Sunday, October 11, 2009

part 2

More thoughts. And while they all tend one way, the conclusion tends the other.

We think "how sad" that hymns are considered in such low-esteem, and they think it is sad that these non-hymns are considered the same way by us. Is their culture truly wrong? Will we condemn many cultures? The big thing here, is that though they don't use hymns, they don't condemn them either. We do. We condemn everyone and anyone that is not like us. This is part of our fundamentalist nature. I understand being separate. But what are we being separate from? What is the "world"? Is it the Hispanic culture? We can't do that.

Yes, I understand that many chapels are not to be times of worship, but this man that I share an office with truly wants to worship God and encourage the kids to do so. Whether anyone else is, he is trying to worship.

I agree that hymns are sung with enthusiasm and that it ministers and edifies, but that also mimics our music preferences and that of those around us. Because the Hispanic culture, which is everywhere down here, is always more active and involved, our English old fashioned services may not in their minds provide ample opportunity to worship. This is what missionaries come back and tell us. They tell us that in adapting to the culture of the people things that are fine here are not there, and things that are not here are there. It is a part of the culture. America is not just English anymore, with the traditional services. Is God American? We know Hes not. Is this bad, to leave the traditional? I don't know. Of course we must be extremely careful when leaving, yet, it may be necessary to include other things. I'm not talking about a complete abandoning even on this narrow topic, but rather an inclusion of some other things.

We aren't Israel. We don't have the straightforward law to tell us how to worship. We have principles. Further, we aren't pulling from the Muslims, or Catholics, etc. This type of music I am speaking from is not a denominational difference as much as it is a cultural difference. Just being down south, I have heard things in independent fundamental baptist churches that I wouldn't hear up there. The social aspect of the south is integrated into the church. God doesn't say that in Jerusalem is the way we ought to worship. He says in spirit and in Truth. We have the southern aspect and then the cross-cultural aspect with the Hispanics.

Then we have the rock bands/culture. And here is the kicker for me. For some reason I wanted to hear/see the song again. So, I remembered the words to a song and a quick google search revealed several different youtube videos of the people who did the song singing it.

What I came up with is that I am far to ignorant about the other cultures, but after a tiny bit of discussion, I realized that what takes place in our chapel with these songs, is not cultural. It is something else. And, that something else I cannot agree with. Now, can I justify condemning it? Well...let's see.

The actions, atmosphere, and attitude (yes, three "a"s; good for me) of the people who "perform" these songs is not what we should be wanting or expecting. Rather, the actions are performance based. The atmosphere is that of the rock-and-roll world. This is an anti-christian world. If you wanted to argue that it is not "anti-" you still could not come to the solid conclusion that it is "pro-". If it is not strong Christianity, than we are conforming to the world, are we not? Are we to live apart from the world? We are not to be "of" the world. Is rock and roll of the world? I'm pretty sure. It is not of the church. It is not "of God." The attitude is not the attitude of solemn, holy, and reverent worship of almighty God. Rather, it is the attitude of a star.

Of course, there are obstacles.

Is all worship supposed to be done in solemnity? I think here, we must be extremely careful with the differences between joy and light-heartedness. The difference between celebrating God's greatness and forgetting God is holy and is only approached through Christ. In much of the music from chapel and the same type, even though the words may talk about God's holiness, that thought is not in mind during the song. We don't see evidence that the song is meant to actually consider God's holiness.

Can we say that Classical or Jazz or Country is "of God?" We would admit that music is "of God." Why is classical ok?

What is the reasoning behind the music appealing to the body over the soul? We know that different music does appeal differently. Do we find Scripture backing up the thought that one is wrong though? God knew that this music debate would come up. He knew that we would be discussing this. What parameters did he leave us with? Psalms and hymns, and spiritual songs. Singing and making *melody* in our hearts to the Lord. Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. Perhaps the emphasis could be on melody? If the beat outweighs the melody, then it should be avoided in the house of God?

Consider another fact. It is a fact that Godly people (generally the older generation) tend to have a problem with rock, rap, metal, etc. Why is this? Is it because they are old? Why is it that Christians who we would say are close to the Lord tend to shun those things?

