Haha, well, I would equate this to my experience with rap music. I know, intellectually, that there can be rap music that doesn't have to do with sex, drugs and violence. I can't think of any offhand, but that's because I don't like rap music, so I'm not familiar enough with it to think of any offhand.
But you're simply talking about lyrical changes, now. Due to the incredibly large number of interpretations of the Bible, it'd be shocking if all of the songs' lyrical contents matched up with your congregation's beliefs, but if someone with your beliefs composed Christian rock music, then presumably the contents of the song would mesh with your beliefs. So, it's possible, even if you've not come across that. (And since the church in this article is probably a different denomination from yours, they likely consider their beliefs as "biblically accurate/valid" even where they disagree with you.)
Elvis was a secular performer on a stage, singing for money. I'm not commenting on that. The discussion is about Christian music. Totally not relevant.
Haha, I know, I was more just commenting that I can't recall anyone ever mentioning a performer's "gyrations" outside of old quotes that I read about complaints of Elvis. But yeah, totally irrelevant.
They do it all the time.
The content of the song is enough to stir hearts and minds.
Some do. Perhaps others feel drawn to express themselves in other ways. Just because Mozart was able to express himself through music doesn't mean that Picasso also should have expressed himself through music rather than canvas.
Likewise, some believers may be moved purely from the lyrical contents of a song. Others may be moved so much by the written word, that they find the desire to express that movement through song also unnecessary. My primary point is that everyone is different and express themselves differently, and their form of expression doesn't necessarily negate the message, as seemed to be implied.
One can appreciate the efforts of the performer without applause. Church isn't a theater or sports stadium.
While I understand the concept of "appropriate response in a given environment", for the most part, I would assume that is defined mostly by the expectations of those who compose the environment. So, while it might be wholly inappropriate to applaud after a song in
your church, that would be primarily because those people who compose of your church would not expect (and would find disrespectful) applause. Those who attend this other church might not find that behaviour disrespectful at all.
The audience isn't required to respond in any certain way; I said those were examples. I've never been a member of a Southern Baptist church, so I can't say what they do or not do during their services.
Right, but the implication is that there can be a "right" and "wrong" type of response. And I didn't mean to imply that you were a southern baptist, just that the examples used are often also used as a stereotype of southern baptist congregations. However, those same examples, in a traditional Catholic church, would also be considered just as disrespectful and disruptive as applause in your church would.
I don't make or take bets.
It's possible that believers are involved in "Christian" rock. Many believers, especially new ones, are involved in lots of things that they don't know the full truth about. That doesn't make it OK.
Those who make it define what it is, though. Unless you're positing the existence of a secret anti-christian Christian rock cabal...
I was asked why I was bothered by it, and I've given my explanation. That's all. Mine is just another perspective on the issue.
Oh, I understand. I just like questioning people.
People do have different comfort levels. The only time I hear Gregorian chants are when they're included in a TV program or movie.
Check your PMs, I sent you a link to a song from my music that happened to come on my music player while reading your post...
The instrumentation of the songs we use at church wouldn't fit with rock-style instruments. Different instruments suit different kinds of music. Some are flexible to many forms, such as the piano, and some are not.
There is also the relationship of certain instruments to certain kinds of music. Most people can identify what a rock band set up looks like.
I'd argue that most instruments are flexible enough to fit most of any kind of music. I've heard rock bands with a classical violinist in the band, techno performed by a full-scale orchestra, and a symphony performed with trash cans and hula hoops. Music is very dynamic.
I can't think of any, other than some languages don't have the vocabulary that includes specific religious terms. That, however, can be worked out. Do you have something specific in mind?
No, see above in regards to my comment regarding treating music as a language. That was more my point, not that there are languages incompatible with religion.
=====
On an unrelated note, I find it amusing that I'm an atheist, defending Christian rock as an actual music form to a real Christian, on a forum primarily for and about the deaf community. (Mind you, a month ago, I would have been one of the people who assumed that deaf people wouldn't be able to experience music at all, so that last part isn't nearly as strange...)
