# Rock Music in Worship: Why not?



## Puritan Sailor

I would like to hear some reasoned arguments for why rock music should or should not be used in worship. (By rock, I mean music with a back beat, not just the extremes of heavy metal etc.) Again, I want *reasoned* logical arguments, not the spattering back and forth of personal musical preferences. The Scriptures command us to sing, but the style of worship is never given, and the old Hebrew music to which the psalms were written has been lost. So, we are left to write our own tunes, as our fathers have done in the past. Why should rock be rejected as appropriate? Can it ever be appropriate to use in worship? Again, give a *reasoned* argument either way. 

*If you're going to post article links, please summarize the argument of the article, since many of us don't have the time to read through tons of articles.


[Edited on 3-28-2006 by puritansailor]


----------



## Peter

I think that some RP congregations with younger members (or was it the camps?) were setting psalms to more 'contemporary' 'tunes'. 

My gut reaction would be to say rock is bad for worship as it overwhelms the text and its fast pace and irregular rhythm causes discord, but I'm not adamant.


----------



## Pilgrim

I'm not adamant about it either, but unfortunately the rock music seems to lead inevitably to the "7-11 songs" (i.e. 7 words repeated 11 times). In my humble opinion a big problem today in evangelical (not to mention charismatic) churches is folks going to church looking to get some kind of feeling and thinking they haven't "worshipped" and haven't really gotten close to God unless they have received it. Of course that happens to an extent in more "high church" settings as well, with the "smells and bells", lighting candles, etc. It seems that the Reformed are very nearly alone in having the emphasis on the didactic purpose of singing and not in trying to evoke some kind of religious sentiment with it.

[Edited on 3-28-2006 by Pilgrim]


----------



## py3ak

It is clear from Scripture that music impacts the human personality, without needing words (Elisha and Saul). How does any given kind of music affect us? Obviously there are individual variations, so perhaps hard-and-fast rules for individuals with regard solely to instrumental music (as words are probably a little easier to judge and a little less subjective in their effect) are extremely difficult to come by. For corporate worship, then, we must use the wisdom given us and consider the tendency of any given genre on the mass of people, or what its creators desired to achieve with it.
There are songs which seem designed to produce melancholy, for instance. Such a melody would be inappropriate for singing Psalm 100 to.
Since instrumental music does influence the human personality, then it must not be music which contradicts the words of the Psalms we are singing; and it should not be music which stirs up feelings inappropriate for worship: such as happy-go-lucky 'who cares' kind of stuff.


----------



## kceaster

The argument I would give is that this genre of music is taken from the world. Yeah, I know people say that rock music comes from gospel roots, but one has to ask where these gospel roots came from and how they were influenced.

Music for worship starts in the church, it is not borrowed from the world. If God didn't borrow anything else in His worship, why would He borrow music?

In Christ,

KC


----------



## panta dokimazete

As a classically trained professional musician, a worship leader and raised a rural southerner, but have become a world citizen, I have participated/performed virtually every type/style of music to the glory of God - from sacred orchestral oratorio (Messiah, Elijah, Hodie), acappella eclectica, southern gospel, bluegrass, Celtic, "rock", etc, etc...and my personal reasoned opinion is that music without text and purpose is neutral - it is the content, intent and preference of the performer, participant and listener that determines the efficacy/impact of music (all obviously secondary to the Holy Spirit's influence).

Music is the language of emotion - language communicates content. Language styles change - so do musical styles. I don't speak Aramaic to communicate the Gospel - I use modern language, so why should I not use modern musical styles to communicate worship and praise to the Glory of God?

KJV anyone?

-JD

[Edited on 3-28-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## BobVigneault

I used to play in some so-called 'praise bands'.

1. I have not yet met a member of a 'praise band' who is able to check their ego at the door. They all want to be the next Darlene Zsech or Michael W. (I sing through my nose) Smith.

2. I am a head banger and have been for years but theological thought has weight to it. Most music with a back beat cannot carry the weight of the message. Think Handel's Messiah - A near perfect example of music presenting the Gospel and the music in balanced to the weight of the message.

3. Rock music is a compound of many musical elements, ie. instuments, beats, atmosphere, complicated rhythms. Too many elements can become a distraction to the message that is being delivered. I am a songwriter and part-time entertainer. I wrestle with what is the most effective way to deliver the message. When the message is the Gospel or the great truths of scripture I become very aware of how easily myself or the music can become a distraction.

4. Rock music is designed more for entertaining and has the tendency to take the listener to a more passive state than a participatory mode. Mi dos pesos.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

OK. Still heavily weighted with preferences and opinions.... But we've got some things to work with. 

Are all effects of rock necessarily bad? For instance, rock can be light and festive and not driving to melancholy. Many of the psalms and hymns are also light and festive. (Many of the psalms are driven by melancholy too btw....). 

So, other than the idea that rock "seems" to be inappropriate to our Reformed ears (which I tend to agree with by the way) what other reason could there be to rejecting it? Would such a means of communicating a hymn or psalm "seem" inappropriate to a new convert with no background in the church? 

Bob, 
I also used to be in the "praise band" rocking away, and I can certainly identify with the Ego factor, both in others and myself. It's one reason I never play in church anymore. But, I do think you have an interesting point there about rock not being able to carry the theological weight of Christian hymns. It is much harder to sing about the doctrines of grace to a backbeat. The ideas require more sophistication to communicate them. But is that a failure of rock? Or a failure of our own creativity? I do think that is why rock can prevail so much in charismatic circles, because the theology is not so weighty. But some have managed to do it. Have you ever listened to anything from Indelible Grace? They are a Reformed group who basically are taking the older hymns and putting them to modern music, occasionally rock. I only bring them up as an example of folks who have perhaps the "good" aspects of rock and put them to older hymns. With some of them, it's like, "yeah right... nice try...", and others it's like "Hmmm... that just might work."

[Edited on 3-28-2006 by puritansailor]


----------



## panta dokimazete

> 1. I have not yet met a member of a 'praise band' who is able to check their ego at the door. They all want to be the next Darlene Zsech or Michael W. (I sing through my nose) Smith.



As the worship leader, it is my responsibility to gently educate - or if that fails - cull these type folk out. 

It is less a music style problem and more of a heart problem. I have seen plenty of egos sing Messiah,etc... thinking they would be the next Luciano Pavarotti or Joan (Big Mama) Sutherland.


Soli Deo Gloria!

-JD

[Edited on 3-28-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## BobVigneault

Good point JD, you're right of course.

Patrick, as far as playing rock music to new converts one thing to consider is the 'meat offered to idols' aspect. How many new believers have you known who after conversion would have nothing to do with the music they used to listen to? This doesn't add to the argument one way or the other but it is something that will come up from time to time.

I speak in a lot of different churches and I guess I've conditioned myself to follow a path of least controversy for the sake of the Gospel. I am probably overly cautious.


----------



## panta dokimazete

I posted the song below as an example of what I consider one of the very best of "rock" type songs that truly engage the culture - sitting here editing it with the music playing in my mind - here at a boring Information Technology summit for executive leadership with tears running down my face and chill bumps rising...this is NOT simple emotionalism.

What If
by Nicole Nordeman

What if you're right?

He was just another nice guy.

What if you're right?

What if it's true?

They say the cross will only make a fool of you

What if it's true?

What if he takes His place in history
With all the prophets andÂ the kings
Who taught us love and came in peace

But then the story ends

What then?

But what if you're wrong?

What if there's more?

What if there's hope you never dreamed of hoping for?

What if you jump?

Just close your eyes?

What if the arms that catch you, catch you by surprise?

What if He's more than enough?

What if it's love?

What if you dig?

Way down deeper than your simple-minded friends

What if you dig?

What if you find a thousand more unanswered questions down inside?

That's all you find?

What if you pick apart the logic and begin to poke the holes?
What if the crown of thorns is no more than folklore that must be told and retold

But what if you're wrong?

What if there's more?

What if there's hope you never dreamed of hoping for?

What if you jump?

Just close your eyes?

What if the arms that catch you, catch you by surprise?

What if He's more than enough?

What if it's love?

You've been running as fast as you can
You've been looking for a place you can land for so long

But what if you're wrong?

What if you jump?

Just close your eyes?

What if the arms that catch you, catch you by surprise?

What if he's more than enough?

What if it's love?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

While I don't have time to write a full length essay on this subject, I would propose several principles which when applied to singing God's praises in public worship would have bearing on whether or not rock music is appropriate in this context. 

1) A cappella -- Musical instruments in Christian worship are a violation of the regulative principle of worship. They are part of the ceremonial temple worship that was abolished by Christ. Christian worship is modelled after the synagogue worship which did not include musical instruments but rather exclusive a cappella psalmody. Simple worship in spirit and in truth is what pleases God, and to be praised by the human voice with grace in the heart, rather than by musical instruments (which are in themselves a good thing but in worship are merely "lifeless strings," according to Chrysostom).

"The organ in the worship is the insignia of Baal"¦ The Roman Catholic borrowed it from the Jews." (Martin Luther, Mcclintock & Strong's Encyclopedia Volume VI, page 762)

"Musical instruments in celebrating the praises of God would be no more suitable than the burning of incense, the lighting of lamps, and the restoration of the other shadows of the law. The Papists therefore, have foolishly borrowed, this, as well as many other things, from the Jews. Men who are fond of outward pomp may delight in that noise; but the simplicity which God recommends to us by the apostles is far more pleasing to him. Paul allows us to bless God in the public assembly of the saints, only in a known tongue (I Cor. 14:16) What shall we then say of chanting, which fills the ears with nothing but an empty sound?" (John Calvin, Commentary on Psalms 33)

2) Exclusive psalmody -- The psalms alone are commanded by God to be the matter of our praise to Him. There is no command to compose new matter, the canon of God's "hymn-book," the Psalter, is closed.

3) Congregational song -- Public worship is for all of God's people. Professionally trained choirs and soloists -- which have their place in other contexts -- are not appropriate in public worship, because the ordinance of song is designed for all, young and old, men, women and children, skillful or or not. One implication of this is that tunes must be singable by the average layman. 

4) Appropriateness and order -- Tunes must be appropriate to the matter at hand. The melody must be suitable to the lyrics and, as noted, singable by the average layman. Not too fast, not too slow. 

Westminster Directory of Publick Worship:



> In singing of psalms, the voice is to be tunably and gravely ordered; but the chief care must be to sing with understanding, and with grace in the heart, making melody unto the Lord.



When all is said and done, following these principles, there is no prohibition against a tune because it is contemporary or derived from an unlikely source. Rock music and a cappella song are not incompatible. But the real issue is the joining together of lyrics and tune sung by the human voice in a matter fitting the worship of the Almighty God. If that is accomplished, it matters not whether the composer of the melody is Luther, Bach or John Lennon or Bobby McFerrin.


----------



## py3ak

I agree with Andrew on points 3 & 4 and his closing paragraph. Number 3 is why, though my own preference is classical, I do not think that we should be singing Vivaldi's ravishingly beautiful settings of the Psalms (Beatus Vir Qui Timet Dominus is incredible); they require trained musicians. I will listen to them at home (thus learning a little Latin at the same time), and at church I will rejoice in singing simpler tunes.
Patrick, you are right that some of the Psalms are melancholy --Psalm 137 comes to mind. To sing "Super flumina" to "Oh what a beautiful morning" would be tremendously inadequate. I do not say that melancholy in worship is wrong; but it is not always right. In the same way jubilation in singing the first part of Psalm 51 is not right. However, there are emotions which are never right in worship. Indifference is an emotion; flippancy is an emotion.
I would add that we are supposed to be teaching and exhorting in our singing; therefore the way the songs are sung must be understandable. That is, the words should not be drowned out by the instruments, and the distortion placed upon the words by the stresses of the music should be as small as possible. Furthermore, if teaching is to be line upon line, there is supposed to be coherency and progress. That leads me to conclude that a tune should have a definite beginning and end.


----------



## panta dokimazete

> 1) A cappella -- Musical instruments in Christian worship are a violation of the regulative principle of worship. They are part of the ceremonial temple worship that was abolished by Christ. Christian worship is modelled after the synagogue worship which did not include musical instruments but rather exclusive a cappella psalmody. Simple worship in spirit and in truth is what pleases God, and to be praised by the human voice with grace in the heart, rather than by musical instruments (which are in themselves a good thing but in worship are merely "lifeless strings," according to Chrysostom).