I recently had a discussion with someone about the Bible issue. We were discussing the self-authentication characteristic and the comparison that I make is that the saints that look into the aspect and are not pushing away from the "rules" of the "old generation" tend to find this chapel music the wrong fit. I don't want to say "The more spiritual recognize that this is bad music." However, there is truth to the fact that those closer to God see their sin and those things that displease God much easier and clearer. Why should we be debating the music in our churches when we aren't doing our devotions regularly, or handing our tracts on a regular basis, or giving to the poor we drive by weekly, etc. Is our worship music really the big debate? I could say the same thing about all sorts of things we debate. Is it really worth discussing?

Well, YES! Let me clarify, that YES it is worth debating. The problem is, that we cannot often see clearly the issues on this stuff because we aren't even walking with God. It is like walking through the woods completely avoiding the path and then trying to argue with three other people in the woods about what to do about the tree in the way. The guy on the path sees that he can just step over it. The other guys think they need to chop it up, or go way around. (Bad analogy? Maybe.)

So, my conclusion as of now, is the same as it has been for years. That is basically that unless we have good and weighing reasons to abandon the standards and principles of our parents and grandparents and the saints before us, then we should instead uphold those. If in upholding those, we come to a place of oppressing the saints then it needs to be evaluated. For this discussion then, those genres that I listed several times should probably not be used in church, or to attempt worship. The logic, and reason behind this is not a simple verse, and bang you are done. Instead we have a long row of questions and complicated issues in order to try to arrive at a simple conclusion.

Compare this to the argument for wearing a suit to church. Why? Does the Bible say to? No. We say that we should wear our best into the house of God. People hear that and say "It doesn't matter. It shouldn't matter. God doesn't care about the clothes, but about our hearts." Yes, but we respond that it is not a rule. But for me, to enter the house of almighty, holy, God, I should shave, do my hair, and look my best. We do the same for any person of importance. We dress up for special occasions. Anyway, it is a matter of people with a heart attitude desiring to please God. We don't look down on people who don't wear a suit. We just try our best to do right and please God.

I got tons more to say, but blogging while I'm watching Numbers with my wife tends to take more time than I wanted to plan on blogging to begin with. Maybe later.

So much other stuff though...

I am tired of being where I am. I was in a meeting that made me think I wasn't sticking around much longer. Of course, the problem with the meeting was fixed soon after, but I hate being in that spot where it is so bad that that thought occurs to me. Of course, that is misunderstandings, and that is expected.

I talked to Joe. He's frustrated. He told me that we know that several of us all think that we should be doing something bigger, and since we all think that, maybe we should. It obviously isn't coincidence. It is preordained that we are where we are knowledge-wise, positionally, etc. We are all somewhere, and lots of us are wondering why we are where we are. We are wondering where we should go. We are wondering what to do. We don't know what to do, but we want to do more. Much more!! It drives me crazy. I want more than this. I don't know what it is I should do. I don't know what it is God wants for me. Yet, I feel the tug of discontentment. And I am content here. Grandma told me that God uses discontentment to get us to move. To prevent us from settling somewhere for longer than He wants. It was a good reminder.

Mike VK says we don't have time for degrees. He says we don't have time to teach the saints. He says our churches are too full of itching-ears and the wheat and the tares are too close that all we can do is preach. Indeed. I second that. But WHERE!?! I don't have a church. None of us do. What church would take us with our old-fashioned preaching, with our stand on God's sovereignty and man's wickedness, and our believe in the self-authenticating Scriptures? Are there people out there? I was asked that this weekend. I was asked if there are people left. We can't find them. I work at a "Christian" school, and I don't see a lot of Christ-likeness there. I see what I might see anywhere else. People are human. I am torn.

