|
Post by lovelace on Nov 1, 2005 8:14:32 GMT -5
I have read all of these post and I guess we all have finally figured out we are going to disagree on this topic....LOL I personally feel that the only debate should be "Are instruments biblical in Churches?"
You can take a piano and put all kinds of lyrics to it...and it could be Satanic or Christianity. It depends on the interpretation of the lyrics...correct?
Same vice versa for rock or gospel. You can take the same music and add different lyrics and have two totally different outcomes.
I can understand one's belief that "no musical instruments should be allowed in church". I can not understand that drums are evil. It clearly states in several passages that they were used (timbrel or tambourine). I think the biggest problem is we try to get too technical.
We all have our opinions on what is right or wrong!
I personally don't see a problem with listening to a song that is glorifying God! Some people are visual and some are audio. I am a visual person, but when I hear a song...I visualize it. When I hear a song about the "coming of our lord". I get these incredible visuals of what the day would be like!
I have to admit that what you listen to does stick with you. I have been driving down the road and a song from 15 years ago will pop in my head. I don't want to listen to music that is suggestive of sin. I trashed all my old music and do not even like to be around it. I work in a warehouse that has music playing all day long. One day is oldies, top 40, country, rock and classic rock. I hear stuff all day long that bothers me! I personally didn't want to be involved with Halloween this year. I was suppose to go judge the costumes and told my manager, it bothered me to be celebrating evil. I told him I had spiritual differences with it. He said no problem.
I think we are trying to dissect the Bible too much at times! I guess the main question is this. "Do we think listening to music is going to get us to heaven or Christ like?" If you can answer this question, then you have the answer.
God Bless, Mike
|
|
|
Post by Doug Parrish on Nov 1, 2005 16:49:22 GMT -5
Hey, Trish. Funny you should mention that. Just last night my boy and I were listening to a Gospel bluegrass group, and they were good! They were just starting that song "I said Glory Hallelujah when I laid my burdens down" when Jared got antsy and was ready to leave... bummer.... I played a banjo for a brief period of time, and it is fun! Once you learn a few chords it almost plays itself. The fiddle on the other hand...well let's just say these big ole' fingers of mine didn't agree with the fiddle too well....
Our next 100% RAW meet is Feb 11 in Raleigh. Would you and Shane be interested in competing? (Get Shane to email me about it.)
God Bless. Doug P.
|
|
|
Post by pitbull on Nov 1, 2005 18:22:22 GMT -5
"We all have our opinions on what is right or wrong!" This is the problem in most churches today. Instead of our personal opinions and religion, we instead need to turn to the Bible as our final authority on ALL matters of faith and practice, especially music. That is why if you read the posts I put up you will find the Bible being cited rather than personal opinion or preferences being given.
|
|
|
Post by Shane Gaydon on Nov 1, 2005 21:27:24 GMT -5
I don't know Doug. Raw lifting hurts. I have been lifting without equipment and I am sore all the time. Also lifting raw has been turning my workouts into bodybuilder workouts. I better get my bench shirt out of the closet before I start shaving my legs. Trish may be interested though. The last time I checked there was a squat record in that fed that she would be all over.
As far as the music used in church, I do not believe the popular music styles of the world should be in the church. A church should sound like a church not a Dave Matthews Band concert. I don't think drums are evil or a person is evil for playing them but I don't agree on comparing the old Hebrew timbrel and tambourine to the drumset of the Rolling Stones.
|
|
|
Post by Shane Gaydon on Nov 1, 2005 22:16:13 GMT -5
The object of music in church: Traditional vs. Contemporary
What is the primary purpose of the worship service? Traditional: To prepare hearts for the preaching Contemporary: To usher people into the presence of God
What tends to be emphasized? Traditional: The preaching Contemporary: The music
What is the primary motive in selecting music? Traditional: Does God like it? Contemporary: Do the people like it?
What is the secondary motive for selecting music? Traditional: Do the people like it? Contemporary: Does God like it?