By this rationale, then we should certainly ban the use of the Bible or creedal documents in worship as they are a good thing, but in worship merely "lifeless paper" and do everything from memory - we would then surely be exhibiting ourselves worthy to worship God in Spirit and Truth...

[Edited on 3-28-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## panta dokimazete

> 3) Congregational song -- Public worship is for all of God's people. Professionally trained choirs and soloists -- which have their place in other contexts -- are not appropriate in public worship, because the ordinance of song is designed for all, young and old, men, women and children, skillful or or not. One implication of this is that tunes must be singable by the average layman.



Then certainly all sermons should be constructed to eschew any complexity above the comprehension of the average layman or child...only milk preaching, no rich meat in the worship service...


----------



## py3ak

JD, if I can reply for Andrew to your post, about congregational song being for all of God's people, I think you are neglecting the fact in your reply that we are commanded to grow in grace and knowledge --to be able to give an answer concerning the hope that lies in us. But we are not commanded to develop the voice of Rolando VillazÃ³n.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Thanks, Reuben. That's right. The command to sing applies to all, not to a professionally trained elite group of singers only. We are all to sing praises to God, not just those who have exceptional abilities.

As for the sermon, the minister's duty is to preach according to the needs and abilities of his congregation. He is speaking to all, young and old, learned and unlearned, and must take that into account.

Congregational singing and the minister's preaching are all based on the principle of edification, which Calvin alluded to in the quote I cited, and is in view in Col. 3.16 and elsewhere.


----------



## py3ak

That all things should be done decently and in order and unto edification are indeed principles which should govern all of our worship. 
The difficult thing is working that out into actual practice.


----------



## panta dokimazete

Thank you for your graceful reply Ruben, but I am really only pointing out that loving the Lord with all our mind, heart, soul and strength includes giving Him the best of our talent in worship, as well...it would be sacreledge for me not to present the fruit of my training, skill and talent as an offering of praise to the Lord - to the edification of the body and His Glory.

To wit: Mallot's - The Lord's Prayer - this song is a prayer and very demanding vocally - should it be excluded from the worship of God? or only sung acapella and congregationally?

[Edited on 3-28-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> 
> 
> 
> 1) A cappella -- Musical instruments in Christian worship are a violation of the regulative principle of worship. They are part of the ceremonial temple worship that was abolished by Christ. Christian worship is modelled after the synagogue worship which did not include musical instruments but rather exclusive a cappella psalmody. Simple worship in spirit and in truth is what pleases God, and to be praised by the human voice with grace in the heart, rather than by musical instruments (which are in themselves a good thing but in worship are merely "lifeless strings," according to Chrysostom).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By this rationale, then we should certainly ban the use of the Bible or creedal documents in worship as they are a good thing, but in worship merely "lifeless paper" and do everything from memory - we would then surely be exhibiting ourselves worthy to worship God in Spirit and Truth...
> 
> [Edited on 3-28-2006 by jdlongmire]
Click to expand...


The Bible itself commands that the Word of God be read, sung and preached in worship. The Word of God is a necessary element of worship. While memorization is a good thing, and it has come in handy for the saints under persecution who lack Bibles in times past and present, the Bible is a good thing in worship and -- consistent with the _Biblical_ principle of _sola scriptura_ -- whereas musical instruments are part of the ceremonial worship abolished by God's Word.


----------



## kceaster

*JD...*

You wrote: "My personal reasoned opinion is that music without text and purpose is neutral."

Who gave you your reason and what makes you think anything He's given you is 'neutral'?

The Scriptures are pretty plain about neutrality. All things bring glory to God, but its clear that they proceed from either things exalted against His mind, or in concert with His mind. There is nothing neutral. If there is one neutral thing in the universe that it matters not whether it serves God's good purpose, or stands against that good purpose, then there is a possiblity that everything is neutral and therefore, God is not God.

Nothing existed before God. Everything that exists was created by Him to do His will. Therefore, nothing is neutral.

In Christ,

KC



[Edited on 3-28-2006 by kceaster]


----------



## panta dokimazete

KC,

"without text and purpose" is the key to that statement - neutral in the sense that water is neutral without context and purpose (ie: baptism)

[Edited on 3-28-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## panta dokimazete

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> 
> 
> 
> 1) A cappella -- Musical instruments in Christian worship are a violation of the regulative principle of worship. They are part of the ceremonial temple worship that was abolished by Christ. Christian worship is modelled after the synagogue worship which did not include musical instruments but rather exclusive a cappella psalmody. Simple worship in spirit and in truth is what pleases God, and to be praised by the human voice with grace in the heart, rather than by musical instruments (which are in themselves a good thing but in worship are merely "lifeless strings," according to Chrysostom).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By this rationale, then we should certainly ban the use of the Bible or creedal documents in worship as they are a good thing, but in worship merely "lifeless paper" and do everything from memory - we would then surely be exhibiting ourselves worthy to worship God in Spirit and Truth...
> 
> [Edited on 3-28-2006 by jdlongmire]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Bible itself commands that the Word of God be read, sung and preached in worship. The Word of God is a necessary element of worship. While memorization is a good thing, and it has come in handy for the saints under persecution who lack Bibles in times past and present, the Bible is a good thing in worship and -- consistent with the _Biblical_ principle of _sola scriptura_ -- whereas musical instruments are part of the ceremonial worship abolished by God's Word.
Click to expand...


Where does Scripture specifically abolish musical instruments?

Food for thought:

Ephesians 5:19
addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and *making melody* to the Lord with all your heart, 

making melody is not just singing - otherwise there would be no need to differentiate...

1 Corinthians 14:6-8 

6Now, brothers,if I come to you speaking in tongues, how will I benefit you unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or teaching? 7If even lifeless instruments, such as the flute or the harp, do not give distinct notes, how will anyone know what is played? 8And if the bugle gives an indistinct sound, who will get ready for battle?

Revelation 5:8
And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a *harp*, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. 

Revelation 15:2
And I saw what appeared to be a sea of glass mingled with fire--and also those who had conquered the beast and its image and the number of its name, standing beside the sea of glass with *harps* of God in their hands. 

........................................


And do you agree with the abolishment of creedal documents and statements, since they are not directly Scripture?



[Edited on 3-28-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## jfschultz

I would ask "Why"? (Am I repeating myself?)

Too often this sort of decision is based on looking at what is attractive to the world. This is rationalized with the idea that God is glorified by the number of bodies in the pews.

The question must go back to the purpose of worship. Isn't it God's glory?

The answer might be right, but it must be suspect if the wrong question was being asked.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> 
> 
> 
> 1) A cappella -- Musical instruments in Christian worship are a violation of the regulative principle of worship. They are part of the ceremonial temple worship that was abolished by Christ. Christian worship is modelled after the synagogue worship which did not include musical instruments but rather exclusive a cappella psalmody. Simple worship in spirit and in truth is what pleases God, and to be praised by the human voice with grace in the heart, rather than by musical instruments (which are in themselves a good thing but in worship are merely "lifeless strings," according to Chrysostom).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By this rationale, then we should certainly ban the use of the Bible or creedal documents in worship as they are a good thing, but in worship merely "lifeless paper" and do everything from memory - we would then surely be exhibiting ourselves worthy to worship God in Spirit and Truth...
> 
> [Edited on 3-28-2006 by jdlongmire]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Bible itself commands that the Word of God be read, sung and preached in worship. The Word of God is a necessary element of worship. While memorization is a good thing, and it has come in handy for the saints under persecution who lack Bibles in times past and present, the Bible is a good thing in worship and -- consistent with the _Biblical_ principle of _sola scriptura_ -- whereas musical instruments are part of the ceremonial worship abolished by God's Word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where does Scripture specifically abolish musical instruments?
> 
> Food for thought:
> 
> Ephesians 5:19
> addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and *making melody* to the Lord with all your heart,
> 
> making melody is not just singing - otherwise there would be no need to differentiate...
> 
> 1 Corinthians 14:6-8
> 
> 6Now, brothers,if I come to you speaking in tongues, how will I benefit you unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or teaching? 7If even lifeless instruments, such as the flute or the harp, do not give distinct notes, how will anyone know what is played? 8And if the bugle gives an indistinct sound, who will get ready for battle?
> 
> Revelation 5:8
> And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a *harp*, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.
> 
> Revelation 15:2
> And I saw what appeared to be a sea of glass mingled with fire--and also those who had conquered the beast and its image and the number of its name, standing beside the sea of glass with *harps* of God in their hands.
> 
> ........................................
> 
> 
> And do you agree with the abolishment of creedal documents and statements, since they are not directly Scripture?
> 
> 
> 
> [Edited on 3-28-2006 by jdlongmire]
Click to expand...


Creedal documents and statements are inherent in the duty to confess our faith. To the extent they are vows, they are lawful in worship, and they may be referenced in sermons when appropriate. It is Biblical to confess what the Scriptures teach in a church constitution as well. 

I think this particular debate about instruments (although I think the question of a cappella or instrumental music is relevant to the rock music question) is drifting away from the intent of Patrick's thread. I am not interested in debating this issue with someone who is "90% disillusioned with Puritanism," frankly. I would refer you to this previous thread and some of the sources cited therein for further study.

http://www.reformed.com/pub/music.htm


----------



## py3ak

Amen, KC. Does anyone have any information on when people first began to think of music as neutral? I know Plato thought otherwise.


----------



## VictorBravo

> _
> "The organ in the worship is the insignia of Baal"¦ The Roman Catholic borrowed it from the Jews." (Martin Luther, Mcclintock & Strong's Encyclopedia Volume VI, page 762)
> _


_

Andrew, I'm intrigued. I had no idea that Luther thought that. I was aware of Calvin's view. I always assumed Luther liked the organ because, less than 100 years after him, there was a substantial body of liturgical organ literature in the Lutheran church.

I'm a former church organist (in my heathen days), and I actually agree with Luther and you on this one. I was part of a cadre of church organists who considered ourselves "professionals" and did not have to listen to sermons or otherwise participate in church worship. Most of us were outright pagans. We'd get together and make fun of our churches and the poor benighted people who paid our salaries. I'd practice like crazy because I wanted to put on a good performance. We revered Bach, but didn't quite go along with his "Soli Deo Gloria" stuff. 

I prefer a cappella and an assembly (Exclusive Bretheren) I attended a number of years ago refused any kind of intruments. They sang off-key but earnestly. One of the old members there asked me what brought me to worship with them. It told him, in seriousness, "the music".

I first learned about the Regulative Principle from them, even though they didn't call it that. Sadly, they were too dispensational for me, even though the old timers preached like Calvinists. I'm happy now to be a member of a good reformed church that has no musical "performances".

Vic_


----------



## panta dokimazete

> I am not interested in debating this issue with someone who is "90% disillusioned with Puritanism,"



Thus my disillusionment. Please feel free to discuss only with those who will heartily pat your back in concerted legalism and disregard the rest of your kindred that understand the meaning of the yoke being easy and the burden light.

Grace and peace,

JD


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> 
> 
> 
> I am not interested in debating this issue with someone who is "90% disillusioned with Puritanism,"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thus my disillusionment. Please feel free to discuss only with those who will heartily pat your back in concerted legalism and disregard the rest of your kindred that understand the meaning of the yoke being easy and the burden light.
> 
> Grace and peace,
> 
> JD
Click to expand...


If your disillusionment with Puritanism is based on the fact that someone doesn't want to debate an issue that has been much, much debated in the past, and does not want to sidetrack a thread, then it seems to me that you are objecting to Puritanism on the wrong grounds. Also, referring to Puritan worship as legalism does not serve to edify the brethren on the Puritan Board. I'm not sure what kind of church you attend since there is no church mentioned in your signature line in contravention of the board rules, but I am not ashamed of Puritan religion, and I would encourage you to rethink your opposition to Puritanism with charity and humility, and respecting another's desire to refrain from wearisome debating of issues already well addressed in times past. 