When we come to the end, will I stop going to church? Will I fear what man can do unto me? What will my daughter do? Will she be old enough to understand, or will it come too quickly? Do we have another 60 years where I might see my grandchildren? The state of the world, the country, and the church, and there is nothing worth saving. God would have spared Sodom and Gomorrah for 10. 10! How many left does America have? Israel had thousands and yet the famine came. Israel had thousands and yet was rules by wicked leaders who cursed God. Israel was the chosen nation of God. We are heathen. lol, what are our chances? Will God spare America for 100? There have to be 100 true Christians, right? I mean, we should be able to count them if we really try. . .Can I count 100 Christians? I remember at a big family gathering -- don't remember which, but it was a big one -- we counted 80 people. 80. I wish that I could write with 100% certainty that they were all saved. In fact, I would say with most certainty, that apart from God's future working, we should assume some are not saved. That leaves us with -80. Start adding Christian friends from states far and wide, and you start to hope. You start to count families, and see another 5 there, and another 7 there. But, then you wonder -- can you really be sure about them all? Or just the ones you know? How many families seemed all saved and then one, two, or more abandoned the faith? 100. It doesn't seem like too much to ask for 100 souls that belong to Christ. What if we expand, maybe God would spare a state for 100, but the whole country? How about 100 families? 100 families dedicated to God. We know we aren't the only ones. If Elijah teaches us nothing else, it is that even when we feel alone, not only is God present, but God has a remnant. 100 families. Maybe. Maybe there are 100 families. Maybe they love God and will die for him. What about us? The questions isn't even so much do we love Christ? The question is, are we walking so close to Christ that when threatened with death and our families death we would not deny Him? The disciples failed. I don't know if we can do much better. How hard to turn from your family to die at the stake!

One of the saddest things I can ever remember reading was when a husband was going to the stake, his wife was crying and begging him to deny Christ. What could be worse for that man than to hear his wife abandon him during that time? Yes, it was sad and emotional, but when he did the right thing, one of the hardest things a man with a family could do, she begged him to sin.

Often, I have wondered if America would turn that way. I read some Nietzsche today. "Great Philosopher." lol. Supposedly, this stuff is can be so deep that it frustrated the faith of Christians. It was horrible stuff. It really was. But, this is what the world is reading regularly. This is why our scholars in seminary say that you can deny the virgin birth and go to Heaven. They say that God can die. Really. This is where America is. And I'm not talking about mainstream liberal democratic America. I'm talking about the theology of the scholars that teach almost every pastor standing in a pulpit. They are all wack. Currently, I am in direct opposition to degrees. I want nothing to do with them. Here, I see where Baptists went astray in the past. Baptists shunned the false teaching of higher learning. They found the heresy there to be more than they could bear and they exalted the unlearned minister. Ah, the fault there. Fault can be found everywhere.

I got off topic. 100 families. That's in America. Think of the rest of the world. I think that this is where I would hope to guess America is. I think from Elijah's point of view that I should be estimating way higher. From Abraham's point of view, I am too high. We see two individuals that estimated the number of saints. Both were off. And both had lessons to learn. Abraham arose and saw the smoke and PRAYED. Prayer still works. Prayer is what we need. And to remember that God is here. God is always here. But, what can we say/do? Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not when the time is.

35Watch ye therefore: for ye know not when the master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning:

36Lest coming suddenly he find you sleeping.

37And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch.

"Even so come Lord Jesus. Amen."

11 comments:

Varda said...

This is directed at your "so my conclusion as of now" paragraph about the music.

It's not just about what works and what's okay. It's about what's best. You don't have to be oppressing the saints in order to need to change something. It just has to be not the BEST means of edifying the saints in order to need to be changed. It doesn't have to be harming them. What if it isn't the best anymore? What if the hymns are so used (which does happen) that you just can't sing it with the zeal of heartfelt worship anymore? What if it's more effective to use something else? Because of tradition, we say no? Because it's "safe", we deny progress? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that switching music is a sure sign of progress, and I'm ALL for being safe. But what problem would we have with a Hispanic church changing to use our hymns? We don't, because we still view hymns as inherently better than everything else. If they can change to use hymns, why can't we change to use their Hispanic music?

David said...

Let me address the second part first. I was saying the music I was hearing was NOT part of the Hispanic culture. I am all for cultural differences and I understand them. The majority of my post regarding any cultural differences was in support of that. My conclusion was that the things we hear and see are often NOT based on cultural things. Instead they are modern. Modern is bad.

The point about hymns being "so used" does not resonate with me. The same can be said with Scripture. The problem is not with the hymns nor Scripture, but with our hearts. Spurgeon wrote on this, that every time we enter the house of God we need to be individually ready to worship. That is like saying to me that the KJV is old English so we should change it. Not a good reason if the actual case of the texts is at all debatable.

The problem you have with the first part, is that you need to prove that this other thing is better. History defends hymns. The question is, can you prove that hymns are not the best anymore? We are not to assume that the new way is best. We should be defensive to ANYTHING new. New IS bad. It isn't just a thing we say. It is dangerous and scary. And with good reason, it must be proved that the addition or change is better. We cannot assume that the new is better and then make the burden of proof on the old. That is backwards. And the young generation does that far too often. Anyway I hope that clarifies a bit.

