Rock Music in Worship: Why not?
- Thread starter Puritan Sailor
- Start date
- Status
What's the old line; the bagpipes where invented by the Irish and sent to Scotland as a joke? 
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Originally posted by NaphtaliPress
What's the old line; the bagpipes where invented by the Irish and sent to Scotland as a joke?
tdowns
Puritan Board Junior
Hey Kevin, question for you???
Question that may be a side track, I don't know?
In regards to statements like this one; "And if we think, as adopted sons, that we're allowed to come before God any old way and believe that He will accept it, we do not understand the godness of God." And others.
You say we can't please God with musical instruments as worship right? Is that just corporate worship? I mean, I'll sit and sing the psalms or just my own worshipful words while playing my guitar, are you saying that this displeases God? Just wondering if the statements about worshipping God and that we cannot without the Psalms, are they limited to public worship, or also to private in your opinion?
Just wondering.
After checking thread title, it doesn't say public worship, so I guess this is on topic. Can we worship God with any instrumental music in Private Worship in your opinion?
Maybe I missed it along the way, I don't usually read all the EP etc. threads due to length.
[Edited on 3-28-2006 by tdowns007]
[Edited on 3-28-2006 by tdowns007]
Question that may be a side track, I don't know?
In regards to statements like this one; "And if we think, as adopted sons, that we're allowed to come before God any old way and believe that He will accept it, we do not understand the godness of God." And others.
You say we can't please God with musical instruments as worship right? Is that just corporate worship? I mean, I'll sit and sing the psalms or just my own worshipful words while playing my guitar, are you saying that this displeases God? Just wondering if the statements about worshipping God and that we cannot without the Psalms, are they limited to public worship, or also to private in your opinion?
Just wondering.
After checking thread title, it doesn't say public worship, so I guess this is on topic. Can we worship God with any instrumental music in Private Worship in your opinion?
Maybe I missed it along the way, I don't usually read all the EP etc. threads due to length.
[Edited on 3-28-2006 by tdowns007]
[Edited on 3-28-2006 by tdowns007]
When I listen to rock music it is the music I hear not the lyrics.
Whatever musical medium we use should point to the lyrics not the call attention to the music. That might also be a criticism of using music by Handel and Bach in worship.
Therefore the music should be easily sung. Geneva chants come close to this ideal. So do some of the more simple plain song chants.
Archlute
Puritan Board Senior
I have thought about this issue and the connections between music and virtue for some years now, and having some formidable studies behind me in both theology and music I would be most delighted in trying my hand at giving an answer to this question. I will have to wait until after class this evening, but in the meantime, please, let us not have the tread shut down by arguments that are irrelevant to the question at hand! There is actually a fairly substantial Christaian history behind western music that is informed by both moral philosophy and Trinitarian theology, and it is at these points that the issue must be re-addressed. I hope to return to this soon, until then - use your thinkers and engage Patrick's particular point of discussion!
Originally posted by tdowns007
Question that may be a side track, I don't know?
In regards to statements like this one; "And if we think, as adopted sons, that we're allowed to come before God any old way and believe that He will accept it, we do not understand the godness of God." And others.
You say we can't please God with musical instruments as worship right? Is that just corporate worship? I mean, I'll sit and sing the psalms or just my own worshipful words while playing my guitar, are you saying that this displeases God? Just wondering if the statements about worshipping God and that we cannot without the Psalms, are they limited to public worship, or also to private in your opinion?
Just wondering.
After checking thread title, it doesn't say public worship, so I guess this is on topic. Can we worship God with any instrumental music in Private Worship in your opinion?
Maybe I missed it along the way, I don't usually read all the EP etc. threads due to length.
[Edited on 3-28-2006 by tdowns007]
[Edited on 3-28-2006 by tdowns007]
Good question. I would be interested in hearing y'all's views.
tdowns
Puritan Board Junior
Andrew?
And Andrew, as always, your opinions are of great interest to me. I believe I asked in other threads about private, and you stated, most of the issue is around public...but, with Kevin's remarks about pleasing God, they seem to me to overlap into any type worship. I would love your
Thanks.
And Andrew, as always, your opinions are of great interest to me. I believe I asked in other threads about private, and you stated, most of the issue is around public...but, with Kevin's remarks about pleasing God, they seem to me to overlap into any type worship. I would love your
Thanks.