What is the primary indicator of a successful service? Traditional: I was really convicted by the Word of God today! (truth-based) Contemporary: I really worshipped God today! (experience-based)
|
|
|
Post by lovelace on Nov 1, 2005 22:40:45 GMT -5
Good point Shane..those are not the same as drum sets today. On the other hand, the drum sets today were not invented. Something to think about......the clothes they use to wear in biblical times is not the same as today! Veil's were worn in biblical times, do we see our women wearing veils? Who decides on what a man or women should wear? Is this conforming to society and worldly?
We will be getting together this weekend. I will leave you and others this verse to tell me your opinion of the contents.
1 Corinthians 11 11Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. 2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, [1] as I delivered them to you. 3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. 5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. 6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. 7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. 8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. 9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. 10 For this cause ought the woman to have power [2] on her head because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. 12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. 13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? 14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? 15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. [3] 16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
Food for thought, what is your opinion?
Are we all conforming to society? Drum sets were not invented until well after the bible. The clothes we wear also was invented well after the Bible. Most of the music we listen to in Church was wrote in the late 1800's. What would those that lived 200AD think of our society today?
God Bless, Mike
|
|
|
Post by lovelace on Nov 1, 2005 22:43:13 GMT -5
A voice is an instrument as well; in fact it is the original instrument. You can sing Christian songs or you can sing rock n roll songs. It's all in how you use it. Shane wants to take banjo lessons and I'm going to get my violin out and learn to play it fiddle-style. Won't you pick an instrument and we'll start our own blue-grass gospel band. Tell Michelle to pick one, too. :-) I actually played the drum..snare...in middle school and also played a little bass guitar early in my 20's. I can sing...you know I can...LOL See you this weekend, God Bless, Mike
|
|
|
Post by Shane Gaydon on Nov 1, 2005 23:00:29 GMT -5
F I R S T C O R I N T H I A N S.
CHAP. XI. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this chapter the apostle blames, and endeavours to rectify, some great indecencies and manifest disorders in the church of Corinth; as, I. The misconduct of their women (some of whom seem to have been inspired) in the public assembly, who laid by their veils, the common token of subjection to their husbands in that part of the world. This behaviour he reprehends, requires them to keep veiled, asserts the superiority of the husband, yet so as to remind the husband that both were made for mutual help and comfort, ver. 1-16. II. He blames them for their discord and neglect and contempt of the poor, at the Lord's supper, ver. 17-22. III. To rectify these scandalous disorders, he sets before them the nature and intentions of this holy institution, directs them how they should attend on it, and warns them of the danger of a conduct to indecent as theirs, and of all unworthy receiving, ver. 23, to the end.
Directions Concerning Attire; Female Subjection. A. D. 57.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. 2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you. 3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. 5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. 6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. 7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. 8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. 9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. 10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. 12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. 13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? 14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? 15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. 16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
Paul, having answered the cases put to him, proceeds in this chapter to the redress of grievances. The first verse of the chapter is put, by those who divided the epistle into chapters, as a preface to the rest of the epistle, but seems to have been a more proper close to the last, in which he had enforced the cautions he had given against the abuse of liberty, by his own example: Be ye followers of me, as I also am of Christ (v. 1), fitly closes his argument; and the way of speaking in the next verse looks like a transition to another. But, whether it more properly belong to this or the last chapter, it is plain from it that Paul not only preached such doctrine as they ought to believe, but led such a life as they ought to imitate. "Be ye followers of me," that is, "Be imitators of me; live as you see me live." Note, Ministers are likely to preach most to the purpose when they can press their hearers to follow their example. Yet would not Paul be followed blindly neither. He encourages neither implicit faith nor obedience. He would be followed himself no further than he followed Christ. Christ's pattern is a copy without a blot; so is no man's else. Note, We should follow no leader further than he follows Christ. Apostles should be left by us when they deviate from the example of their Master. He passes next to reprehend and reform an indecency among them, of which the women were more especially guilty, concerning which observe,
I. How he prefaces it. He begins with a commendation of what was praiseworthy in them (v. 2): I praise you, that you remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances as I delivered them to you. Many of them, it is probable, did this in the strictest sense of the expression: and he takes occasion thence to address the body of the church under this good character; and the body might, in the main, have continued to observe the ordinances and institutions of Christ, though in some things they deviated from, and corrupted, them. Note, When we reprove what is amiss in any, it is very prudent and fit to commend what is good in them; it will show that the reproof is not from ill-will, and a humour of censuring and finding fault; and it will therefore procure the more regard to it.