Varda said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Varda said...

- Modern things either become their own culture or are absorbed into a similar culture. Culture is defined as the behaviors and beliefs characteristic of a particular social, ethnic, or age group. At one point classical music was modern. A piano was modern. Was it only okay after it'd been around for fifty years? How old do things have to be then? If modern is bad, like you said, classical music changed from bad when it was new to now being safer and more worshipful. How does that work??

"The point about hymns being 'so used' does not resonate with me. The same can be said with Scripture."

- Do we now claim that Hymns are also a "living Word," as is Scripture?

- Being individually ready to worship is independent of having the desire to sing a new song. Psalm 96:1. An over-familiarity with things does make it harder to appreciate them, and a fresh set of lyrics can aid in the expression of our worship.

"History defends hymns."

- History has defended a lot of things, many of which were not good. And it doesn't defend hymns in specific way. What's defended by history is that singing praise to God is good. Do you really think that we still have the hymn that the disciples sung with Christ on the mount? Do you really think that the hymn, most likely written and sung in a Jewish, folk style, was anything close to the same classic style as, say, "Joyful, Joyful We Adore Thee"?

- New doesn't equal bad. It can't. It's the NEW Testament. Everything was at one point new. Creation was new. We are new in Christ. New things CANNOT be inherently evil.

"We cannot assume that the new is better and then make the burden of proof on the old. That is backwards."

- Why do we ASSUME anything?? I'm not assuming the new IS better; I'm saying what if it is and we won't give it a chance simply because it's new? Old and new shouldn't be the determining characteristics of anything. Holding onto tradition because it's tradition is Pharisaical; deciding that "because a thing has worked in the past, it must be best," is logically fallacious. That's like saying, "Because I know addition works, I won't learn multiplication." Yes, be careful changing a thing that works. But don't write something off just because it contradicts tradition. God isn't limited to tradition.

VanSneak said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
VanSneak said...

Ecc. 1:9,10

9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

10 Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.

Ecc. 7:10

Say not thou, What is the cause that the former days were better than these? for thou dost not inquire wisely concerning this.

There's a lot to tackle in this post. We, as Fundamental Baptists, have made a lot of rules. It seems like these rules were made for "safety" or simply pragmatic reasons.

Would one be looked down on if one was a deacon in a Fundamental Baptist church for not wearing a suit and tie? Yes. Why? Because that person was not wearing "his best"? Isn't "best" terribly subjective? What if one's "best" clothes were not a suit and tie? What if one's "best" clothes were $2000 dollar pants and a $3000 dollar shirt with $500 dollar Gucci shoes? Who is really wearing their "best"? Is best based on price or whether your clothes are in good repair? Is there a church uniform that one puts on every Sunday because it is expected by the pastor, church members or parents? Is NOT wearing a suit a slippery slope? What if the pastor doesn't wear a suit?! Do you think God cares if the pastor wears a suit if his heart is right and clean before Him? Or is the dark suit and striped tie the urim and the thummim of the Fundamental Baptist Church? Is it a mark of authority or compliance with God's Word? And I guarentee you that there are people that I know well that would squeak if they walked into a church and the pastor was preaching in a collard short (sans tie) and slacks.

Does your pastor preach against the movies even though he frequents Blockbuster and has five trashbags full of VHS tapes in his house? What about hymns? Did good sacred music cease to exist when Fanny Crosby died? Is the piano a holy instrument, the organ? Are drums evil? No, no and no.

People think that Christianity is going down in flames. Imagine how many saints throughout all of history thought the same. If the Scriptures are correct then there is nothing new. Is the world evil? Of course. Does God control everything? Of course. The more things change the more they stay the same. I'll stop now.

David said...

Jenn first, then I'll answer Matt's.

-- You're right, modern things change culture. I didn't say otherwise.

-- We don't claim hymns as Living Word, and yet, even the people that claim that of Scripture want to change it because it is "so used." You are saying that because we sing lots of hymns we should stop. Or that's what it sounded like. I was saying hymns are only "so used" if your heart isn't really singing them to God. Maybe you weren't saying that either?

-- What does history defend that it shouldn't? What do you think I meant by history defends? History condemns a lot too. I never thought we had the same hymn as the NT. I was trying to say we shouldn't condemn hymns. I was pointing out that they are good. When you said they get too used it is understood that it is a problem with the hymns.