Puritan Sailor
Puritan Board Doctor
Originally posted by kceaster
Originally posted by puritansailor
Yes. I should have known what 4 hours would do. From EP to special music to Puritan legalism..... Come guys. We can do better. Put your thinking caps on. Perhaps you may have to ask yourselves why you believe what you do before you post. Think through your presuppositions.
I asked a specific question. If you want to debate the legality of instruments at all in worship then start another thread. Technically, you can still have rock with acapella anyway (i.e. Take 6, Bobby McFerrin, etc.), so being EP or acapella won't answer the question. I'm simply looking for OBJECTIVE criteria. If you're answering the question with "I think...." or "I feel..." then please don't respond. Simply provide a logical argument either way. Then we will take the best pro and con answers and pick them apart and see what we can learn. That is where I would like the thread to go. So now, let's rock! Hit me with your best shot!
Premise 1: God is not well pleased with the means by which natural man worships Him. (De 12:1-4)
Premise 2: The fallenness of man precludes him from worshipping aright. (Jer 13:10)
Premise 3: If God did not tell us how to worship Him, our worship would be in vain and would be a way of death. (Pr 14:12)
Conclusion: Using fallen means and ceremonies, and even following the dictates of our own heartfelt desires does not produce acceptable worship before a holy God.
Now along with this, we must ask where the music comes from. Would God have have been pleased to use the music of surrounding nations in the worship of Himself by His people? If we can answer that question, then we are closer to determining what kind of music is acceptable to God in our own time. If it comes from the world, how can it be pleasing to God?
In Christ,
KC
Whooo Hooo! Someone finally tried to answer the question! Perhaps there is hope. Everyone else, unless you are going to form your propositions something like this, then please don't post.
Now Kevin,
I think we can all agree on this.
OK. So long as we understand that this applies even to those redeemed sinners who are attempting to worship as He has revealed. Sin taints every motive, even when we obey.
Agreed
Ok. Now, lets unpack some of your unstated presuppositions. You are assuming rock is a fallen means, that it is not instituted or commanded by God for worship correct?
1. On what grounds do you hold that presupposition?
2. How would any other genre of music written by men in the Church fit the criteria of being instituted or directed by God? (the old Hebrew divinely revealed music, if we can call it that, is lost).
VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
Originally posted by tdowns007
And Andrew, as always, your opinions are of great interest to me. I believe I asked in other threads about private, and you stated, most of the issue is around public...but, with Kevin's remarks about pleasing God, they seem to me to overlap into any type worship. I would love your
Thanks.
Hi Trevor,
I think Patrick would prefer that this question be addressed elsewhere. I'll send you a u2u with my
kceaster
Puritan Board Junior
Trevor....
Not at all. What I was getting at was that if we are pleasing to God at all, it is because of His own dear Son. Can we glorify God in our private expressions of praise and worship? Absolutely. But that takes on a completely different frame than public worship. There are a lot of frontiers they share, but there were things David did in his private worship, that he would not do in the public worship of God because they were not warranted, nor commanded.
Bottom line, God sees the heart. That is not to suggest that we may do as we please even in private. Look at how that could be manipulated and abused by all manner of things. But boil it down, and it means that God is pleased with Himself. However that comes out in public or private, it is the worship He has commanded.
In Christ,
KC
Originally posted by tdowns007
Question that may be a side track, I don't know?
In regards to statements like this one; "And if we think, as adopted sons, that we're allowed to come before God any old way and believe that He will accept it, we do not understand the godness of God." And others.
You say we can't please God with musical instruments as worship right? Is that just corporate worship? I mean, I'll sit and sing the psalms or just my own worshipful words while playing my guitar, are you saying that this displeases God? Just wondering if the statements about worshipping God and that we cannot without the Psalms, are they limited to public worship, or also to private in your opinion?
Just wondering.
Not at all. What I was getting at was that if we are pleasing to God at all, it is because of His own dear Son. Can we glorify God in our private expressions of praise and worship? Absolutely. But that takes on a completely different frame than public worship. There are a lot of frontiers they share, but there were things David did in his private worship, that he would not do in the public worship of God because they were not warranted, nor commanded.
Bottom line, God sees the heart. That is not to suggest that we may do as we please even in private. Look at how that could be manipulated and abused by all manner of things. But boil it down, and it means that God is pleased with Himself. However that comes out in public or private, it is the worship He has commanded.
