Church's 'Scumbags Welcome' Message Irks Some

Banjo said:
Child pornography, that's the argument you are making? People sexually molested children back then, and it's still happening today. Children who are involved with child pornography were sexually abused. It's morally wrong. You know that. Rock music is not pornographic nor anything remotely close to it.
Click to expand...
I'm afraid you missed my point. I didn't equate rock music with internet child pornography. It was an example of something that is condemned by God even though it wasn't mentioned in the Bible. My point was that something didn't need to be specifically mentioned by name in the Bible in order to be condemned by God. I didn't say that rock music is pornographic (although some of it is). In fact, I didn't even criticize secular rock music in general. I made my point at the beginning that it's so-called "Christian" rock music being performed as part of a church service that bothered me. That's it.


Besides, since you seem to put so much importance in the day of Sunday. Here's something for you. If Jesus did resurrect on Sunday while he died the Friday before, can you explain why he mentioned that he would be in the Earth for 3 days and 3 nights?

How is it possible to be in the Earth for 3 days and 3 nights while it was just one day and two nights?
Click to expand...
I really don't understand your angry tone.

Anyway, you assume that everyone follows the tradition of Good Friday for being the day of the week of Christ's crucifixion and burial. Not every Christian follows that tradition. I don't want to debate denominational differences here. That's a surefire thread locker if I do that.
 
rockin'robin said:
Amd bigamy?...Back then, having a harem of wives, even marrying ur own daughter, just to "multiply and be fruitful" was fine "back then"....nowadays, it's against the law. So is incest.
Birth control, there was none "back then"....
Click to expand...
Bigamy and polygamy and harems were never "fine" with God. Whenever they were mentioned, it was always as a negative arrangement. Just because they were allowed in some cultures, it didn't mean God approved of them. People do lots of things that God doesn't approve of.

And there are people who do have to work on Sunday...doctors, EMT's, police officers...the list goes on and on. So keeping Sunday as a day "of rest and worship" is impossible for some people! This world doesn't automatically STOP because it's Sunday and everybody is supposed to be in Church.
Click to expand...
Of course, God understands that some people have to work to keep us healthy and safe on Sundays. He also understands that sometimes believers are sick on Sundays or too infirm to go to church.

That's not the same as sleeping in, going to sports activities, or shopping on Sunday.
 
Reba said:
I'm afraid you missed my point. I didn't equate rock music with internet child pornography. It was an example of something that is condemned by God even though it wasn't mentioned in the Bible. My point was that something didn't need to be specifically mentioned by name in the Bible in order to be condemned by God. I didn't say that rock music is pornographic (although some of it is). In fact, I didn't even criticize secular rock music in general. I made my point at the beginning that it's so-called "Christian" rock music being performed as part of a church service that bothered me. That's it.
Click to expand...

Rock music isn't condemned by God. It didn't exist back then, and I don't believe there's much of a principle to it anyway. It's a form of expressive music, there's no reason why it cannot be used to deliver the God's message.

I really don't understand your angry tone.
Click to expand...

Angry? It's a valid question to ask and you still haven't answered it. I don't think it's irrelevant since you do seem to put a lot of significance in the day, Sunday. It's obvious that some particular dates are important to you for unknown reasons.
 
Reba said:
That's not the same as sleeping in, going to sports activities, or shopping on Sunday.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, I'm sure all of these souls are doomed to an eternity of damnation for sleeping in on Sunday.
 
Banjo said:
Rock music isn't condemned by God. It didn't exist back then, and I don't believe there's much of a principle to it anyway. It's a form of expressive music, there's no reason why it cannot be used to deliver the God's message.
Click to expand...
Lots of things that are condemned by God did not exist during the time that the Bible was written. That doesn't mean they're OK to do. That's why I gave the example of internet porn. There was no internet during Biblical times but that doesn't mean people who use the internet for immoral reasons (porn, financial scams, identity theft, etc.) get a free ride from judgment.


Angry? It's a valid question to ask and you still haven't answered it. I don't think it's irrelevant since you do seem to put a lot of significance in the day, Sunday. It's obvious that some particular dates are important to you for unknown reasons.
Click to expand...
Yes, I did answer it. Some people, myself included, don't follow the tradition of Friday being the day of burial. If we don't calculate the three days from Friday, then there is no problem with Sunday being the resurrection day.
 
Banjo said:
Oh yeah, I'm sure all of these souls are doomed to an eternity of damnation for sleeping in on Sunday.
Click to expand...
I never, never said that. No one is "doomed to an eternity of damnation for sleeping in on Sunday."
 
StSapphire said:
Reba: Keep in mind that this comes from an unbelieving heathen, but whether you can tell or not, there really really is a very different sound. It's been around long enough that "Christian rock" has developed into its own music style all its own. You will find very few people who enjoy actual rock music who would enjoy Christian rock, even if they couldn't hear the lyrics.
Click to expand...
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.