I wish you well, by God's grace.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by victorbravo_
> 
> 
> 
> _
> "The organ in the worship is the insignia of Baal"¦ The Roman Catholic borrowed it from the Jews." (Martin Luther, Mcclintock & Strong's Encyclopedia Volume VI, page 762)
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> Andrew, I'm intrigued. I had no idea that Luther thought that. I was aware of Calvin's view. I always assumed Luther liked the organ because, less than 100 years after him, there was a substantial body of liturgical organ literature in the Lutheran church.
> 
> I'm a former church organist (in my heathen days), and I actually agree with Luther and you on this one. I was part of a cadre of church organists who considered ourselves "professionals" and did not have to listen to sermons or otherwise participate in church worship. Most of us were outright pagans. We'd get together and make fun of our churches and the poor benighted people who paid our salaries. I'd practice like crazy because I wanted to put on a good performance. We revered Bach, but didn't quite go along with his "Soli Deo Gloria" stuff.
> 
> I prefer a cappella and an assembly (Exclusive Bretheren) I attended a number of years ago refused any kind of intruments. They sang off-key but earnestly. One of the old members there asked me what brought me to worship with them. It told him, in seriousness, "the music".
> 
> I first learned about the Regulative Principle from them, even though they didn't call it that. Sadly, they were too dispensational for me, even though the old timers preached like Calvinists. I'm happy now to be a member of a good reformed church that has no musical "performances".
> 
> Vic _
Click to expand...

_

Yes, Luther did see instrumental music as ceremonial in nature, and was not a fan of it (I believe he wrote against instruments in his commentary on Romans 14-15), but I don't want to overstate his opposition either.

This comes from a non-Christian site on the subject, which might be helpful:




During Luther's time, congregational chorales or hymns were most commonly sung in the service without instrumental accompaniment. They were sung with the choir in unison, and occasionally the congregation would sing the melody while the choir sang a simple polyphonic harmonization. However, the pipe organ was never used to accompany chorales. The general view of Luther toward the organ was not at all enthusiastic because of its "primitive" nature (mean-tone tuning). The pipe organ was used to preludize and to give the initial pitch to the priest and choir, and it was used with chorales in alternation with the choir, one verse played by the organ and the next sung by the choir and congregation. However, Luther encouraged the use of wind instruments in performances of chorale motets in the large Churches which had trained choirs. And as previously pointed out, he worked closely with Johann Walther to create works in this new genre.

Source

Click to expand...


Opposition to instrumental music was widespread in the Reformation and Puritan era and even up to the 19th century:

Theodore Beza: "If the apostle justly prohibits the use of unknown tongues in the church, much less would he have tolerated these artificial musical performances which are addressed to the ear alone, and seldom strike the understanding even of the performers themselves." (Theodore Beza, scholar of Geneva, Girardeau's Instrumental Music, p. 166)

Charles Spurgeon: "Praise the Lord with the harp. Israel was at school, and used childish things to help her learn; but in these days, when Jesus gives us spiritual food, one can make melody without strings and pipes... We do not need them. they would hinder rather than help our praise. Sing unto him. This is the sweetest and best music. No instrument like the human voice." 

"Staunch old Baptists in former times would as soon tolerated the Pope of Rome in their pulpits as an organ in their galleries, and yet the instrument has gradually found its way among them.... How far this modern organ fever will extend among our people, and whether it will on the whole work a RE- formation or DE- formation in their singing service, time will more fully develop." (Benedict, Baptist historian, Fifty Years Among Baptist, page 204-207)

John Wesley: "I have no objection to the instruments being in our chapels, provided they are neither seen nor heard." 

Thomas Aquinas, Catholic Theologian; 13th century: "Our church does not use musical instruments, as harps and psalteries, to praise God withal, that she may not seem to Judaize." Bingham's Antiquities, Vol. 2, p.483, London 

SCHAFF "The use of organs in churches is ascribed to Pope Vitalian (657-672). Constantine Copronymos sent an organ with other presents to King Pepin of France in 767. Charlemagne received one as a present from the Caliph Haroun al Rashid, and had it put up in the cathedral of Aixia-Chapelle... The attitude of the churches toward the organ varies. It shared, to some extent, the fate of images, except that it never was an object of worship... The Greek church disapproved the use of organs. The Latin church introduced it pretty generally, but not without the protest of eminent men, so that even in the Council of Trent a motion was made, though not carried, to prohibit the organ at least in the mass." (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. 4, pg. 439.)

SCHAFF "The first organ certainly known to exist and be used in a church was put in the cathedral at Aix-la-chapel by the German emperor, Charlemange, who came to the throne in 768AD. It met with great opposition among the Romanists, especially among the monks, and that it made its was but slowly into common use. So great was the opposition even as late as the 16th century that it would have been abolished by the council of Trent but for the influence of the Emperor Ferdinand"¦. In the Greek church the organ never came into use... The Reform church discarded it; and though the church of Basel very early introduced it, it was in other places admitted only sparingly and after long hesitation." (Shaff-Herzog Encyclopedia, Vol 2, p. 1702)

CATHOLIC "Although Josephus tells of the wonderful effects produced in the Temple by the use of instruments, the first Christians were of too spiritual a fibre to substitute lifeless instruments for or to use them to accompany the human voice. Clement of Alexandria severely condemns the use of instruments even at Christian banquets. St. Chrysostum sharply contrasts the customs of the Christians when they had full freedom with those of the Jews of the Old Testament." (Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 10, pg. 648-652.)

CATHOLIC "For almost a thousand years Gregorian chant, without any instrumental or harmonic addition was the only music used in connection with the liturgy. The organ, in its primitive and rude form, was the first, and for a long time the sole, instrument used to accompany the chant"¦. The church has never encouraged and at most only tolerated the use of instruments. She enjoins in the 'Caeremonials Episcoporum', - that permission for their use should first be obtained from the ordinary. She holds up as her ideal the unaccompanied chant, and polyphonic, a-capella style. The Sistene Chapel has not even an organ."" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 10, pg. 657-688.)

[Edited on 3-28-2006 by VirginiaHuguenot]_


----------



## kceaster

*JD...*

Not to take the thread too far afield, but I think you're confusing piety with pietism. We aren't making these statements to take away from the freedom each of us has in Christ. We're trying to point out that it is God's worship, not ours. He doesn't come down to us, we go up to Him. Therefore, our worship is to be reverent and in accord with all His divine character and principles.

It would be a whole lot easier if God had recorded the musical notes and outlined the musical forms by which He is to be worshiped. But in the absence of that, we must endeavor, in the light of Christian prudence, to do those things before Him that are not contrary to the light we have.

I think you would agree that Isaiah did not come before the Lord dancing and singing. There is a place for that and a time as Solomon tells us. But Isaiah 6 is a picture of worship. And if you believe God allows anyone to make a joyful noise, and dance, and sing, and not present themselves humbly and contritely before God, then you may have misunderstood the solemn worship God has prescribed.

I would suggest that you not look at 'Puritanical' worship as what you can't do, but that you would see it as what our God graciously allows and is pleased with.

The transcendence of God should tell us that He's not impressed with a good bass rif, or a driving beat; something He can tap His toes to. He's not present in worship so that He can say, "Ah, ain't that cute," or "Man, that guy can sure play the guitar." If you truly believe that God enjoys rock and roll, then I'm not sure you understand the godness of God. I would encourage you to ponder that.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## BobVigneault

Dear brother JD,
Andrew doesn't need me to defend him but my respect for him compells me to do so. Andrew has been an example to me of a reformed believer and a true gentleman since I first started lurking on the board.

His thoroughness in research and study, his devotion to God centered worship and his gentle demeanor have been both encouraging and convicting. Andrew is one of the last people I would associate with the term 'legalism'. I don't always agree with him but his writings and scholarship continue to send me back to the scriptures to measure my own convictions.

So I would ask you JD to calm yourself and keep the discussion on topic.


----------



## panta dokimazete

> I don't always agree with him but his writings and scholarship continue to send me back to the scriptures to measure my own convictions.



Another gracious post! Thank you!

Which is exactly why I ask the question and rebut - it's how I learn - iron sharpens iron, unless one removes themselves from the sharpening by dismissing another so bruisingly.

I got the distinct impression that my brother felt he was casting pearls before swine.

Note that I did not question his rationale on the use of written Scripture in worship as it relates to "dead strings" (although I may still...well, I guess I can't now since he won't debate me...)

Pax,

JD

(...and my disillusionment varies by the winsomeness diplayed here by the modern day proponents of Puritanism...)


----------



## panta dokimazete

> If you truly believe that God enjoys rock and roll, then I'm not sure you understand the godness of God. I would encourage you to ponder that.



wow - gotta run - meetings and flights to catch - but I can tell you with conviction that God enjoys our love and worship when they are given to Him with love, for Him and for our neighbor - and that when we begin to strain the gnat of music styles and swallow the camel of judgementalism and legalism, God is not pleased.

Ta!

-JD


----------



## Puritan Sailor

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> Now he never said he wouldn't debate you, jd. He said he didn't want to sidetrack Patrick's thread.



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!


----------



## py3ak

> Thank you for your graceful reply Ruben, but I am really only pointing out that loving the Lord with all our mind, heart, soul and strength includes giving Him the best of our talent in worship, as well...it would be sacreledge for me not to present the fruit of my training, skill and talent as an offering of praise to the Lord - to the edification of the body and His Glory.
> 
> To wit: Mallot's - The Lord's Prayer - this song is a prayer and very demanding vocally - should it be excluded from the worship of God? or only sung acapella and congregationally?



JD, this is a point where I am aware that I am somewhat at odds with a lot of thinking. I believe that we worship God in spirit and truth, sincerely and to the best of our ability. However, not all talents are to be summoned forth or displayed in the time of worship. I know a man who is uproariously funny. After he makes some crack I will think of it every day for a week or a month and laugh again. But in worship he does not make jokes --even though he is extremely good at it. Why? Because that talent is not called for in the public worship of God. I am a devoted opera fan; but if the great Bryn Terfel himself were to be converted and come to my church I would not ask him to sing a special (and it would be my intention to sing myself just as though he were not present). It is my belief that he could sing to the glory of God as part of the congregation, and that he could sing to the glory of God as his means of providing for his family. I believe he could record hymns and psalms for the edification of the members of the church in private (indeed, his recordings of Abide With Me and Psalm 23 have been very helpful to me). But worship is not performance, it is a corporate activity. 
You are correct that it is sacriledge not to use what God has given us for Him --but the context for that use is not always in relation to the public worship of the church.


----------



## panta dokimazete

Sorry - laying down legalistic principles that are largely a matter of preference and isogesis:



> Musical instruments in Christian worship are a violation of the regulative principle of worship.
> 
> "The organ in the worship is the insignia of Baal"¦ The Roman Catholic borrowed it from the Jews"
> 
> Exclusive psalmody -- The psalms alone are commanded by God to be the matter of our praise to Him. There is no command to compose new matter, the canon of God's "hymn-book," the Psalter, is closed.
> 
> ...musical instruments are part of the ceremonial worship abolished by God's Word.



Then judgementally dismissing my points because of my signature. instead of winsomely pointing me to the source.


How's that?

-JD

edited to add: Dang, Patrick - I am sorry - you have a great thread idea! Will try and come bcak when I land.

[Edited on 3-28-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## Kaalvenist

Personally, I think that Patrick's original question is best answered by the rejection of musical instruments in worship. If musical instruments are not allowed in worship, that would automatically disqualify rock being used in worship.

For that matter, the insistence of some on singing over instrumentation (allowing for musical instruments so long as it merely supports the singing, without making the singing dependent on instruments) would also disqualify rock, since every form of rock that I have heard is dependent upon the instrumentation.

I personally believe that (given a strict understanding of the regulative principle) the case against musical instruments is easier to make than the case for exclusive psalmody. It is demonstrable that musical instruments were used in the Old Testament in clearly ceremonial fashion -- to the point of restricting the playing of instruments during the offering of sacrifices.


