"Church survival doesn't depend on music style."
Andy, you asked where you said that modern music is lewd, and I figured I’d quote you:
[AndyE]Bert Perry wrote:
Andy, first of all, pretty much nobody dances to a march, so you’ve missed the point of Psalm 150:4 there.
I don’t know if I’ve missed the point or not. However it is clear that you have missed my point and that is that these Psalms do not argue for any particular genre or style of music. There is nothing here that implies the type of lewd dancing of our modern pop culture or the music that goes along with it. These Psalms do not stand in opposition to a conservative church music position, as my one simple counterexample demonstrates.
Andy
I’ll point out that you’re doing guilt by association here as well. Now another quote:
Why do these Psalms imply the use of a lewd, modern, pop/rock style?
See what I’m getting at? You are calling modern styles lewd—really saying that modern music is sin. And if you’re going to do that, you’d better come up with a Biblical justification for why it is so. Again, I guarantee you you will not find it.
Keep in mind here that I do not object to someone preferring older music. I do myself, especially the German hymns of the 16th and 17th centuries, the metric Psalms, Bach, and even the old Gregorian chants. I would dare guess that my preference is older than yours by a few centuries.
It is simply when we throw bombs like saying describing modern tunes as a “lewd, modern pop/rock style” that I part ways with you. This is especially the case when I consider that rock & roll and the blues do come from black gospel. Again, do we really feel comfortable suggesting that the music our black brothers and sisters—not only in the U.S. but in the Caribbean and in Africa—is somehow sinful? I sure don’t.
And so I plead with you to get to simply a preference for a certain genre of church music—I’m guessing most of yours dates from about 1800 to about 1950—and then ask yourself a very pointed question, the one that Larry has been asking. If we know that the modern genres speak to people today in a way that our preferred music does not, are we willing to accept it in the church for the sake of those who might come to know Him? And if not, why?
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Sousa’s Washington Post March is known as being the tune used for the historic two step. Remember Bonanza? Whenever they had a town dance the tune played was\is Under The Double Eagle. A truer statement would be “pretty much nobody any more dances to a march”.
[Bert Perry]SNIPfirst of all, pretty much nobody dances to a march, More Snip
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
[Rob Fall]Sousa’s Washington Post March is known as being the tune used for the historic two step. Remember Bonanza? Whenever they had a town dance the tune played was\is Under The Double Eagle. A truer statement would be “pretty much nobody any more dances to a march”.
Bert Perry wrote:
SNIP
first of all, pretty much nobody dances to a march, More Snip
Rob, compare the setting of Bonanza (1870s) to the composition dates of Sousa’s Washington Post March (1889) and Wagner’s Double Eagle (1893). Nice Hollywood license, but not history by any stretch of the imagination.
What’s your source on the two step, BTW? I see wiki has one, but it’s from a book on Scott Joplin. Obviously not the main theme of that book.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
we wouldn’t have all this discussion about it.
And all music has a beat. But there’s a substantive difference between a beat that keeps the timing correct, and blends with the music, and a driving beat (especially a syncopated beat) that overpowers the song and joins with the music and words to make the song (no matter if it’s called “Baby You and Me” or “Eternal God and Father”) to cry out “SEX SEX SEX”.
I was saved at the age of 16. I know the difference between a song that directs the mind and heart to God, and a song that directs the mind and heart to the genitals.
Sorry for being crass, but there it is.
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
[Bert Perry]I’ll point out that you’re doing guilt by association here as well. Now another quote:
Why do these Psalms imply the use of a lewd, modern, pop/rock style?
See what I’m getting at? You are calling modern styles lewd—really saying that modern music is sin.
No, I don’t see what you are getting at. If you will notice, I qualify my use of “modern” with both “lewd” and “pop/rock style.” I don’t think that just because music is modern that it is sinful or lewd.
And so I plead with you to get to simply a preference for a certain genre of church music—I’m guessing most of yours dates from about 1800 to about 1950
Bert, you obviously don’t know anything about me, and that’s OK. Why would you? Ironically, most of the music I listen to in my car or at home pre-dates 1800 or was composed after 1950. It’s so funny that you peg me exactly wrong. But here’s the thing…I do believe some music is lewd — just like some speech, art, drama, dance, or any other expression of a totally depraved heart could be. Why would music alone be untouched by sin and human depravity? And I do believe the Bible gives us ways to identify such and that we are expected to do so and avoid it just like any other corrupt communication. So it simply doesn’t do to say it’s just preference, as if I could turn a switch and have it not bother me anymore. It doesn’t matter if it is performed well or where it came from or if it speaks to people. You want me to violate my conscience and say that this music that contradicts everything I know about God is A-OK — well I’m sorry but I cannot do that. But, hey, you should be happy — your side has basically won.
Andy
For the Washington Post Two Step:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Country-western_two-step#Historic_Two_Step
With short YouTube clips:
Yes, Bonanza was Hollywood. But, you made an unlimited categorical statement.