However, I'm curious. You seem to have an idea in your mind of what "True Christian Music™" is (and by implication, anything that isn't that, isn't True Christian Music™).
Click to expand...
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. :dunno:
 
StSapphire said:
Please do, because I'm pretty sure I don't agree with that statement at all. Rock music (which, to be clear, I would distinguish from "Christian rock", which I still posit has its own unique sound and character, similar to differences between American, British and Australian English) may have been used to "appeal sensually to the flesh" (side note: please define what exactly this means, too; for now, I'm using it to mean "something that you allow yourself experience, rather than think about"), but I'm sure I could find any number of "rock songs" which do not use the musical rhythm and beat to bypass the conscious and thinking mind.
Click to expand...
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.


A language being used with non-biblical content would, to me, be equivalent to having a song with non-biblical lyrics. The music itself can be crafted many different ways, just as a language can be.
Click to expand...
For example, a language used by a culture that has no words for God, Holy Spirit, Jesus, crucifixion, Heaven, Hell, sin, baptism, church, or Bible would have to use the words that they do have to explain those terms. It's like using the indigenous language of an isolated tropical island to explain ice and snow. Those words aren't in their language's vocabulary, so they have to be explained before they can be used in a meaningful way.


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.
Click to expand...
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.

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.)
Click to expand...
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. :)

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.
Click to expand...
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.

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. :)
Click to expand...
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.
 
AlleyCat said:
I know this is a bit out of the realm of what we're discussing here, but here's a deaf perspective. I go to church, and when I go to a "traditional" service, it's just boring. Sorry if that offends anyone. When I go to a "contemporary" or "lively" service (all churches use different words for this type of service), it's so much fun. Traditional hymns are played with rock music and there's a very upbeat feel to the service. I don't feel that compromises the service one bit, and I can enjoy it so much more. It's so loud that I don't even need to hear it (I can with my HAs) but I can also feel it. In every sense of the word.
Click to expand...
If you attend church for the "fun" you get then that makes perfect sense.
 
Glenn said:
What is music but different tones of sound? Whether or not that has any religious connotation is open to interpretation. It makes no difference if it is rock music or any other kind of music. It's no more religious than the sounds of nature.
Click to expand...
If that were true then why are there different kinds of music? Why do people get different feelings from different kinds of music?
 
Daredevel7 said:
...It does bring up a good question. Are you (general you) considered a bad or non believer if a simple, traditional church service bores you? Does this mean you don't believe in God enough to feel his awesome power from simply listening to psalms? Should a church do certain activities to keep people on their toes? Different speakers, new weekly stories, singing, yelling, tongues, lively music? If so, does this imply that you go mostly for the entertainment value? Does that mean you are a bad believer?
Click to expand...
Whether or not someone is a believer isn't determined by the kind of church service that person attends. A spiritually mature believer is more likely to be able to discern what is a biblically sound, Christ honoring church service.

Church services that are biblically sound and Christ honoring are not intrinsically boring. They can be interesting and soul stirring without added props or entertainment.

On the other hand, does it mean that the more "boring" a church service is, the better believer you are?
Click to expand...
Absolutely not.

Personally, I've never found any of the church services that I've attended since being saved to be boring.
 
Reba said:
If you attend church for the "fun" you get then that makes perfect sense.
Click to expand...

"fun" ? An odd choice of words. I liken "fun" to going to a football game, a party, hanging out with friends.

I go to church to get God's message and listen, and feel. And if part of how I get that is by music I enjoy, especially if it's rock-style, so be it.
 
Reba said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.)

Reba said:
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. :dunno:
Click to expand...

Haha, that was just me being facetious. :) I was merely referring to "music that you consider appropriate for church services".

Reba said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

Reba said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

Reba said:
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. :)
Click to expand...

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. :)

Reba said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

Reba said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Reba said:
If that were true then why are there different kinds of music? Why do people get different feelings from different kinds of music?
Click to expand...
Because it's their personal interpretation. The same way people get different feelings from different types of art.
 
AlleyCat said:
"fun" ? An odd choice of words. I liken "fun" to going to a football game, a party, hanging out with friends.
Click to expand...
Um, they were your words, from your post:

"it's so much fun"
 
Reba said:
Whether or not someone is a believer isn't determined by the kind of church service that person attends. A spiritually mature believer is more likely to be able to discern what is a biblically sound, Christ honoring church service.

Church services that are biblically sound and Christ honoring are not intrinsically boring. They can be interesting and soul stirring without added props or entertainment.
Click to expand...

It does sound like you DO think that someone who gets bored at biblically sound services to be a bad believer, because the words of the Bible alone was not stirring enough for them.

I find this really interesting actually. Because someone can misconstrue the "stirring" of their soul to be "moved by God" but really they just enjoy the quietness and the soothing sound of traditional Christian music just as some people enjoy the upbeat of Christian rock.

In fact, it doesn't have to be just music. My friend enjoys going to church because he likes the structure of it. It's predictable to him, listening to sermons is soothing, it's quiet, it's relaxing, etc.

Couldn't he easily say "Whenever I go there, I am moved by God." when it really is just the quiet environment? He might as well just go to the top of a hill in the middle of nowhere and "feel moved by God."

Honestly, I see NO difference between what people feel during upbeat, lively Christian music and what people feel during moments of quiet, gently interrupted by soothing, predictable voices.
 
Back
Top