II. How he lays the foundation for his reprehension by asserting the superiority of the man over the woman: I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God. Christ, in his mediatorial character and glorified humanity, is at the head of mankind. He is not only first of the kind, but Lord and Sovereign. He has a name above every name: though in this high office and authority he has a superior, God being his head. And as God is the head of Christ, and Christ the head of the whole human kind, so the man is the head of the two sexes: not indeed with such dominion as Christ has over the kind or God has over the man Christ Jesus; but a superiority and headship he has, and the woman should be in subjection and not assume or usurp the man's place. This is the situation in which God has placed her; and for that reason she should have a mind suited to her rank, and not do any thing that looks like an affectation of changing places. Something like this the women of the church of Corinth seem to have been guilty of, who were under inspiration, and prayed and prophesied even in their assemblies, v. 5. It is indeed an apostolical canon, that the women should keep silence in the churches (ch. xiv. 34; 1 Tim. ii. 12), which some understand without limitation, as if a woman under inspiration also must keep silence, which seems very well to agree with the connection of the apostle's discourse, ch. xiv. Others with a limitation: though a woman might not from her own abilities pretend to teach, or so much as question and debate any thing in the church yet when under inspiration the case was altered, she had liberty to speak. Or, though she might not preach even by inspiration (because teaching is the business of a superior), yet she might pray or utter hymns by inspiration, even in the public assembly. She did not show any affectation of superiority over the man by such acts of public worship. It is plain the apostle does not in this place prohibit the thing, but reprehend the manner of doing it. And yet he might utterly disallow the thing and lay an unlimited restraint on the woman in another part of the epistle. These things are not contradictory. It is to his present purpose to reprehend the manner wherein the women prayed and prophesied in the church, without determining in this place whether they did well or ill in praying or prophesying. Note, The manner of doing a thing enters into the morality of it. We must not only be concerned to do good, but that the good we do be well done.
III. The thing he reprehends is the woman's praying or prophesying uncovered, or the man's doing either covered, v. 4, 5. To understand this, it must be observed that it was a signification either of shame or subjection for persons to be veiled, or covered, in the eastern countries, contrary to the custom of ours, where the being bare-headed betokens subjection, and being covered superiority and dominion. And this will help us the better to understand,
IV. The reasons on which he grounds his reprehension. 1. The man that prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonoureth his head, namely, Christ, the head of every man (v. 3), by appearing in a habit unsuitable to the rank in which God has placed him. Note, We should, even in our dress and habits, avoid every thing that may dishonour Christ. The woman, on the other hand, who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head, namely, the man, v. 3. She appears in the dress of her superior, and throws off the token of her subjection. She might, with equal decency, cut her hair short, or cut it close, which was the custom of the man in that age. This would be in a manner to declare that she was desirous of changing sexes, a manifest affectation of that superiority which God had conferred on the other sex. And this was probably the fault of these prophetesses in the church of Corinth. It was doing a thing which, in that age of the world, betokened superiority, and therefore a tacit claim of what did not belong to them but the other sex. Note, The sexes should not affect to change places. The order in which divine wisdom has placed persons and things is best and fittest: to endeavour to amend it is to destroy all order, and introduce confusion. The woman should keep to the rank God has chosen for her, and not dishonour her head; for this, in the result, is to dishonour God. If she was made out of the man, and for the man, and made to be the glory of the man, she should do nothing, especially in public, that looks like a wish of having this order inverted. 