> And he set the Levites in the house of the LORD with cymbals, with psalteries, and with harps, according to the commandment of David, and of Gad the king's seer, and Nathan the prophet: for so was the commandment of the LORD by his prophets. And the Levites stood with the instruments of David, and the priests with the trumpets. And Hezekiah commanded to offer the burnt offering upon the altar. And when the burnt offering began, the song of the LORD began also with the trumpets, and with the instruments ordained by David king of Israel. And all the congregation worshipped, and the singers sang, and the trumpeters sounded: and all this continued until the burnt offering was finished._*--2 Chronicles 29:25-28*_


And lest any should say that singing would be just as ceremonial, since "the singers sang," just as "the trumpeters sounded," the passage continues:


> And when they had made an end of offering, the king and all that were present with him bowed themselves, and worshipped. Moreover Hezekiah the king and the princes commanded the Levites to sing praise unto the LORD with the words of David, and of Asaph the seer. And they sang praises with gladness, and they bowed their heads and worshipped.*--2 Chronicles 29:29, 30*


Here we see that, immediately after the offering of the sacrifice, they sang with "the words of David, and of Asaph the seer" (i.e. the Psalms). The fact that Psalmody continues by express command under the New Testament, whereas the NT is entirely silent on the use of musical instruments in worship, simply confirms this ceremonial usage. And the testimony of church history strongly favors this interpretation -- I challenge anyone to find just one father of the early church who spoke in favor of musical instruments in worship. For over one thousand years, this was THE Christian position; and at the Reformation, this was THE Reformed position -- it took hundreds of years for musical instruments to make their way into Calvinist churches.


----------



## py3ak

Patrick --I apologize. I was typing my last reply as you were typing your post, and so I didn't see it. I will try not to contribute any further to the sidetracking of the thread. 

Since I don't believe that music is neutral, in that it does have an impact on the human personality, I think that tunes need to be evaluated according to at least these criteria if not more:
Suitableness to the words
Suitableness of its impact to the context of public worship
Suitableness for didactic purposes
Suitableness for congregational singing
Suitableness to the character of God

I don't think that is subjective, as I can't see any way to legitimately ignore any of them given what the Bible says.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

> _Originally posted by Kaalvenist_
> I personally believe that (given a strict understanding of the regulative principle) the case against musical instruments is easier to make than the case for exclusive psalmody.


I think this is true; and it is somewhat demonstrated in that the standard American work against musical instrumentaiton in worship is by John L. Girardeau, a Southern Presbyterian (hymn singer). His work is online here.


----------



## Kaalvenist

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 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.


Wasn't aware that it was possible, Patrick. I'd be interested in hearing that.

I don't have a problem with the idea of rock having good, Christian lyrics... I've just never heard of "rocking" to the Psalms, or acappella rock. Those are the primary criteria that I have for songs being sung in church. If one can introduce rock into church that (1) restricts the lyrics to the Psalms, (2) does not use musical instruments, (3) is adapted for congregational singing (without being dependent on a "worship team" or "choir" up front), and (4) is reverent; then go for it.

But I think that this sort of question is very hypothetical. I've never heard of rock that would meet those requirements, nor have I heard of anyone willing to write rock songs with the purpose of meeting those requirements.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

> _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.


suprise suprise. but


----------



## NaphtaliPress

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> edited to add: Dang, Patrick - I am sorry - you have a great thread idea! Will try and come bcak when I land.


Do folks use "dang" on PB because PB censors "damn."


----------



## BobVigneault

"I challenge anyone to find just one father of the early church who spoke in favor of musical instruments in worship."

The church fathers didn't promote unaccompanied music because of the RWP, they were against instruments because of the association with the cultic services in the Greco/Roman world.


----------



## Kaalvenist

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> Sorry - laying down legalistic principles that are largely a matter of preference and isogesis:


If this is what God requires in His law, then that is what we should do. It is not "legalism" to obey His law; it is antinomianism to disregard it.

And it's "eisogesis," not "isogesis." If you're going to insult us, do it right.



> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> Then judgementally dismissing my points because of my signature. instead of winsomely pointing me to the source.


I've come to detest words like "winsome" and "irenic." You have been pointed to "the source," as you say. See also the page on musical instruments on my website, with all the links your heart could desire.


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> The argument I would give is that this genre of music is taken from the world. Yeah, I know people say that rock music comes from gospel roots, but one has to ask where these gospel roots came from and how they were influenced.
> 
> Music for worship starts in the church, it is not borrowed from the world. If God didn't borrow anything else in His worship, why would He borrow music?
> 
> In Christ,
> 
> KC



Martin Luther borrowed tunes from bawdy tavern songs. He replaced the crude words but kept the "catchy" tunes. I don't think the source of the music is a relevant factor - it's all human - we don't have the benefit of getting angles to play us God's top ten tunes. 

And I don't think the redundancy of the typical rock lyrics is really important. As long as it's a biblical message, why should I care if it's repeated. Redundancy is a question of personal preference.

I think there are two main factors to consider. Does it make some church members uncomfortable to worship to certain music styles. There's no need to upset people just because we know it's okay for us to eat the meat sacrificed to idols. Second, is the message glorifying to God. It doesn't matter if it's redundant or if it never repeats a single phrase twice. If the message doesn't honor God or if it teaches bad doctrine, then it should not be sung - regardless of the music style.

A final factor is the effect it has on us as we sing it. My church sings those beautiful old hymns from the red hymnal. But I can not sing soprano, and I don't read music very well. I try to sing the base, so I don't screech, but that also distracts me from the message. Basically, I'm trying to do three things at once: listen to the low notes on the piano (the base line), read and sing the base notes in the hymn, and follow the read the text of the hymn. Unfortunately, the result is I'm trying so hard to sing that I'm often unable to notice what the words actually mean. If I have the base line down by the third verse, I'm happy. Now if we can sing that hymn every Sunday for the next 2 month, I'll actually be able to really think about what I'm singing. 

This is not to say that singing rock music is the solution, it's certainly easier to sing songs that are less complicated and have a limited vocal range. But I love the old hymns too - maybe because some are so intricate woven together. I especially love the ones I learned when I sang in choir, where I practiced with other base singers and really learned the tune. It's an awesome feeling to worship God and really think about what you are singing. Which is also why I think rock music can be honorably sung for God. 

As an example of what I consider to be beautiful rock music, here's a link to a video of a young guy playing Johann Pachelbel's Cannon - on an electric guitar! http://jerryc.just-nn.com/JerryC_CanonRock.wmv 

Some of you will love it, some may hate it. I think it's awesome and I wish I could sing with the apparent passion that this tune envokes in me. Is it appropriate for church music? I think it is if the Handel's Messiah is appropriate.

Listen to this: "And He Shall Purify" from the Messiah http://www.printeryhouse.org/mall/Gifts/Music/Audio/G522-2.wma

Both I find very inspiring. Both could be used to glorify God. But neither seems to be beneficial to everyone. Some people only feel good about singing psalms with minimal orchestration and using melodies that are at least 400 years old. I wouldn't force anyone to sing contemporary music if it makes them feel bad. But personal preference should not be the major factor when we judge what style of music may be used for worship. All music we listen too should glorify God.


----------



## 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


----------



## NaphtaliPress

> _Originally posted by Kaalvenist_
> See also the page on musical instruments on my website, with all the links your heart could desire.


Sean, FYI, the first link on your page to historical quotes is dead.


----------



## panta dokimazete

sigh*** - so much for not derailing, but when a brother offends...



> _Originally posted by Kaalvenist_
> 
> And it's "eisogesis," not "isogesis." If you're going to insult us, do it right.



check your own spellcheck plank, brother...

at least google will define mine:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2006-13,GGLG:en&q=define:+isogesis

the actual correct spelling - eis*e*gesis
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2006-13,GGLG:en&q=define:+eisegesis

...and gosh - do you think I could go get you a bunch of links Biblically *supporting* instruments in worship?

oy...

[Edited on 3-28-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## kceaster

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> The argument I would give is that this genre of music is taken from the world. Yeah, I know people say that rock music comes from gospel roots, but one has to ask where these gospel roots came from and how they were influenced.
> 
> Music for worship starts in the church, it is not borrowed from the world. If God didn't borrow anything else in His worship, why would He borrow music?
> 
> In Christ,
> 
> KC
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Martin Luther borrowed tunes from bawdy tavern songs. He replaced the crude words but kept the "catchy" tunes. I don't think the source of the music is a relevant factor - it's all human - we don't have the benefit of getting angles to play us God's top ten tunes.
Click to expand...


This is untrue and has been debunked. He used bar tunes. The bar in this case is not a tavern, but a form of music. This has been discussed several times on this board and I would encourage you to investigate it further.



> I think there are two main factors to consider. Does it make some church members uncomfortable to worship to certain music styles. There's no need to upset people just because we know it's okay for us to eat the meat sacrificed to idols. Second, is the message glorifying to God. It doesn't matter if it's redundant or if it never repeats a single phrase twice. If the message doesn't honor God or if it teaches bad doctrine, then it should not be sung - regardless of the music style.
> 
> A final factor is the effect it has on us as we sing it. My church sings those beautiful old hymns from the red hymnal. But I can not sing soprano, and I don't read music very well. I try to sing the base, so I don't screech, but that also distracts me from the message. Basically, I'm trying to do three things at once: listen to the low notes on the piano (the base line), read and sing the base notes in the hymn, and follow the read the text of the hymn. Unfortunately, the result is I'm trying so hard to sing that I'm often unable to notice what the words actually mean. If I have the base line down by the third verse, I'm happy. Now if we can sing that hymn every Sunday for the next 2 month, I'll actually be able to really think about what I'm singing.



I would humbly suggest that you've missed the point of worship altogether. It is not about us, it is about God. It is not what is pleasing or uncomfortable to us, it is what is pleasing to God. He is the audience and we the performers. We are not there to cater to anyone other than Him.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## kceaster

> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> 
> 
> 
> If you truly believe that God enjoys rock and roll, then I'm not sure you understand the godness of God. I would encourage you to ponder that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wow - gotta run - meetings and flights to catch - but I can tell you with conviction that God enjoys our love and worship when they are given to Him with love, for Him and for our neighbor - and that when we begin to strain the gnat of music styles and swallow the camel of judgementalism and legalism, God is not pleased.
> 
> Ta!
> 
> -JD
Click to expand...


Brother, you couldn't be more wrong. And I'm saying this in love because I used to think as you do. God is not pleased at our attempts to worship Him, love Him, and love our neighbor apart from the ways He's laid down in His Word. I'm sorry if you think it is legalism that I'm coming from. I didn't make the rules. God did. If you have a problem with how He wants to be worshiped, I suggest you take it up with Him.

In any case, we come to Him through the veil which is Christ. You must always remember that worship comes through spirit and truth. Both of these are other-worldly. In other words,, we cannot worship God without Christ. He is the only one who pleases His Father. 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. He is not pleased with us. He is pleased with Himself, which is why He told us how to worship Him.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Kaalvenist

> _Originally posted by NaphtaliPress_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Kaalvenist_
> See also the page on musical instruments on my website, with all the links your heart could desire.
> 
> 
> 
> Sean, FYI, the first link on your page to historical quotes is dead.
Click to expand...

Thanks Chris... The last time I did any substantial work on my site was over two years ago. I'm sure that, by now, there are plenty of dead links, as well as other links I'll want to add (including new sections on Amillennialism, Headcoverings, Textual/Translational Issues, etc.). I keep putting off making changes, because it's going to take a lot of time and energy that I don't find I have at the moment.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

This may be a helpful link on the subject of historical quotes on musical instruments in worship, some of which I have already cited.


----------



## VictorBravo

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 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.



Actually, I think it does address, if not answer, the question. I don't have any problem with new tunes for old words, as long as the tune doesn't set people's minds to wandering off of worship. Examples of a bad idea might be setting a Psalm to the tune of "A hundred bottles of beer on the wall" or "Inna Godda Davida".

So I think the regulative principle is at work. But if you try to solve your question with that answer, I'm afraid the whole EP and no-instrument debate is bound to come up again and again. 

And around and around we will go.

Vic


----------



## BobVigneault

It's a shame this thread is missing a good ol' charasmatic DELIVERANCE minister. We are missing out on the arguments that 'drums' are used to 'drum up demons'. 

Or how grocery stores and restaurants use music to sell you things you don't need like drug addicts needing a rock music fix.

Or how God created our bodies with a natural rhythm but rock music right out of the demonic jungles of Africa possesses us and makes us twice as fit for hell as the rock musician himself.

Oh those were the days of listening to DELIVERANCE preachers trying to get us to burn our records. 

These reformed arguments just lack the color and excitement of the DELIVERANCE ministers. Oh well, carry on.


----------



## Civbert

I didn't notice the posts about using instruments until after I posted, but if that correct, then that pretty much cuts out rock style music. I can't imagine singing rock music without instruments.