In Christ,
KC
kceaster
Puritan Board Junior
Patrick....
Great.
Absolutely.
Great, again.
On that grounds that it did not originate with the church. Let me give you an example. Let's say that Bill Gates wrote a treatise on God. Knowing that he does not hold any theological degrees nor has his work been examined and approved by a church body, and he has not been ordained by any orthodox church, would we teach his views in the church even if we deemed them to be in accord with orthodox teaching? I realize that all analogies break down, and perhaps this one was faulty to begin with, but that is how I equate it in my mind to the topic at hand. It's not that it is inherently evil or that God has secretly forbade, for all time, any music with mirthful rhythms. The reason I think the church should oppose it is on the same grounds as it would anything that comes from a secular source. The same was true with Israel. They could use nothing that had been tainted by the world or its religions.
Now here's the sticky part. What if the rock and roll genre was originated for and used exclusively in the 'worship' of secular humanism? Would we still use it? I can't prove this nor is it infallible, but I think all music was given to give praise to something. And if it is not God, then it must be the Devil. That is music's power and inherent attribute. That is my presuppostion.
Because God instructs us by His Spirit. Is it divinely inspired? No. Is it infallible? No. But if you judge it closely, the music offered from the last millenia from the church, is largely in concert with her doctrines and practice. It is befitting a certain distance and reverence between Creator and creature. Now, we would say that only those who had been regenerated can correctly understand the Creator/creature distinction. Therefore, how does that not relate to music? It can only work that way if we believe music to be neutral and innocuous. And I would still argue that if it is neutral, then it does not come from God. God doesn't create neutral things. They either redound to His glory positively, or negatively by His power over them. But we should all agree not to hold to neutrality. If we can't hold to it in apologetics, we shouldn't be able to use it anywhere else.
In Christ,
KC
Great.
Absolutely.
Great, again.
On that grounds that it did not originate with the church. Let me give you an example. Let's say that Bill Gates wrote a treatise on God. Knowing that he does not hold any theological degrees nor has his work been examined and approved by a church body, and he has not been ordained by any orthodox church, would we teach his views in the church even if we deemed them to be in accord with orthodox teaching? I realize that all analogies break down, and perhaps this one was faulty to begin with, but that is how I equate it in my mind to the topic at hand. It's not that it is inherently evil or that God has secretly forbade, for all time, any music with mirthful rhythms. The reason I think the church should oppose it is on the same grounds as it would anything that comes from a secular source. The same was true with Israel. They could use nothing that had been tainted by the world or its religions.
Now here's the sticky part. What if the rock and roll genre was originated for and used exclusively in the 'worship' of secular humanism? Would we still use it? I can't prove this nor is it infallible, but I think all music was given to give praise to something. And if it is not God, then it must be the Devil. That is music's power and inherent attribute. That is my presuppostion.
Because God instructs us by His Spirit. Is it divinely inspired? No. Is it infallible? No. But if you judge it closely, the music offered from the last millenia from the church, is largely in concert with her doctrines and practice. It is befitting a certain distance and reverence between Creator and creature. Now, we would say that only those who had been regenerated can correctly understand the Creator/creature distinction. Therefore, how does that not relate to music? It can only work that way if we believe music to be neutral and innocuous. And I would still argue that if it is neutral, then it does not come from God. God doesn't create neutral things. They either redound to His glory positively, or negatively by His power over them. But we should all agree not to hold to neutrality. If we can't hold to it in apologetics, we shouldn't be able to use it anywhere else.
In Christ,
KC
Puritan Sailor
Puritan Board Doctor
[/quote]
What then so you mean by "originate with the church"? Are you saying that the musical genre's must be composed by Christians?
I hesitate to specualte about how Hebrew music vs. ancient pagan music since we have nothing from either culture that survives today. Certainly the doctrinal content was different.
I'm not so sure we could pin rock on secular humanism alone. They also use jazz, country, opera, and just about every other genre to advance such worship.
Music certainly conveys our emotions often better than words can alone often. I'm not sure that we can limit it to only a means of worshipping something. For instance, would a husband composing a love song to his wife necessarily be worship? Esteem and gratitude perhaps. Could that also be considered giving honor to whom honor is due? But let's set this point aside for the moment and focus on "originating in the church."
