There is a wide range of what people call "contemporary Christian music" and "Christian rock music." "Contemporary" is the term they prefer to use because there is a more negative connotation to the term "rock" even for those who use it. There are some common denominators, such as incorporating backbeat, using electric guitars and bass, using drum sets, extreme amplification, and worldly stylings of music and performers.
CCM (contemporary Christian music) is kind of the near-beer of music for people who want to be able to enjoy the sound and feel of rock music without the hangover from worldly lyrics.
I'm not certain because Christian music of any kind simply isn't my cup of tea, but my guess would be that an apt comparison would be "Christian Rock : CCM :: Rock Music : (Pop OR Alternative Rock)".
If CCM is the equivalent of "Pop" music, then it's just Christian Rock which had the tone changed to be more palatable to more people. If it's the equivalent of "Alt Rock" then it's likely to have many of the same bases, but a slightly different sound.
Either way, I'm sure I'd be able to hear a difference, but I'd probably categorize both types similarly. (Reading further, it appears you also similarly categorize both as "not church music", so I'll respond as if they're roughly the same.)
Maybe you should first tell me what is "True Christian Music™," trademark and all. I'm not familiar with that term, so we may not be talking about the same thing.
Haha, that was just me being facetious.
I was merely referring to "music that you consider appropriate for church services".
If CCM doesn't appeal to someone, then that person doesn't listen to it, and therefore it would have no influence on that person. However, for those who do enjoy it and listen to it, they are being influenced by it's appeal to their physical senses more than song's message. Even other ADers have posted here that it's the "liveliness" and beat of the songs that appeal to them, not the words. That is, it's the sensual nature of the songs, not the messages that they enjoy. That's not the purpose of music that's for the worship and glory of God, and edification of the people.
By physical senses, do you mean the sound/beat/tempo/etc is pleasing to them? Because I would assume that any good music (and yes, I would include some traditional "Church Music" with this) should have an appealing sound/beat/tempo/etc. If it doesn't, why are you bothering to sing/perform it, rather than merely reciting the lyrics as poetry? (And for that matter, even poetry has elements of tempo/sound/tone that can appeal to the senses, as well.)
It seems overly limiting to say that someone should be moved by the intellectual contents of the lyrics alone for something to be "appropriate" for a given situation. I think the difference between "liveliness" in terms of the sound being pleasing is more of a generational difference - I know my own grandmother (who sings or used to sing almost every Sunday in mass) found the sound of church music very pleasing to listen to, which is why she would listen to that and similar musical styles (classical music) at home and in her car, as well.
Um, no. If someone from my church composed CCM, it would mean that they either don't have the discernment to know that what they're doing is wrong, or that they don't care that what they're doing is wrong. In either case, someone who is doing something out of ignorance or rebellion isn't going to produce lyrics that are biblically correct either. They've shown that their beliefs don't mesh with mine if they are writing CCM songs.
I guess the primary part of what I don't understand is
why that is inherently wrong? Again, this has to do with what I said above - I don't think that having music that is musically appealing detracts or (necessarily) distracts from the message it is trying to convey, especially since musical taste is a matter of personal preference.
They have that right.
I never said they should be shut down or prevented from doing what they do. I merely stated that I would be bothered by their methods. That's my prerogative.
Indeed it is. It's like the difference between saying that you don't think people
should eat McDonalds (because it's extremely unhealthy) and saying that you don't think people should
be allowed to eat McDonalds.
With something like religious practices, it tends to be a bit more obvious, but it's a line that many people often seem to forget exists. But that doesn't have much to do with this topic.
The form of presentation does influence how the message is perceived, whether we like it or not.
A secular example:
During the JFK vs. Nixon presidential campaign, there was an important, tide-turning debate between them. People who heard the debate on the radio declared Nixon the clear winner based on the points he made. People who saw the debate on TV declared JFk the clear winner because of the way he presented his points. His appearance, facial expression, and mannerisms beat out Nixon's rough and awkward appearance.
The content was the same on the radio and TV. It was the presentation that made the difference.
While I'd certainly agree with this (ie the medium your message is transmitted through can affect the message itself), the specific example you gave has more to do with transmitting more information, which changes the emphasis - when you simply hear someone speak, their body language isn't being transmitted in the message, so that isn't being included in the message.
When you talk about different musical styles, there obviously is more than just the lyrics being transmitted. However! This is
also the case with more subdued, traditional music, as well! They, too, transmit more information than just the message of the lyrics, but it's simply
different additional information being transmitted.
Most instruments can fit into forms of rock music but the inverse isn't true for Christian music. Instruments that were developed specifically for rock music don't fit into traditional Christian music.
I remain unconvinced. Music and musical instruments are highly versatile, so the only way that I could be convinced that there's something that they "can't fit" is when you've pre-defined the style to say that it doesn't include them.