Another interesting point someone made was that the tune should not be too complicated for the average person to sing. That seem to support the simple contemporary style of worship. Those tunes are not composed with sopranos and bases in mind, but with a mid range that the average person can follow. (That's why they only need to project the words on a screen, the melody is simple enough that reading music is not required).

I suppose either the complexity of the tune, or the instrumentation can be a distraction for the worshiper. And in that light, both JerryC's Cannon Rock, and Handel's Messiah, are not good worship service music. I think both can be glorying to God, but maybe not be useful for congregational worship. 

A new thread on instruments in worship might be beneficial. I'd be interested in seeing more biblical support for either side of the issue. Most of the churches I've attended considered "musical offerings" to be biblical. And these were small reformed churches, not the big mega-churches with guitars and overhead projectors. On occasion, a musical offering was usually one of the members kids playing the violin or piano, with no lyrics, while the offering was being collected. 

In fact, there's always a piano being played during the offering. What do churches do when they don't allow instruments? Do they sing a hymn during the offering, or does the minister read scripture? Or do they just sit and wait?

[Edited on 3-28-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## VictorBravo

On offerings: Some either silently pass the plate, others leave a box in back. I've been in both settings and do not find it strange at all. But that goes in a whole new direction.


----------



## VictorBravo

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> @Bob



I also appreciate that he is in the subjunctive mood. 

Vic


----------



## NaphtaliPress

No problem. BTW, when you do get to changing the page, you might link to FPCR's version of Girardeau while you are at it; or at least give equal time. A PDF that preserves the original pagination of the first edition is in our ebooks section.


> _Originally posted by Kaalvenist_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by NaphtaliPress_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Kaalvenist_
> See also the page on musical instruments on my website, with all the links your heart could desire.
> 
> 
> 
> Sean, FYI, the first link on your page to historical quotes is dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks Chris... The last time I did any substantial work on my site was over two years ago. I'm sure that, by now, there are plenty of dead links, as well as other links I'll want to add (including new sections on Amillennialism, Headcoverings, Textual/Translational Issues, etc.). I keep putting off making changes, because it's going to take a lot of time and energy that I don't find I have at the moment.
Click to expand...


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> Martin Luther borrowed tunes from bawdy tavern songs. He replaced the crude words but kept the "catchy" tunes. I don't think the source of the music is a relevant factor - it's all human - we don't have the benefit of getting angles to play us God's top ten tunes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is untrue and has been debunked. He used bar tunes. The bar in this case is not a tavern, but a form of music. This has been discussed several times on this board and I would encourage you to investigate it further.
Click to expand...


I stand corrected. I was just repeating something I heard. I think he still worked with "contemporary" music - that is, he used the popular music style - even if he recomposed the tunes.



> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> 
> I would humbly suggest that you've missed the point of worship altogether. It is not about us, it is about God. It is not what is pleasing or uncomfortable to us, it is what is pleasing to God. He is the audience and we the performers. We are not there to cater to anyone other than Him.
> 
> In Christ,
> 
> KC



I agree, see my follow-up post. But the question is, what exactly is "pleasing to God" in worship. I don't think He gave us a music style guide. So I don't think we can simply say that God would not be pleased with rock or bluegrass or classic music styles. It's more important that the words we are singing be acceptable. 

Do you think the worshiper's attitude/mental state is a factor? I feel like I am not worshipping correctly when I am distracted or irritated, but that doesn't mean the person next to me is having that problem.

I don't buy the "worldly" source argument against some worship music styles. I think there is something to be said about the mental association some people might make to worldly or decadent cultures - and that can be a distraction. But I don't think that makes the music itself inappropriate - just inappropriate for some people. I don't make the mental association to the decadent "rock" culture when I here rock music.


An aside: If someone does not think the electric guitar is pleasing the the ear, what about the bagpipes?


----------



## crhoades

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> An aside: If someone does not think the electric guitar is pleasing the the ear, what about the bagpipes?



What are you trying to do? Start a war on the PB by throwing down the bagpipe argument?


----------



## NaphtaliPress

What's the old line; the bagpipes where invented by the Irish and sent to Scotland as a joke?


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by NaphtaliPress_
> What's the old line; the bagpipes where invented by the Irish and sent to Scotland as a joke?


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by NaphtaliPress_
> What's the old line; the bagpipes where invented by the Irish and sent to Scotland as a joke?
Click to expand...


Hey, no bagging on the bag pipes!


----------



## tdowns

*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]


----------



## yeutter

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> Are all effects of rock necessarily bad? For instance, rock can be light and festive and not driving to melancholy. Many of the psalms and hymns are also light and festive. (Many of the psalms are driven by melancholy too btw....).
> 
> [Edited on 3-28-2006 by puritansailor]



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

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!


----------



## satz

> _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

*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.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

> _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
Click to expand...




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, 


> Premise 1: God is not well pleased with the means by which natural man worships Him. (De 12:1-4)


I think we can all agree on this. 


> Premise 2: The fallenness of man precludes him from worshipping aright. (Jer 13:10)


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. 



> 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)


Agreed


> 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?


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

> _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

*Trevor....*



> _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

*Patrick....*



> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> Premise 1: God is not well pleased with the means by which natural man worships Him. (De 12:1-4)
> 
> I think we can all agree on this.



Great.



> Premise 2: The fallenness of man precludes him from worshipping aright. (Jer 13:10)
> 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.



Absolutely. 



> 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)
> 
> Agreed



Great, again.



> 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?
> 
> 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?



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. 



> 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).



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

> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 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?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On that grounds that it did not originate with the church.
Click to expand...

[/quote]
What then so you mean by "originate with the church"? Are you saying that the musical genre's must be composed by Christians? 



> 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.


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. 



> 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.


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."


> 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).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> What then so you mean by "originate with the church"? Are you saying that the musical genre's must be composed by Christians?



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. 



> 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.



Whatever worships the creature over the creator would fall into this category.



> 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?



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

We need more guitar solos in church.


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> ...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



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.


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> 
> 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. ...



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

> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> What then so you mean by "originate with the church"? Are you saying that the musical genre's must be composed by Christians?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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 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?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

I agree so far. But again, tie this into genre specifically. How does any of this rule out rock? 


> 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.



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

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> ...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
Click to expand...

Ok. Someone rises to rock's defence. Get ready.



> 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.


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? 



> 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.


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.


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> This is a rather strong presupposition. Care to prove it? We can't judge music rationally?
Click to expand...

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?



> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> And what then determines if a genre is pleasing to God in worship?



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. 



> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> Does authorial intent play no role then in the suitability of a melody? If so please explain.
Click to expand...

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 clichÃ©, "a rose by any other name would be just as sweet".




> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> Would you deny that some melodies better convey the thoughts of a song than others?



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.




> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> Is the response to any music is purely subjective? If this is what you mean above, then please explain that.



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

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 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.


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?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

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.


----------



## kceaster

*Mr. Coletti...*



> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 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!



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


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
Click to expand...


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

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 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?



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.



> I agree so far. But again, tie this into genre specifically. How does any of this rule out rock?



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.



> 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.



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? 



> 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?



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


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 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!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
Click to expand...


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

> _Originally posted by Civbert_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 beg to differ. Music is impossible without thought. Ever heard the flight of the bumblebee? What you're basically saying is that music without words has no meaning. I would challenge you to show proof of this.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## kceaster

> _Originally posted by Civbert_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.



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


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> Why would a steak specifically dedicated to an Idol be fit to eat?



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.


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_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 beg to differ. Music is impossible without thought. Ever heard the flight of the bumblebee? What you're basically saying is that music without words has no meaning. I would challenge you to show proof of this.
> 
> In Christ,
> 
> KC
Click to expand...


If you knew it's name, you could not know it had anything to do with a bumblebee. The same tune could make you imagine something else entirely. Only the title of the song conveys a univocal idea. There is no univocal or rational content to pure music. It's only sounds, and how we respond to them.


----------



## kceaster

> _Originally posted by Civbert_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.



The Acts 15 council commanded that the believers abstain from meat sacrificed to idols.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## kceaster

> _Originally posted by Civbert_If you knew it's name, you could not know it had anything to do with a bumblebee. The same tune could make you imagine something else entirely. Only the title of the song conveys a univocal idea. There is no univocal or rational content to pure music. It's only sounds, and how we respond to them.



Is that your proof? Scholars have done work on this type of thing. Can you cite any references?

In Christ,

KC


----------



## kceaster

*Mr. Coletti...*

Did the composer set out to write a piece about a bumblebee, or did he name it afterwards? If there was no thought in the music, how would he attribute a title or evoke a response?

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> Did the composer set out to write a piece about a bumblebee, or did he name it afterwards? If there was no thought in the music, how would he attribute a title or evoke a response?
> 
> In Christ,
> 
> KC



It does not matter either way. There is no thought "in" music in the sense that it contains or conveys thoughts. The only thoughts are those of the composer during the process of composing and naming his piece. The music itself does not think, and it does not hold any ideas. The title conveys a thought. And if a piece includes lyrics, the words convey thoughts. But pure music itself does not speak any intelligible thoughts.


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Acts 15 council commanded that the believers abstain from meat sacrificed to idols.
> 
> In Christ,
> 
> KC
Click to expand...


Why? 

(Paul did too, under certain circumstances - and it had nothing to do with the meat itself. The meat was just meat.)

[Edited on 3-29-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_If you knew it's name, you could not know it had anything to do with a bumblebee. The same tune could make you imagine something else entirely. Only the title of the song conveys a univocal idea. There is no univocal or rational content to pure music. It's only sounds, and how we respond to them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that your proof? Scholars have done work on this type of thing. Can you cite any references?
> 
> In Christ,
> 
> KC
Click to expand...


Citing scholars would not prove nor disprove my point. 

Try this. Make up a tune that is fairly unique. Now play that tune to several strangers who have not heard that tune, or a similar one before. Then ask them what that tune said. Will they all give the same answer? 

Here's an additional test. Write a tune to conveys the following sentence: "the small brown fox jumped over the lazy dog". Can it be done? Then test it. Play the tune for several strangers, and ask them what it says. Will they each reply "the small brown fox jumped over the lazy dog". Why not?

Because the notes do not convey intelligible thoughts.


----------



## beej6

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> It does not matter either way. There is no thought "in" music in the sense that it contains or conveys thoughts. The only thoughts are those of the composer during the process of composing and naming his piece. The music itself does not think, and it does not hold any ideas. The title conveys a thought. And if a piece includes lyrics, the words convey thoughts. But pure music itself does not speak any intelligible thoughts.



Define pure music. 

Music is always in a context - of its environment, of other music to which it sounds similar, and to a culture. The reason why music can be powerful is because of its associations - just another way to say context - as well as lyrics that can be associated with it.

So, to mangle Van Til, there is no neutrality when it comes to music. There may be right reasons to not use "rock music" in worship, just as there may be reasons for a particular congregation if they so decide not to use "classical music" or "19th century music" in their worship.


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by beej6_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> It does not matter either way. There is no thought "in" music in the sense that it contains or conveys thoughts. The only thoughts are those of the composer during the process of composing and naming his piece. The music itself does not think, and it does not hold any ideas. The title conveys a thought. And if a piece includes lyrics, the words convey thoughts. But pure music itself does not speak any intelligible thoughts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define pure music.
Click to expand...


Just the sounds - the notes, no video or spoken words. Maybe better would have been "music alone".



> _Originally posted by beej6_
> 
> Music is always in a context - of its environment, of other music to which it sounds similar, and to a culture. The reason why music can be powerful is because of its associations - just another way to say context - as well as lyrics that can be associated with it.



Certainly. The context and our past experiences and related knowledge really define how we react to music. And different people have different "associations" they have with different kinds of music.



> _Originally posted by beej6_
> 
> So, to mangle Van Til, there is no neutrality when it comes to music. There may be right reasons to not use "rock music" in worship, just as there may be reasons for a particular congregation if they so decide not to use "classical music" or "19th century music" in their worship.



I'm not sure what "there is no neutrality when it comes to music" means. But I think the reasons for using or not using "rock music" should be objective. Two reasons given I think are irrational: 1) that there is something inherently bad or wrong with some genres, and 2) that the source of the genre contaminates or makes the music bad or evil. Neither of these arguments are logical. And I think in the end, we will see that it's not the genre itself, or the origins of the genre that makes some music inappropriate. But I think some music is inappropriate for some individuals because of their associations and reactions to the genre. I'm sure there are other objective criteria also.


