve Goodman's "My Old Man" or "Would You Like to Learn to Dance" inspires "passion and sex and rage and rebellion" then you have some serious issues you need to deal with.

When did I ever say that?

In your opinion.

I'm pretty familiar with CC praise and worship music. Could you please give me an example of CC music that conveys "rage"?

They're musicians. Period.

The only difference is, in this case they sing from a Christian world view. That's all.

Do they make money? Yes. Not nearly as much as their mainstream counterparts but there's still money to be made.

When I was involved in CCM, there were several who still worked day jobs and played on the weekends. Mark Gershmehl of White Heart was a school teacher, Jerome Olds and Bruce Carroll were social workers, Michael Card was a forest ranger, etc. As far as I know, it's still the same today.

If they're all out for money, then I have to wonder why Dana Key quit music to become a pastor or why he authored several Bible studies for teens. I'm curious to know why John James left what is arguably one of the biggest bands in the history of Christian music to become a youth evangelist in Australia. I wonder why Mylon Lefevre and John Schlitt quit mainstream music where they toured with the major artists of their day and made ten time as much as they ever did in CCM.

Same with Kerry Livgren, founder and leader of the rock band, Kansas.

Kansas sold more tham 70 million albums and he walked away when the band's popularity was at it's peak.

He left to make music, offering his craft and his talents to God.

He eventually stepped away from music altogether, starting a ministry to help Christian and gospel artists hone their craft.

As far as I know, he does this on a pro bono basis.

When was the last time Buddy Greene, Wes King, Darrell Mansfield (another one who quit mainstream music to take a pay cut for God), Margaret Becker or Jerome Olds played for any more than forty or fifty people?

When was the last time Rick Cua played anything bigger than a Friday night youth group meeting? He was part of one of the biggest Southern rock bands of the seventies and one of the premier CCM artists of the eighties, yet, he stepped back to play to much smaller audiences.

That sure doesn't sound like a way to get rich to me.

Contrast that with Southern gospel groups like Legacy 5 who charge $22 for a show.

Unfortunately, artists very, very rarely own the rights to their own songs.

However, Keith Green, Honeytree, Bill Batstone, Ritchie Furay, Glen Kaiser, Rich Mullins, Chuck Girard and others actually have written songs for which the royalties have either been given to charity or are considered public domain.

Maybe. Or maybe you're just so intent on showing everybody how super spiritual you are by making grand, sweeping statements about something you obviously haven't looked into without considering anyone else's opinion or feelings.

[ June 23, 2003, 05:35 PM: Message edited by: Mike McK ]

 

Done.

 

OK. I gave you eight months.

 

I think we all need to learn (myself included) that if we are all in fact brothers and sisters in Christ, then we should treat each other that way. (Of course, some might argue that we are!) I don't understand the whole attitude that seems to prevail many discussions here: "If you're not with me, you're against me." Can we disagree without becoming blatantly argumentative? Or is that even possible? I am a fan of CCM, and will defend it's right to existence with anyone. Of course, there are those lumping CCM and Contemporary Praise and Worship in the same group, and if we're going to talk about them both, we need to distinguish between IN WORSHIP and ON THE RADIO. Just my humble opinions.