[Bert Perry]Rob Fall wrote:
Sousa’s Washington Post March is known as being the tune used for the historic two step. Remember Bonanza? Whenever they had a town dance the tune played was\is Under The Double Eagle. A truer statement would be “pretty much nobody any more dances to a march”.
Bert Perry wrote:
SNIP
first of all, pretty much nobody dances to a march, More Snip
Rob, compare the setting of Bonanza (1870s) to the composition dates of Sousa’s Washington Post March (1889) and Wagner’s Double Eagle (1893). Nice Hollywood license, but not history by any stretch of the imagination.
What’s your source on the two step, BTW? I see wiki has one, but it’s from a book on Scott Joplin. Obviously not the main theme of that book.
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
[Greg Long]Strange Steve, but that’s not at all what I think or feel on Christian/worship songs that have a driving beat.
Well, I guess YMMV, but I know that for me if I hear a rock band (even a “Christian” one), it reminds me of the music I used to listen to that encourages the listener to sin. So when I walk into a church and see a drum kit on stage, that creats a cognitive dissonance within me because it’s like the church is saying “worship God by sinning.” Or as the church sign said, “Come in and sin with our choir”
I know my experience isn’t translatable to everyone, but that is how I view music used during worship.
[AndyE]Why would music alone be untouched by sin and human depravity? And I do believe the Bible gives us ways to identify such and that we are expected to do so and avoid it just like any other corrupt communication.
Finally! Scripture! Please show us where the “Bible gives us ways to identify” this music that is depraved and sinful. If music is sinful, we must be able to identify what in it is sinful.
If you want to dance to something, John Peterson’s “Coming Again” is a great tune and very easy to waltz to. As a teenager it confused me because we sang it in a church that prohibited dancing yet we waltzed to it when no adult was around. The tune also reminded me of the music that was played at the banned roller skating rink that was considered a sinful place for teenagers.
It seems to me that music style, lacking a “clear” Biblical definition of an acceptable standard, is a matter of individual soul liberty.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
[Steve Picray]Greg Long wrote:
Strange Steve, but that’s not at all what I think or feel on Christian/worship songs that have a driving beat.
Well, I guess YMMV, but I know that for me if I hear a rock band (even a “Christian” one), it reminds me of the music I used to listen to that encourages the listener to sin. So when I walk into a church and see a drum kit on stage, that creats a cognitive dissonance within me because it’s like the church is saying “worship God by sinning.” Or as the church sign said, “Come in and sin with our choir”
I know my experience isn’t translatable to everyone, but that is how I view music used during worship.
What makes the music/song encourage people to sin?
[Steve Picray]we wouldn’t have all this discussion about it.
And all music has a beat. But there’s a substantive difference between a beat that keeps the timing correct, and blends with the music, and a driving beat (especially a syncopated beat) that overpowers the song and joins with the music and words to make the song (no matter if it’s called “Baby You and Me” or “Eternal God and Father”) to cry out “SEX SEX SEX”.
I was saved at the age of 16. I know the difference between a song that directs the mind and heart to God, and a song that directs the mind and heart to the genitals.
Sorry for being crass, but there it is.
The reason we are having this discussion is because there has been terrible teaching on this subject for decades. This is simply history being repeated again with different music. The music that is the mainstay of conservatism today was the “fleshly music” for someone else in history. What is “fleshly music” to conservatism today will be the mainstay of conservatism in years to come. The very fact that this is just history repeating itself shows that it doesn’t come from Scripture, but I don’t expect that will change anything. The church will still be having this same conversation 200 years from now with new music.
[RickyHorton] Finally! Scripture! Please show us where the “Bible gives us ways to identify” this music that is depraved and sinful. If music is sinful, we must be able to identify what in it is sinful.
Ah, this old chestnut: “Show me the exact place in the Bible where it names the characteristics of this song right here as wicked.”
The Bible doesn’t exhaustively define or list all things that are true, honorable, just, pure, lovely, commendable, excellent (which in particular seems pertinent to this discussion), or worthy of praise.
Do you find yourself at the same loss making these latter judgments as you do at making the former one?
[DavidO]RickyHorton wrote:
Finally! Scripture! Please show us where the “Bible gives us ways to identify” this music that is depraved and sinful. If music is sinful, we must be able to identify what in it is sinful.Ah, this old chestnut: “Show me the exact place in the Bible where it names the characteristics of this song right here as wicked.”
The Bible doesn’t exhaustively define or list all things that are true, honorable, just, pure, lovely, commendable, excellent (which in particular seems pertinent to this discussion), or worthy of praise.
Do you find yourself at the same loss making these latter judgments as you do at making the former one?
Then surely you can show us what elements of music are or can be sinful so we can identify which music is sinful and which music isn’t. Correct?
What I can do is make an argument from Biblical and aesthetic principle as to why a given piece of music, apart from the words, is or is not lovely, excellent, praiseworthy, or vulgar.
I may not always be right, but I affirm it can be done, and am at least somewhat equipped by various aspects of my education to do so.
Discussion