----------



## caddy

Check out Chuck Colson's "The Back Page" Article in Christianity Today:


http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/main/current.html

The Story is not online yet, so an excerpt will have to suffice:

"When Church music directors lead congregations in singing contemporary Christian music, I often listen stoically with teeth clenched. But one Sunday morning, I cracked. We'd been led through endless repetitions of a meaningless ditty called "Draw Me Close to You," which has zero theological content and could just as easily be sung in any nightclub. When I thought it was finally and mercifully over, the music leader beamed. "Let's sing that again, shall we?" he asked. "No!" I shouted, loudly enough to send heads all around me spinning while my wife, Patty, cringed.
I admit I prefer traditional hymns, but even so, I'm convinced that much of the music being written for the church today reflects and unfortunate trend--slipping across the line from worship to entertainment. Evangelicals are in danger of amusing ourselves to death, to borrow the title of the classic Neil Postman book.....

Great article....

Hopefully it will be online before the week is out.....


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> I'm sure there are other objective criteria also.



I'm not sure if this could be categorized as "objective criteria", but something that needs be kept in mind is the "singability" of certain tunes. While not sinful in and of itself, putting a psalm to a rap tune might not be the most edifying means of worshipping simply for the fact of it's difficulty.

That being said, I would like to see more chant in worship simply because of it's simplicity etc., although it is a preference. Putting psalms to well-known hymns is also a good idea so that people do not have to try to learn the music over and over, but will know them already.

I think that this line of reasoning would fall under:

1Co 14:40 Let all things be done decently and in order. 

Can anyone else think of any scriptural principles to govern the "tunes?"

Whatever "tune" is used to sing, it is the sacrifice of praise, the fruit of our lips that is pleasing to God which is repeating His words back to Him in sincerity. 

Heb 13:15 Therefore by Him let us continually offer the sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to His name.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Let's ask the question then in another way, which will perhaps push us to think through our presuppositions some more too. 

Can the rock genre ever be put to a holy use? Can we ever use it differently than the world? Our worship is to be directed strictly with a Godward orientation, guided by His principles, and holy, seperate from the mindset and dominion of the world. Can rock ever be used in that way? 

I have another silly question to pose later on if discussion gets dull too. But I'll hold off for now. 

Some of this has been touched on already. But perhaps asking the question this way will further the discussion. 

Please provide a reasoned or objective answer (i.e. you opinion is not objective, I want logical arguments to discuss)


----------



## Puritan Sailor

That is a good point Jeff about the "order." How could rock be used or be rejected in the church with that in mind.


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> That is a good point Jeff about the "order." How could rock be used or be rejected in the church with that in mind.



Well, thinking out loud (and that's probably about all it's worth!  ), I would say that "order" in the worship service not only implies a liturgy, but a service that allows all of the worshipers to lift up the name of our Lord simply, and with structure. The music itself should never become the focal point of the service, it is words themselves...the fruit of our lips. God does not make the music the focal point, otherwise He might have given us more explicit instructions on certain tunes to use.

Now to some people, rock music might not violate this idea, but for me (a lover of rock BTW  ) rock music does not give me the picture of an ordered service. Rather, when I think of rock music, I see disorder in many cases. For example, think of the mosh pits, the drug use, the clothing style etc. etc. of most who REALLY love rock and roll. At least in our culture, guys who where leather pants, long hair, make-up and scream in a microphone doesn't portray a person who is "orderly." Now I realize that this is a generalization, but I think that there is at least some merit to this kind of thinking.

Forgeting the characterization, I (who would be considered in most cases an orderly type of guy) when I listen to rock and roll do not do it that I might be "orderly", but that I might let loose, and so forth. While rock may not have this effect on everyone, I think that it affects most people this way. It probably depends on how exactly one defines "rock" as well. I think of hair bands, heavy metal, alternative and the like.

If this is the case, I think that rock probably is not best suited for the worship service, but something more tame, where people can hear the words clearly, understand what they are singing, not putting the emphasis on the tune, but their voices.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Yes, some good thoughts. In the beginning of the thread, buried amidst the deviations of the thread, I did define rock more broadly to include the softer more festive stuff, not just the grunge chaos. Basically, I'm refering to music that has a back beat (whether actually played on drums, or just implied by the other instruments or rhythm of the tune). This is why ruling out instruments won't answer the question, because you can have accapella rock in this sense. I would invite anyone to listen to Take 6, a Christian, predominantly gospel accepalla group if you want to see that idea in practice. I don't know of anyone who uses their material in worship mind you, but I simply bring it out as a theoretical possibility.


----------



## Robin

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> Yes, some good thoughts. In the beginning of the thread, buried amidst the deviations of the thread, I did define rock more broadly to include the softer more festive stuff, not just the grunge chaos. Basically, I'm refering to music that has a back beat (whether actually played on drums, or just implied by the other instruments or rhythm of the tune).




Rock music is the sound of the world. (no pejorative) 

Carefully examine the history of it here:

http://www.rockhall.com/timeline/

Reasons for having certain music in worship is always morally based. Moral understanding in music has to do with form and dynamic qualities of it.

The qualities include: pitch, rhythm, dynamics and form. These govern the emotional expressions in all musics, no matter what genre.

The mediation of (amplification) music is especially important to consider. Something powerful happens in mediated music - having a profound effect on the listener.

 Robin


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> Yes, some good thoughts. In the beginning of the thread, buried amidst the deviations of the thread, I did define rock more broadly to include the softer more festive stuff, not just the grunge chaos. Basically, I'm refering to music that has a back beat (whether actually played on drums, or just implied by the other instruments or rhythm of the tune). This is why ruling out instruments won't answer the question, because you can have accapella rock in this sense. I would invite anyone to listen to Take 6, a Christian, predominantly gospel accepalla group if you want to see that idea in practice. I don't know of anyone who uses their material in worship mind you, but I simply bring it out as a theoretical possibility.



Good points. There's also an older group call 2nd Chapter of Acts, that I'd classify as rock in the broadest sense - and much of their music was "worship" oriented. 

Certainly there are many more examples of rock music that would be terrible for a worship service, but there are counter examples as well. So I don't think it's the genre that's the problem - but the words and the way it's played (so the words are understandable) and it must be God oriented, and composed for group singing. I think most examples of rock music we think of would not work very well.

I also remember some "hard" rock from a group called the Resurrection Band (the REZ Band). Not much of their stuff would be good for corporate worship, but some was good for individual worship of God. They may have a few "anthem" type songs that could have been remixed for group worship. But it's been a long time since I listened to them. 

As for rock being music from "the world", what music isn't? I'd love to hear the *heavenly* host singing praises to God, but they haven't released an album, and I can't find the mp3 on the Internet. I guess we'll have to make do with what we can hear, which is the music of the world.


----------



## beej6

I apologize for my poorly worded post above. I'm in general agreement with everyone so far, it is not the genre that is the problem, but it is the associations that one (or others) may have with the music, and whether the music adds a godly dimension to worship or is, at its worst, a distraction. 

This is of course tied in with one's notions about corporate worship. As a former music director, I've often said that a church's music will reflect that church's "regulative principle" and, ultimately, its theology.

I would also "improve" our definition of rock music to define it as not only with a backbeat, but with electric guitar - said instrument having no place, In my humble opinion, in a worship service. I've not seen a service where the use of an electric guitar was appropriate, but your mileage may vary ;-)


----------



## py3ak

Is Arnold Schoenberg suitable for worship? Why or why not?


----------



## panta dokimazete

> _Originally posted by py3ak_
> Is Arnold Schoenberg suitable for worship? Why or why not?



No more than Berg or Webern's...dodecaphonics was a method of atonal composition not a style - I don't think any of the practitioners composed anything dedicated to the glory of God - in fact, they were modernists.

What parallel are trying to draw?



> Any attempt to codify musical reality into a kind of imitation grammar (I refer mainly to the efforts associated with the Twelve-Tone System) is a brand of fetishism which shares with Fascism and racism the tendency to reduce live processes to immobile, labelled objects, the tendency to deal with formalities rather than substance. Claude Levi-Strauss describes (though to illustrate a different point) a captain at sea, his ship reduced to a frail raft without sails, who, by enforcing a meticulous protocol on his crew, is able to distract them from nostalgia for a safe harbor and from the desire for a destination."


Luciano Berio, quoted in Classic Essays on Twentieth-Century Music, 

I stand by my earlier statement that music is the language of emotion and without text and compositional intent it is neutral.

[Edited on 4-1-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## py3ak

JD,

My question is (and I am glad you added Berg) if there is something inherent about that atonal method of composition that is unconducive to worship? Could a Christian composer compose dedacophonic music suitable for singing Psalms to? Why or why not?
Do you agree with Berio? Can a genre (can we call it that?) be irredeemably devoted to something wrong?


----------



## panta dokimazete

I would call dodecaphonics a genre of modernism, so - no - I would not think so. It is musical legalism.

Is legalism glorifying to God?

[Edited on 4-1-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## py3ak

Let me be sure I'm understanding you (you seem to have more exposure than I do, as I can't STAND the stuff). Dodecaphonics is modernism (which you associate with legalism) in notes and measures? 

Some examples are here

Two questions, assuming I have gotten you right.

How is modernism equivalent or necessarily involucrative of legalism?
How does music express either modernism or legalism?

And to answer you, No. Legalism is a slander on God and does not glorify Him --except by being overcome and judged.


----------



## panta dokimazete

> _Originally posted by py3ak_
> Let me be sure I'm understanding you (you seem to have more exposure than I do, as I can't STAND the stuff). Dodecaphonics is modernism (which you associate with legalism) in notes and measures?



Dodecaphonics is musical legalism, in that it unnaturally constrains musical expression by a set of rigid rules - more here - and I can't stand it either...



> Two questions, assuming I have gotten you right.
> 
> How is modernism equivalent or necessarily involucrative of legalism?



Not my point...modernism is anti-fides...



> How does music express either modernism or legalism?



see the link, but the "music" was an outgrowth of the modernist movement - I still would call it more of an experiment (or abberation) than a style or a genre...I do not think there are any current dodecaphonic composers.



> And to answer you, No. Legalism is a slander on God and does not glorify Him --except by being overcome and judged.



then we are agreed...


----------



## panta dokimazete

Music and emotion


----------



## VictorBravo

For what it is worth, I tried to write an Easter cantata in my neo-baroque music composition days using twelve-tone rows. I made fairly good progress but ran out of steam. 

Even so, I had to cheat, I used four separate themes starting on different notes. The poliphony sounded sort of like Hindemith and was more or less pleasant. My purist friends mocked me, accusing me of trying to revert back to tonality. That was exactly the point.

But then I was converted and lost all desire to glorify myself in the guise of bringing glory to God.


----------



## panta dokimazete

I confess - if there is any musical method that could be totally anti-glorifying to God, it would be dodecaphonia...again - musical legalism...


----------



## py3ak

JD,

So theoretically there would be other forms of musical legalism? And the problem is the rules? What if someone were to compose mathematically (as one man told John Wesley he wanted to do)? Would that also be legalism?

Then the relationship between modernism and legalism is that both are opposed to faith? There is no further connection? Also, then Schoenberg's style of music, for instance, is opposed to faith?

I am still trying to understand your view (and work through my own) of how music relates to other arts, to presuppositions, to God and so forth. As far as dodecaphonia (nice term) goes, it started from a presupposition that was opposed to God and proceeded to work itself out from there. Is that right?

Victor said:


> The poliphony sounded sort of like Hindemith and was more or less pleasant.


 Aren't the two members of that sentence rather exclusive of one another?


----------



## py3ak

JD,

That was an interesting (and short) article. I suppose one can get a bit of a taste of what it was like by listening to Saint-Saens' Carnival of the Animals, when he slows "Offenbach's racy can-can from 'Orpheus in the Underworld'" (Leonard Bernstein) way down. 
It makes me wonder what would happen to the Egmont overture if we changed the mode and slowed it way down....


----------



## py3ak

This was an interesting comment on that article:
Someone had tried to make the point that the words of this Hebrew song are happy and therefore the perception of the music must be culturally conditioned. This was the reply.