I will agree with you that even music is not nuetral. But as noted above, I'm not sure we can limit it's scope to only the expression of worshipping something.
But you pulled out another premise there. "The music offered from the last millenia from the church, is largely in concert with her doctrines and practice." Explain this some. How does doctrine relate to genre?
[Edited on 3-28-2006 by puritansailor]
kceaster
Puritan Board Junior
If we're talking about music, art, food, whatever, a man's presuppositions will affect all of these things. If man has a wrong idea about his creator, then whatever he thinks or does will be in direct rebellion against God. Take the Tower of Babel for instance. That was against the knowledge of God. The people may really have come up with a good design, they may have been good builders, etc. But they started with the wrong premise and an incorrect worldview. Therefore, what they created was corrupt and was thwarted by God.
I do not see any reason why music would not be the same.
Whatever worships the creature over the creator would fall into this category.
In the same way that regeneration and worldview plays into everything we do. If a person believes in a transcendent God who has created and condescended towards him, who has divinely saved him, and who is to be worshiped and revered and enjoyed will write completely different music than someone who does not share these views.
Doctrine forms how I approach my job in computers. Doctrine forms how I approach stewardship of resources, etc.
Plato is going to come up with completely different musical moods than Peter. Plotinus, than Paul. Aristotle, than Augustine. If music is not neutral and comes from our creator God and is a part of His image, then the fallenness of man will always corrupt it. Likewise, a regenerated man will approach it completely different, or at least, he should if he is living out his life according to his principles.
In Christ,
KC
WrittenFromUtopia
Puritan Board Graduate
We need more guitar solos in church.
I don't think this is true. Plato would come up with different lyrics, but the style of music may be the same as Peter's. I bet you'd be hard pressed to tell some Christians' painting from some atheists'. Same for music. I don't think we can judge how pleasing music or art may be to God based on it's style or genre. We can only judge those things which can be articulated rationally. If it's merely a matter of emotional response, there's no objective bases to judge it. Who the author is has no bearing on the "goodness" of a melody, or the "beauty" of a painting. Those characteristics are not really predicates of the melody or art work, they are our subjective response to them. We can only judge ourselves in that case. We may respond to a tune with anger or joy, regardless of who composed it, and neither reaction is in itself a sin or good work. There is nothing inherently good or evil in a melody.
I know an atheist who told me that 8 and 2 equals 10, and the value of Pi is approximately 3.14. Is his thinking in direct rebellion to God? It sure seems like in this case, he thoughts are in agreement with God's. Maybe his motives are impure, but his math is impeccable. And you should see how majestic is paintings are!
Puritan Sailor
Puritan Board Doctor
But how would believers then have constructed a tower any differently? Was it motive alone that made the difference? I hope I'm asking that right. I know there was more involved in building the tower of Babel, for instance the peoples refusal to spread out and exercise dominion over the earth. So it wasn't the building of the tower itself. Several others have been built since.
If it was motive alone which condemned their architectual feat, then how does that make rock as an available music genre any different if people are using it as a right motive to sing God's duly appointed prose?
I agree so far. But again, tie this into genre specifically. How does any of this rule out rock?
But, Peter, and Paul, and Augustine were speaking in a culture heavily influenced by Plato, Aristotle, and Plotinus. The Christians took the best of these philosophies, and the questions the philosophers asked, and used it to teach good theology in opposition to their pagan counterparts.
And to take your point a little further, the church is in a state now, where faithful Christian men are writing rock tunes to hymns (and even psalms). They are doing so out of a motive to adequately express the words of their theology, yes some even Reformed theology, all with elder approval. So there are some hymns, originating out of the church, with rock tunes. And what if they stand the test of history? Will rock then be considered a legitmate genre option for worship since they were composed by Christians?
Puritan Sailor
Puritan Board Doctor
Ok. Someone rises to rock's defence. Get ready.
This is a rather strong presupposition. Care to prove it? We can't judge music rationally?
And what then determines if a genre is pleasing to God in worship?
Does authorial intent play no role then in the suitability of a melody? If so please explain.
Would you deny that some melodies better convey the thoughts of a song than others?
Is the response to any music is purely subjective? If this is what you mean above, then please explain that.
That we can only judge things that we can articulate rationally? To clarify, I'm speaking of making a moral judgment, not an ascetically judgment.