-- I never said new lyrics were bad.

-- You're right, new doesn't equal bad. I shouldn't have said it like that. Poor word choice on my part.

-- I didn't say we assume. I said we can't. We know this old way works. I said that instead of throwing out the old, the new needs to prove that it works too. I didn't say we hold onto it because of tradition. I didn't say that it is logically the best.

-- You are arguing against hymns (or it appears that way) when you questions whether or not they are the best and then offer the rest of this instead. You said we need the best and then intimated that hymns are not. So, I offer support for hymns. Which, it seems you understand that they are good...?

-- I was giving the new a chance. That was the whole point of my first blog. I was trying to figure out where I stood because of what I see in chapel. How could you read through that thinking I wasn't giving anything a chance? I'm not holding tradition because its Pharisaical. I'm not even holding tradition. (I feel like I'm getting left-overs from other discussions you've had lately...maybe not.)

-- I didn't write it off. Did you forget my blog? Did you forget where I was leaning? Did you notice that I talked to people to try to figure out the Hispanic cultural difference? It was actually seeing this stuff sung and hearing it and realizing that there is a big trade that had been made, and coming to the conclusion that it was not worth it. Why do you think I'm clinging to tradition or not giving anything a chance?

David said...

Well, we do have a lot of rules...A lot of rules. I agree that a lot of them are for safety reasons. The thing is I don't know if our generation was ever taught the principle behind them. A lot of the rules did have principle behind them. Then we throw out all the rules because we don't know the principles. I tend to want to keep them all and disprove the rule before I throw it out.

I don't know about "best". But, I do know that our society and culture have standards. People wear their best to places. Whatever that is. Business people wear ties, and often jackets. It is required. We wear suits to funerals, and we wear suits to weddings. It isn't a necessity of course, but we do. Is this the same old argument? Maybe it is. Maybe culture no longer has us dressing up for anything, and so we don't for church either? I don't know.

I don't know again. I want to say, "No, God doesn't care what we wear." But in the OT God did want them to be clean and presentable before they met with God. We are coming into the presence of God. . .And maybe, just maybe this is one of those issues that is of faith. I currently need to wear a suit. Because I think that is the right thing. I don't think I judge people who don't. It isn't my job, and I know that. I also know other people do judge.

I don't think Christianity is going down in flames because of the music or dress debate. That second part was really unconnected with the first. I think our churches are falling apart. That is evident from the fact that we can't find one. Joe can't find one. Of the few churches that we have been in with good pastor's three have been run out. And then again. So, I still think the church is falling apart. But, saints have probably thought that before.

Wish you hadn't stopped.

Varda said...

First, I'm sorry. Apparently, I was neither clear in what I was saying, nor was I correctly understanding what you were saying. My apologies. It seemed to me that you were discussing whether or not to give something new (in the case of music, something other than hymns) a chance, and that you came to the conclusion not to do that - that they had to be proved good in order to be accepted into the setting of church. But how do you prove them without first putting them in that setting? So it appeared to me that you had rejected the idea of giving it a chance by choosing to uphold the principles of only hymns in church.

Second, I am not in any way saying that hymns aren't good, can't be good, shouldn't be used, or in fact, aren't best. I love hymns; I have them memorized; My Jesus, I Love Thee, is probably my favorite song ever. I wasn't saying we shouldn't sing hymns because we sing them a lot. I was saying that singing NEW songs (New doesn't necessarily mean new in that they were recently written; it can just mean new to us.) can be helpful. I never said the problem was the hymns. In fact, I never said there was a problem at all. Singing hymns is good. But what if singing something else can be better? That is my point.

Third, you again compared hymns with Scripture. That doesn't work; you can't equate the two because people say the same thing about them. People say a lot of stuff. The fact is that OUR words lose their impact when repeated again and again. If we don't ever incorporate new music, our music will get stale.

Fourth, History DID defend things, things that we now know to be errant. Slavery was a historically-defended practice. The idea that the world was flat was defended in history with great vehemence. These things have since been reevaluated and found wanting. My only point here is that history is not a valid judge of the veracity of the way things are. It's been wrong before; it'll be wrong again.

Fifth, you didn't address the last half of my first paragraph or my third point. I'm not sure why. Maybe you agree; maybe you felt they needed nothing more said; maybe you didn't have the time - I don't know. It is a little frustrating though when you completely ignore some of my biggest points without giving any explanation why you're doing so.