> The example you´ve given only demonstrates a disconnect between the text and the music, not between different musical traditions. It so happens that "œHineh Ma Tov" IS a sad song, as are nearly all Jewish folk songs, because the Hebrew mode bears a strong resemblance to the Western minor scale. So the fact that the child (quite astutely) asked "œIf the words are so happy, why is the music so sad?" actually proves the opposite of your point, that despite cultural differences, children are able to correctly identify types of harmony. Which is a way of saying that some elements of "œmusical semantics" may be universal, much like grammar (Chomsky) and color perception & proportion (Zeki).


----------



## Puritan Sailor

> _Originally posted by py3ak_
> As far as dodecaphonia (nice term) goes, it started from a presupposition that was opposed to God and proceeded to work itself out from there. Is that right?





Now that's an interesting thought. Could we use this criteria to judge any musical genre and it's suitability? Could we even get to the base presuppositions of some genre's? Or would we have to rely upon the presuppositions of the composer?


----------



## py3ak

Patrick,

Another question I think we would have to answer was success. Say someone was trying to write antichristian music --did they succeed?


----------



## panta dokimazete

> _Originally posted by py3ak_
> JD,
> 
> So theoretically there would be other forms of musical legalism? And the problem is the rules? What if someone were to compose mathematically (as one man told John Wesley he wanted to do)? Would that also be legalism?



Music is highly mathmatic by nature, so no...obviously the intent would be the determinator. I would have penetrated the rationale behind the desire. 

musical legalism vs musical anarchy - it really revolves around liberty - and without Christ there is no liberty.

law-->liberty<--license

If you really penerate the method it represents the polar opposites of the construct above - the legalistic methodology creates atonality - musical legalism and licentiousness, all in one package.



> Then the relationship between modernism and legalism is that both are opposed to faith? There is no further connection? Also, then Schoenberg's style of music, for instance, is opposed to faith?



Again - Schoenberg's "style" was modernistic - thus his music reflected the intent of his worldview. Whatever characteristics of modernity that are anathematic to _sole fide_, then so is his music.



> I am still trying to understand your view (and work through my own) of how music relates to other arts, to presuppositions, to God and so forth. As far as dodecaphonia (nice term) goes, it started from a presupposition that was opposed to God and proceeded to work itself out from there. Is that right?



Intent leads to content, so I would say yes.



> Victor said:
> 
> 
> 
> The poliphony sounded sort of like Hindemith and was more or less pleasant.
> 
> 
> 
> Aren't the two members of that sentence rather exclusive of one another?
Click to expand...




[Edited on 4-1-2006 by jdlongmire]

[Edited on 4-1-2006 by jdlongmire]

[Edited on 4-1-2006 by jdlongmire]

[Edited on 4-1-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## py3ak

JD,

OK, I think I am understanding you. The intent of the composer is determinative: however, it is determinative because it is reflected in the actual method of composition.
Dodecaphonia is, then, "anarchy by rule"? It is legalism that leads to antinomianism? Are there examples of music that are anarchy not by rule but by chaos? Are there examples of music that are legalistic without being anarchic?
I take it we are assuming (with some warrant, as Schoenberg was not a stupid man), that he has succeeded in his effort to express his rebellion against God (whether he thought of it in those terms or not) in his music?


----------



## panta dokimazete

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by py3ak_
> As far as dodecaphonia (nice term) goes, it started from a presupposition that was opposed to God and proceeded to work itself out from there. Is that right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now that's an interesting thought. Could we use this criteria to judge any musical genre and it's suitability? Could we even get to the base presuppositions of some genre's? Or would we have to rely upon the presuppositions of the composer?
Click to expand...


Which I think goes straight to the core of my earlier statement - the worldview of the composer *is* the determinator of the musical intent - Wasn't Dan Barker a composer of Christian music? Does he not now compose Atheistic music? What are the common denominators?

Worldview and music - which do you think delivers the message?


----------



## panta dokimazete

> _Originally posted by py3ak_
> JD,
> 
> OK, I think I am understanding you. The intent of the composer is determinative: however, it is determinative because it is reflected in the actual method of composition.
> Dodecaphonia is, then, "anarchy by rule"? It is legalism that leads to antinomianism? Are there examples of music that are anarchy not by rule but by chaos? Are there examples of music that are legalistic without being anarchic?



Examples/epitomes:

Anarchy by chaos - John Cage

Leaglistic without anarchy - JS Bach



> I take it we are assuming (with some warrant, as Schoenberg was not a stupid man), that he has succeeded in his effort to express his rebellion against God (whether he thought of it in those terms or not) in his music?



I believe the success of the master can be best determined by the product of the student:

Berg was his student - see the culmination of the genre in the opera Wozzeck

so - in short - yes.


----------



## py3ak

Why would you consider Bach legalistic?



> Berg was his student - see the culmination of the genre in the opera Wozzeck



JD, I will have nightmares for weeks now that you mentioned that. I think I would rather sit through the five-hour Carmen with low-grade singers than do that.



> Worldview and music - which do you think delivers the message?


How sharply can we distinguish them?


----------



## panta dokimazete

> _Originally posted by py3ak_
> Why would you consider Bach legalistic?



Let me modify - I actually think Bach was the epitome of liberty - the compositional methodology of his time was counterpoint - with very well defined forms and rigid harmonic principles - Bach took the legalistic form and freuently improvised on them - thus taking liberty and creating beautiful music glorifying to God.



> Berg was his student - see the culmination of the genre in the opera Wozzeck





> JD, I will have nightmares for weeks now that you mentioned that. I think I would rather sit through the five-hour Carmen with low-grade singers than do that.







> Worldview and music - which do you think delivers the message?
> 
> 
> 
> How sharply can we distinguish them?
Click to expand...


That is a good question - it requires discernment - "test everything, keep the good"...

[Edited on 4-1-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## py3ak

Well, we agree on Bach and Berg --the extremes. It is obvious, of course, with half-an-ear that Bach's liberty did not lead to anarchy. But I wonder if it his improvisations which are the essence of liberty? Is not the skill he demonstrated (along with Mozart) in improvising without being anarchistic proof that the 'law', so to speak, was in his heart? I can improvise for hours as well --but it sounds rather more like Berg, only not so unpleasant.

Hopefully with more discussion here we can all strengthen and develop our discernment when it comes to separating form, content, message and worldview and understanding their relationship and inter-penetration.
I think it has helped to use such glaringly obvious examples such as Berg and Schoenberg.


----------



## panta dokimazete

I would say we have good examples of the law--->liberty<---license construct in Schoenberg --->Bach<---Cage.

On the skill side - I would say all of these men could be described as skillful in their art...it is the intent of the skill use that determines the God glorifying aspect...I draw a parallel to my skill (meager as it is) and how I originally developed it to my own glory - now, by the grace of God, directed to His Glory, the edification of the saints, feeding the sheep and going into all the world...

Interesting discussion...

[Edited on 4-1-2006 by jdlongmire]

[Edited on 4-1-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## py3ak

Yes, as to skills; Bertrand Russell was an amazing polymath, but he devoted his considerable talents to opposing God, as far as I can tell from what I've read.

I also agree with your examples. I think it important to emphasize that law is not intrinsically opposed to liberty --legalism is, but the law in itself is "holy and just and good" and "we know that the law is good if a man use it lawfully".

Now there are obvious differences between the music of Bach, Schoenberg and Cage. What I am interested in exploring, and what I think would be very germane to the point of Patrick's original post, is this: how did their worldview and intention alter the form and content of their music in order to be an adequate expression? Since these are all gifted men we can perhaps leave to one side the question of their success, and take it for granted.


----------



## panta dokimazete

RubÃ©n,

Very much enjoying our discussion - I absolutely concur with your first 2 paragraphs.

As for the third:

define: "adequate expression" and what are they adequately expressing?

Their worldview through their music? If so, I would recommend we should ultimately also offer for consideration a spiritual modern parallel to Bach that uses the "rock" form, just as Bach utilized the Baroque form (counterpoint).

-JD

[Edited on 4-2-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## py3ak

"Adequate expression" would be a way that is satisfying (or at least acceptable) to the composer of putting forth his worldview via his music. What they are expressing is part of what we are discussing here. How far are they able to express any part of their worldview? To some degree, I think, or: A., all music would be uninteresting and B., we would agree that Berg is Bad.

I don't know of any parallels to Bach at any point in any music --and having rather limited access in Mexico it might be hard to develop an acquaintance. Perhaps, also, it would be difficult to find examples that are as clear cut?


----------



## panta dokimazete

hmmm - how about Chris Tomlin and/or Michael W. Smith? vs...James Taylor and/or some popular "rock" artist?

I suppose we would also have to define the "rock" form - I think the Baroque or counterpunctual form is fairly clear...

Would be happy to have others chime in here - or is this just a dialogue?

I'm good either way...


----------



## py3ak

Well, someone else will have to get involved to carry on those examples with you. But I am not sure we need any more. The question may be difficult to answer, but it is, I think, relatively clear:

How is Berg's (or Schoenberg's or Cage's) un or antichristian bias reflected in his music?


----------



## panta dokimazete

Thought you'd like this article

...back in a bit


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Perhaps we will come back to the musical expression of worldview in a bit. I would now like to take a slight turn through in the fog and attack teh suitability of rock from another angle. 

Should we be clapping our hands in worship? 

The psalms are full of that imperative to clap. To some , that seems inappropriate in the presence of a holy God. Others have no problem with it. But because the command occurs frequently, I think we would all agree that in principle, clapping is not wrong in worship, though we may not agree how it is to be done right. 

But, what of genre of music helps to facilitate clapping in song?


----------



## panta dokimazete

well - the genre would have to be rhythmic - that is - clapping is percussion - so the composition would have to lend itself to percussive accompaniment.

Obviously, most of the "modern" genres are percussive in nature...

***Tangent Alert***: What about clapping independent of song? as an expression of edification, appreciation and praise?


----------



## kceaster

*Patrick...*



> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> Perhaps we will come back to the musical expression of worldview in a bit. I would now like to take a slight turn through in the fog and attack the suitability of rock from another angle.
> 
> Should we be clapping our hands in worship?
> 
> The psalms are full of that imperative to clap. To some , that seems inappropriate in the presence of a holy God. Others have no problem with it. But because the command occurs frequently, I think we would all agree that in principle, clapping is not wrong in worship, though we may not agree how it is to be done right.
> 
> But, what of genre of music helps to facilitate clapping in song?



I could be way off on this, but I do not take the clapping of the hands to signify a rhythmic clapping, but a unison clapping in a certain place. Given the syllables of Hebrew, it would be nearly impossible to clap a synopated clap during these psalms. What beat do you clap on? We can't fit the words into a time signature of our day, so In my humble opinion when the Psalm says clap, they clapped, but that was then end of it. They probably didn't clap all the way through the psalm.

So in answer to your question, I would say that clapping all the way through a psalm is not warranted and so any genre could work as long as everyone clapped at the same time the words suggest.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Puritan Sailor

> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> Perhaps we will come back to the musical expression of worldview in a bit. I would now like to take a slight turn through in the fog and attack the suitability of rock from another angle.
> 
> Should we be clapping our hands in worship?
> 
> The psalms are full of that imperative to clap. To some , that seems inappropriate in the presence of a holy God. Others have no problem with it. But because the command occurs frequently, I think we would all agree that in principle, clapping is not wrong in worship, though we may not agree how it is to be done right.
> 
> But, what of genre of music helps to facilitate clapping in song?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could be way off on this, but I do not take the clapping of the hands to signify a rhythmic clapping, but a unison clapping in a certain place. Given the syllables of Hebrew, it would be nearly impossible to clap a synopated clap during these psalms. What beat do you clap on? We can't fit the words into a time signature of our day, so In my humble opinion when the Psalm says clap, they clapped, but that was then end of it. They probably didn't clap all the way through the psalm.
> 
> So in answer to your question, I would say that clapping all the way through a psalm is not warranted and so any genre could work as long as everyone clapped at the same time the words suggest.
> 
> In Christ,
> 
> KC
Click to expand...

That is interesting. Would you happen to have any references on that idea?


----------



## kceaster

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> That is interesting. Would you happen to have any references on that idea?



No, that's why I said I may be way off on this. I do know that there isn't any recognizable metre in the Hebrew. You can't count syllables and put them into modern time signatures.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

I think clapping could be ceremonial. The Psalms say to do a lot of things in the context of worship that would be anti-New Covenantal (sacrifice, etc.).