Imagine a painting, on it is a cat sitting in a field of wheat. To the right in the background is a small wood-frame house. The sky is blue and it's partly cloudy. Now, tell me how you would judge the moral content of that painting?
I don't think "genre" can convey enough information to make that determination. It would depend on the actual example of the genre, it's objective content (if any), and how we react to it. For instance, does it distract us from our mediation on God's glory, or does it aid our meditation on God's glory.
If you did not know the intent of the composer, would it change the actual melody? If Shakespeare did not write Henry the Eighth, would that change it's qualities? To quote a Bard cliché, "a rose by any other name would be just as sweet".
Melodies in themselves do not covey thoughts, but they can effect how we interpret the meaning of the lyrics. I think that is what you mean. Melodies are empty of thought. They do not convey any intelligible ideas. But the melody may change how we interpret the words of a song, the same way we can change the meaning of a spoken sentence by stressing different words.
I saw you at the movies last Saturday.
I saw you at the movies last Saturday.
I saw you at the movies last Saturday.
etc.
Each sentence implies a different unspoken message.
The emotional response we have to a melody is just that, emotional. The melody itself has no emotions. We imbue the melody with our own emotional responses. And there is no univocal objective truth to what emotional response any two people will have to the same tune. Some might find it disturbing, and others might find it delightful.
Puritan Sailor
Puritan Board Doctor
Do you think there may be some underlying presuppositions in these two different people which would help determine their varying responses to the same tune?
I appreciate this thread. I must say I'm under-equipped to debate the issue of the RPW with great force.
I do have some recollection of a convincing argument from an issue of Modern Reformation a few years back.
The basic argument went something to the effect that our the music in Church ought to be trans-cultural.
The "problem" that I have with rock music or jazz or bluegrass or folk or some other peculiar form is how it ends up segregating congregations. Sunday morning is the most segregated time in America because people tend to congregate around their preferred "form".
It becomes particularly evident how inappropriate Rock and Praise styles of music as I attend an international congregation in Okinawa with Okinawans, Japanese, Chinese, Filipinos, French, Americans, etc. What is sung: American music essentially pushed on to the congregation. It is "un-natural" for many of the people culturally but the few Japanese that attend have "gotten used to it." How many people just stay away because they prefer not to have another piece of American culture pushed on to them?
There is liberty in plain-ness for lack of a better term. Simple forms that have been used by the Church for centuries can be claimed by no culture or group. I think Churches that use Rock music to attract a younger demographic end up segregating their congregations. Americans that think that praise choruses demonstrate spiritual vibrancy have now polluted other cultures with it.
I don't mind eating McDonalds in Okinawa but it really is frustrating to hear a Filipino lead praise choruses really poorly because that's the only music they were "brought up on" evangelically.
I do have some recollection of a convincing argument from an issue of Modern Reformation a few years back.
The basic argument went something to the effect that our the music in Church ought to be trans-cultural.
The "problem" that I have with rock music or jazz or bluegrass or folk or some other peculiar form is how it ends up segregating congregations. Sunday morning is the most segregated time in America because people tend to congregate around their preferred "form".
It becomes particularly evident how inappropriate Rock and Praise styles of music as I attend an international congregation in Okinawa with Okinawans, Japanese, Chinese, Filipinos, French, Americans, etc. What is sung: American music essentially pushed on to the congregation. It is "un-natural" for many of the people culturally but the few Japanese that attend have "gotten used to it." How many people just stay away because they prefer not to have another piece of American culture pushed on to them?
There is liberty in plain-ness for lack of a better term. Simple forms that have been used by the Church for centuries can be claimed by no culture or group. I think Churches that use Rock music to attract a younger demographic end up segregating their congregations. Americans that think that praise choruses demonstrate spiritual vibrancy have now polluted other cultures with it.
I don't mind eating McDonalds in Okinawa but it really is frustrating to hear a Filipino lead praise choruses really poorly because that's the only music they were "brought up on" evangelically.
kceaster
Puritan Board Junior
Mr. Coletti...
This is the same kind of argument used in apologetics as it pertains to epistemology. I would encourage you to view some of the threads on this. It is adequately answered there in the Apologetics forum, so I'll not duplicate it over here.