Sixth, It appears you're doing the thing where if I'm not with you, I must be against you, and that's not true. I have never been, am not, nor ever will be against hymns. However, just because I love them, it does not make them best. My point in all of this is that your reasons for sticking with hymns aren't good enough to say that hymns ought to be used *exclusively*. If that was not where you were going, I'm sorry. I misunderstood and caused a large argument where it wasn't needed. If it is, hopefully I've maybe caused you to think about it a little more.

David said...

(First) See, here you use new as "something other than hymns" (saying I was using it that way) but then you use new as "doesn't necessarily mean new in that they were recently written; it can just mean new to us." (later) I think this is part of our debate. I was arguing against the first and you took up the side of the second. And then we were using the word "new" with two different ideas. "But how do you prove them without first putting them in that setting?" I think that is a really hard question. Because we don't ever want to put something non-good into the worship of God. This isn't something just for us to test or an experiment in a lab. We are worshiping Holy God, and we dare not bring in something before Him that is not as good as what we currently have, right? But, enough churches HAVE put them into the church setting. When we hear pastors saying "Music is a slippery slope" etc, it is because the entrance of the worldly music came before the church gave up the book, joined in with the ecumenicals, and stopped preaching on sin. These things have happened. We don't know that the music CAUSED this. We do know that the same people who did all those things also made the move to "new" (in my sense) music. They wanted to stop using the old stuff that was too used. They wanted to give the kids stuff that was easier for them to worship with. The "slippery slope" is a worn out phrase, and you can't really say what starts one on it, but all these things tend to happen together. It is not coincidence that the Bible is rejected, hymns are rejected, standards are dropped, and separation is no longer an issue, and these things all are grouped together in church after church.

(Second) I understand that point. I never said I'm opposed to singing new songs either. I'm glad we agree.

(Third) I would still say that our words only lose impact if we stop meaning them and that is our heart. If we truly mean them, than why can't we sing My Jesus I love thee every week? Do we love Christ? When you say incorporate new music it sounds like you want to bring in stuff. Maybe you mean, we should just sing all the songs in the hymnal instead of the select 8 we know. I agree with that. We should use more, but singing how we love Christ should never be stale to us if we really love Christ...right?


Continued....

David said...

(Fourth) I was just saying that history has defended hymns, that is, that we see hymns used widely and truly in the worship of God. I wasn't saying it proved they were best. This was when I thought you opposed them. We don't really need this at all if you think hymns are good. But I see your point, I misunderstood earlier.

(Fifth) I'm sorry. I hate when that happens to me. Let me try to find what I missed. I'm assuming you meant the part about the piano being modern and when did it become good? There isn't a set line or age. The problem is trying to separate the worldly from the "neutral." But I'm not asking is a guitar worldly? I don't have a problem with a guitar. But, I would assume that rock and roll are worldly. Maybe that is the premise you disagree with? But we don't just want to know it is non-worldly, we need to know it is better or best. If we can hold a debate on whether or not its worldly, should we be debating that it is better than hymns?

(And your third point from before. being individually ready to worship) I feel like we are misunderstanding our use of the word new, or song. I am all for singing new songs like you guys do every Wednesday. I think that's great. What I am opposing is a new music style which I have seen, heard, and been a part of that I think is the step in the wrong direction. It is not about needing a new song. I'm really not in the music world to know what the other "new" ones are but I know people are still writing hymns. So, when you say new, I can assume new music style which I found is not better, but worse, or just new songs which I didn't think you would be arguing.

I'm sorry I missed those points. The first I kinda thought I answered, but the third, I'm not sure what happened. =/

(Sixth) I thought you weren't against hymns, but it seemed (to me) like you were really arguing against them. My conclusion is, that the music I was hearing/seeing which would fall into the CCM or Christian Rock category is not a step up from hymns (but a step down). So, for now then, I do think we need to stick with hymns over those types of music. If the music is not a step up, to the BEST as you have said several times, or cannot even be proven to be better, why include it? It needs to be proven to be on the same level to be included and it needs to be proven better to replace hymns. All the evidence so far has pointed to ecumenical churches abandoning more than just the "old music." And this test needs to be given to every type of music not just now but for years to come. I don't think it can be proven to be on the same level.


-- too many characters for one comment