----------



## py3ak

The article was interesting, but seemed pretty vague at the end of the day. Where is the C.S. Lewis of the musical world?


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> I think clapping could be ceremonial. The Psalms say to do a lot of things in the context of worship that would be anti-New Covenantal (sacrifice, etc.).



Hmmm... Have to be careful if we follow this line of reasoning. How do we differentiate the elements of worship, and the elements of ceremonial laws. Isn't much of old testament corporate worship "ceremonial" in that sense?


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> I think clapping could be ceremonial. The Psalms say to do a lot of things in the context of worship that would be anti-New Covenantal (sacrifice, etc.).



I looked up any partial matches to "clap" in the New Testament and did not find any references in the ESV or the NKJV. If the command to "clap" is not in the N.T., then it would lead to the conclusion that it was indeed ceremonial.


----------



## Civbert

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> I think clapping could be ceremonial. The Psalms say to do a lot of things in the context of worship that would be anti-New Covenantal (sacrifice, etc.).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I looked up any partial matches to "clap" in the New Testament and did not find any references in the ESV or the NKJV. If the command to "clap" is not in the N.T., then it would lead to the conclusion that it was indeed ceremonial.
Click to expand...


Why? What's the connection between the lack of a New Testament reference, and it being ceremonial. Isn't there better ways to differentiate between the old ceremonial requirements and what is considered pleasing to God after Christ. God does not want animal sacrifices, but I can't see how clapping fits.


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> I think clapping could be ceremonial. The Psalms say to do a lot of things in the context of worship that would be anti-New Covenantal (sacrifice, etc.).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I looked up any partial matches to "clap" in the New Testament and did not find any references in the ESV or the NKJV. If the command to "clap" is not in the N.T., then it would lead to the conclusion that it was indeed ceremonial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why? What's the connection between the lack of a New Testament reference, and it being ceremonial.
Click to expand...


As you know, the O.T. principle of worship was centered around types and shadows, and was largely abbrogated by N.T. worship. Therefore, according to my understanding of the Regulative Principle, a N.T. command or example is needed to include an element of worship.



> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> Isn't there better ways to differentiate between the old ceremonial requirements and what is considered pleasing to God after Christ. God does not want animal sacrifices, but I can't see how clapping fits.



Can you suggest what method this might be? There are many ceremonial elements of worship that are not explicitly condemned by the N.T., yet the reformed churches have seen these as applicable to the O.T. economy.

This might be a good discussion for a new thread.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> I think clapping could be ceremonial. The Psalms say to do a lot of things in the context of worship that would be anti-New Covenantal (sacrifice, etc.).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I looked up any partial matches to "clap" in the New Testament and did not find any references in the ESV or the NKJV. If the command to "clap" is not in the N.T., then it would lead to the conclusion that it was indeed ceremonial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why? What's the connection between the lack of a New Testament reference, and it being ceremonial. Isn't there better ways to differentiate between the old ceremonial requirements and what is considered pleasing to God after Christ. God does not want animal sacrifices, but I can't see how clapping fits.
Click to expand...


Yes, binding clapping to OT ceremony is a bit of a stretch. But it is certainly used when celebrating the great deliverances of God in Israel's history. I do not see why that would change with the greatest deliverance of Christ for us, which all those OT deliverers and acts of redemption pointed too. 

But again, back to genre.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

I don't recall proposing a line of reasoning, but I digress.

It is kind of hard to clap when you're holding a Psalter in your hands...


----------



## BaptistCanuk

> _Originally posted by Kaalvenist_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> Sorry - laying down legalistic principles that are largely a matter of preference and isogesis:
> 
> 
> 
> If this is what God requires in His law, then that is what we should do. It is not "legalism" to obey His law; it is antinomianism to disregard it.
> 
> And it's "eisogesis," not "isogesis." If you're going to insult us, do it right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> Then judgementally dismissing my points because of my signature. instead of winsomely pointing me to the source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've come to detest words like "winsome" and "irenic." You have been pointed to "the source," as you say. See also the page on musical instruments on my website, with all the links your heart could desire.
Click to expand...


But who says not singing in church is obeying God's law? If He required the Jews to sing along with musical instruments, why would He not require the same from us. Until someone can show me where the Bible forbids using musical instruments in coporate worship, I will believe that you are just speaking from your own personal opinion.

On the matter of the thread topic: Like it has been said, rock music is probably not conducive to corporate worship. The style of music affects people in certain ways and would most likely get their minds off of the Lord. It is "feel good" music instead of "praise God" music. And I like some rock music personally. I just don't like it in church.


----------



## CharlesG

> _Originally posted by py3ak_
> It is clear from Scripture that music impacts the human personality, without needing words (Elisha and Saul). How does any given kind of music affect us? Obviously there are individual variations, so perhaps hard-and-fast rules for individuals with regard solely to instrumental music (as words are probably a little easier to judge and a little less subjective in their effect) are extremely difficult to come by. For corporate worship, then, we must use the wisdom given us and consider the tendency of any given genre on the mass of people, or what its creators desired to achieve with it.
> There are songs which seem designed to produce melancholy, for instance. Such a melody would be inappropriate for singing Psalm 100 to.
> Since instrumental music does influence the human personality, then it must not be music which contradicts the words of the Psalms we are singing; and it should not be music which stirs up feelings inappropriate for worship: such as happy-go-lucky 'who cares' kind of stuff.



I agree. God is concerned about the physical world as we read in Genesis. It is all very good. Vibrations from musical instruments are just as important in worship as the words. We are to have order, as God is a orderly and lawful in His creation. The style of music must contain adherance to the laws of music. As a side note, I find it interesting that music contains "7" notes in the scale, as well as there are "7" colors in light. The number 7 is refered to in Scripture as complete in quality. 

Regards,

CharlesG


----------



## Puritan Sailor

> _Originally posted by CharlesG_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by py3ak_
> It is clear from Scripture that music impacts the human personality, without needing words (Elisha and Saul). How does any given kind of music affect us? Obviously there are individual variations, so perhaps hard-and-fast rules for individuals with regard solely to instrumental music (as words are probably a little easier to judge and a little less subjective in their effect) are extremely difficult to come by. For corporate worship, then, we must use the wisdom given us and consider the tendency of any given genre on the mass of people, or what its creators desired to achieve with it.
> There are songs which seem designed to produce melancholy, for instance. Such a melody would be inappropriate for singing Psalm 100 to.
> Since instrumental music does influence the human personality, then it must not be music which contradicts the words of the Psalms we are singing; and it should not be music which stirs up feelings inappropriate for worship: such as happy-go-lucky 'who cares' kind of stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. God is concerned about the physical world as we read in Genesis. It is all very good. Vibrations from musical instruments are just as important in worship as the words. We are to have order, as God is a orderly and lawful in His creation. The style of music must contain adherance to the laws of music. As a side note, I find it interesting that music contains "7" notes in the scale, as well as there are "7" colors in light. The number 7 is refered to in Scripture as complete in quality.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> CharlesG
Click to expand...


Actually only Western music has 7 basic notes. Eastern music may have serveral more notes in their scales in some cases.


----------



## non dignus

Sure. Reverent musical construction with beauty, coupled with theocentric verse that gives glory to God ought to be used for YOUTH groups.

Afterall, we don't feed the kids foods that a mature palate enjoys. I think it's fine to give them 'milk', musically speaking. But they should definitely be in the main room, hearing and learning to enjoy the classics on the Lord's Day.


----------



## CharlesG

> _Originally posted by Puritan Sailor_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by CharlesG_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by py3ak_
> It is clear from Scripture that music impacts the human personality, without needing words (Elisha and Saul). How does any given kind of music affect us? Obviously there are individual variations, so perhaps hard-and-fast rules for individuals with regard solely to instrumental music (as words are probably a little easier to judge and a little less subjective in their effect) are extremely difficult to come by. For corporate worship, then, we must use the wisdom given us and consider the tendency of any given genre on the mass of people, or what its creators desired to achieve with it.
> There are songs which seem designed to produce melancholy, for instance. Such a melody would be inappropriate for singing Psalm 100 to.
> Since instrumental music does influence the human personality, then it must not be music which contradicts the words of the Psalms we are singing; and it should not be music which stirs up feelings inappropriate for worship: such as happy-go-lucky 'who cares' kind of stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. God is concerned about the physical world as we read in Genesis. It is all very good. Vibrations from musical instruments are just as important in worship as the words. We are to have order, as God is a orderly and lawful in His creation. The style of music must contain adherance to the laws of music. As a side note, I find it interesting that music contains "7" notes in the scale, as well as there are "7" colors in light. The number 7 is refered to in Scripture as complete in quality.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> CharlesG
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually only Western music has 7 basic notes. Eastern music may have serveral more notes in their scales in some cases.
Click to expand...


Such is the status of eastern mysticism! Ha. I'm not familiar with such theory, but perhaps these extra notes are multiples of the 7 or fundamentals. Is this like adding to the word of god? Nah. 

Cheers,

CharlesG

[Edited on 10-16-2006 by CharlesG]


----------



## CharlesG

> _Originally posted by non dignus_
> Sure. Reverent musical construction with beauty, coupled with theocentric verse that gives glory to God ought to be used for YOUTH groups.
> 
> Afterall, we don't feed the kids foods that a mature palate enjoys. I think it's fine to give them 'milk', musically speaking. But they should definitely be in the main room, hearing and learning to enjoy the classics on the Lord's Day.



I agree. I find the lyrics of most contemporary christian music to be nothing more than sentimental gush. 

Cheers,

CharlesG


----------



## non dignus

> _Originally posted by CharlesG_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by non dignus_
> Sure. Reverent musical construction with beauty, coupled with theocentric verse that gives glory to God ought to be used for YOUTH groups.
> 
> Afterall, we don't feed the kids foods that a mature palate enjoys. I think it's fine to give them 'milk', musically speaking. But they should definitely be in the main room, hearing and learning to enjoy the classics on the Lord's Day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. I find the lyrics of most contemporary christian music to be nothing more than sentimental gush.
Click to expand...



Absolutely! It's also narcissistic. 
It's really often about 'me' and how 'I' love the Lord SO MUCH.

{sidebar}: Children are very narcissistic. They haven't completely learned yet that the universe isn't autocentric. Can any deny that most _praise rock_ is a symptom of an immature, autocentric perspective carried over into worship; that groups who employ such in worship also have an autocentric theology? 

I contend that the Calvary Chapel movement is a giant youth group. 


{end sidebar}


----------



## Augusta

> _Originally posted by non dignus_
> I contend that the Calvary Chapel movement is a giant youth group.
> 
> 
> {end sidebar}


----------



## Puritan Sailor

> _Originally posted by CharlesG_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Puritan Sailor_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by CharlesG_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by py3ak_
> It is clear from Scripture that music impacts the human personality, without needing words (Elisha and Saul). How does any given kind of music affect us? Obviously there are individual variations, so perhaps hard-and-fast rules for individuals with regard solely to instrumental music (as words are probably a little easier to judge and a little less subjective in their effect) are extremely difficult to come by. For corporate worship, then, we must use the wisdom given us and consider the tendency of any given genre on the mass of people, or what its creators desired to achieve with it.
> There are songs which seem designed to produce melancholy, for instance. Such a melody would be inappropriate for singing Psalm 100 to.
> Since instrumental music does influence the human personality, then it must not be music which contradicts the words of the Psalms we are singing; and it should not be music which stirs up feelings inappropriate for worship: such as happy-go-lucky 'who cares' kind of stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. God is concerned about the physical world as we read in Genesis. It is all very good. Vibrations from musical instruments are just as important in worship as the words. We are to have order, as God is a orderly and lawful in His creation. The style of music must contain adherance to the laws of music. As a side note, I find it interesting that music contains "7" notes in the scale, as well as there are "7" colors in light. The number 7 is refered to in Scripture as complete in quality.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> CharlesG
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually only Western music has 7 basic notes. Eastern music may have serveral more notes in their scales in some cases.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Such is the status of eastern mysticism! Ha. I'm not familiar with such theory, but perhaps these extra notes are multiples of the 7 or fundamentals.
Click to expand...


It depends on the culture. But I think the Chinese have what we would call quarter tones. Rather than the 7 note structure with sharps and flats (half tones) they would have their scale be every note as a quarter tone. So something like for example, the tone between F# and G. If I remember right, there are some cultures that dissect it even more.


----------