In Christ,
KC
This is the same kind of argument used in apologetics as it pertains to epistemology. I would encourage you to view some of the threads on this. It is adequately answered there in the Apologetics forum, so I'll not duplicate it over here.
In Christ,
KC
Not sure there would be presuppositions as it would be predispositions. If you grew up in a church which only sang old gospel tunes, but you had a hard time in that church, you may associate those old songs with legalism. But if you had the opposite experience, you might feel at home with those old tunes.
There might be some common (if not universal) reactions to certain combination of rhythm and tonality, but I think this is very limited. I think the majority of our reaction is due to our experiences and associations we have with different types of music or particular tunes. And even if we say that there is a common response to types of music, the response is still a feeling - an emotion. Emotions themselves are not good or evil.
kceaster
Puritan Board Junior
An unregenerate man is condemned in all he does because he is in rebellion against God in all his faculties. That doesn't mean God won't use whatever He created this "vessel" for, it simply means that it needs to be expressly stated why we would use what this "vessel" poured forth. Is it because we glory in God? Or, is it because we glory in man's achievement? It would be the same if we wanted to use the music of Wagner in the church. If we consider the music beautiful and to the glory of God, notwithstanding the wickedness of the man, perhaps we could use it. In other words,, there is nothing saying we can't. I just think there is more exalted ground to plow in without using Wagner.
Why would a steak specifically dedicated to an Idol be fit to eat? That's how I view the music which comes from the world. It's not just Rock, it's country, jazz, blues, and much of gospel music, too, since it has been taken from the world.
How do we know what to read in theology? We read alot of it and most of us know what is orthodox and what isn't. But we have to read alot of it to know. It is the same with music. How do we know what kind of music is pleasing to God? By listening to it and emulating it in newer music. I think you'd agree that music all throughout the last 2 centuries has been influenced by the popular music of the world. It was exactly the reverse with music before that. The music that we sing to our psalms and hymns is largely music that resides in the genre of church music. If it resembles anything in the world, then the world copied it, and the church reclaimed it afterwards.
In apologetics, yes, they did have to do this. And some would say that using terms that the world uses in our apologetics is reclaiming the language for the church. But largely, we do not use philosophical terms in our worship. So why would we use the music?
It may one day be. But I really can't see it from here. The genre does not carry the weight of the words. And the dominion of the words is the Spirit. Is He going to give over His words to a vehicle that cannot carry it? We can already see that the sentimental gospel songs have flourished in the evangelical churches so that they displaced the tunes of earlier times. But in those churches, what is the result? The tunes do not carry the weight. And because music is didactic, what does "light" music teach? What have we seen in these churches? They have almost no sense of the godness of God. Not to mention that much of their music brings God down to them, not take them up to Him.
God may allow His people to do this and to embrace the rock or country genre. But In my humble opinion, the worship will become elementary and immature because the words won't be carrying the full glory of God.
In Christ,
KC
I know. I've made the arguments in those threads you are referring too. Non-believers are created in God's image too. They can think rationally, and have justified true beliefs, if only about the purely rational and abstract. The idea that there is no common thought between believers and non-believers is a apologetic error that seems to be rooted in the transcendental arguments for God, which I've argued is bad logic. You can look in the apologetic threads and see how I've dealt with that irrational concept.
kceaster
Puritan Board Junior
I can see why you have the views you do about music. But, it is quite wrong to think that there are purely rational and abstract things that an unregenerate man can think. There is no thinking without God, there is no knowledge outside of God. I'm sure you've heard this before, but it is the very reason why I'm saying what I'm saying about music.
Further, Vantillian apologetics does not deny common ground between the believer and unbeliever. What it does deny is any belief about neutrality. There is nothing neutral between the believer and the unbeliever.
In Christ,
KC
Paul deals with that issue in 1Co 8:4-13, and later in 1Co 10:25-33. Basically, he say there is no harm to us in eating the meat dedicated to idols. And when we buy meat in the market, don't worry about if the meat was butchered during some ceremony to an idol. There is only one God, and the idols are nothing. Basically, meat is meat and wine is wine. However, he warns is that this knowledge does not give us license to eat the meat in front of brothers who are still superstitious. We do not want to offend our brothers just to prove a point.
As this applies to rock and other music genres, it means we should not force the members of the church to worship using music they find offensive. Although the music itself may be permitted, we should not force weaker brothers to do some thing that offends their conscience.
- Status