2. Another reason against this conduct is that the man is the image and glory of God, the representative of that glorious dominion and headship which God has over the world. It is the man who is set at the head of this lower creation, and therein he bears the resemblance of God. The woman, on the other hand, is the glory of the man (v. 7): she is his representative. Not but she has dominion over the inferior creatures, as she is a partaker of human nature, and so far is God's representative too, but it is at second-hand. She is the image of God, inasmuch as she is the image of the man: For the man was not made out of the woman, but the woman out of the man, v. 8. The man was first made, and made head of the creation here below, and therein the image of the divine dominion; and the woman was made out of the man, and shone with a reflection of his glory, being made superior to the other creatures here below, but in subjection to her husband, and deriving that honour from him out of whom she was made. 3. The woman was made for the man, to be his help-meet, and not the man for the woman. She was naturally, therefore, made subject to him, because made for him, for his use, and help, and comfort. And she who was intended to be always in subjection to the man should do nothing, in Christian assemblies, that looks like an affectation of equality. 4. She ought to have power on her head, because of the angels. Power, that is, a veil, the token, not of her having the power or superiority, but being under the power of her husband, subjected to him, and inferior to the other sex. Rebekah, when she met Isaac, and was delivering herself into his possession, put on her veil, in token of her subjection, Gen. xxiv. 65. Thus would the apostle have the women appear In Christian assemblies, even though they spoke there by inspiration, because of the angels, that is, say some, because of the evil angels. The woman was first in the transgression, being deceived by the devil (1 Tim. ii. 14), which increased her subjection to man, Gen. iii. 16. Now, believe evil angels will be sure to mix in all Christian assemblies, therefore should women wear the token of their shamefacedness and subjection, which in that age and country, was a veil. Others say because of the good angels. Jews and Christians have had an opinion that these ministering spirits are many of them present in their assemblies. Their presence should restrain Christians from all indecencies in the worship of God. Note, We should learn from all to behave in the public assemblies of divine worship so as to express a reverence for God, and a content and satisfaction with that rank in which he has placed us.
V. He thinks fit to guard his argument with a caution lest the inference be carried too far (v. 11, 12): Nevertheless, neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man in the Lord. They were made for one another. It is not good for him to be alone (Gen. ii. 18), and therefore was a woman made, and made for the man; and the man was intended to be a comfort, and help, and defence, to the woman, though not so directly and immediately made for her. They were made to be a mutual comfort and blessing, not one a slave and the other a tyrant. Both were to be one flesh (Gen. ii. 24), and this for the propagation of a race of mankind. They are reciprocal instruments of each other's production. As the woman was first formed out of the man, the man is ever since propagated by the woman (v. 12), all by the divine wisdom and power of the First Cause so ordaining it. The authority and subjection should be no greater than are suitable to two in such near relation and close union to each other. Note, As it is the will of God that the woman know her place, so it is his will also that the man abuse not his power.
VI. He enforces his argument from the natural covering provided for the woman (v. 13-15): "Judge in yourselves--consult your own reason, hearken to what nature suggests--is it comely for a woman to pray to God uncovered? Should there not be a distinction kept up between the sexes in wearing their hair, since nature has made one? Is it not a distinction which nature has kept up among all civilized nations? The woman's hair is a natural covering; to wear it long is a glory to her; but for a man to have long hair, or cherish it, is a token of softness and effeminacy." Note, It should be our concern, especially in Christian and religious assemblies, to make no breach upon the rules of natural decency.
VII. He sums up all by referring those who were contentious to the usages and customs of the churches, v. 16. Custom is in a great measure the rule of decency. And the common practice of the churches is what would have them govern themselves by. He does not silence the contentious by mere authority, but lets them know that they would appear to the world as very odd and singular in their humour if they would quarrel for a custom to which all the churches of Christ were at that time utter strangers, or against a custom in which they all concurred, and that upon the ground of natural decency. It was the common usage of the churches for women to appear in public assemblies, and join in public worship, veiled; and it was manifestly decent that they should do so. Those must be very contentious indeed who would quarrel with this, or lay it aside.
|
|
|
Post by pitbull on Nov 2, 2005 6:48:24 GMT -5
Mike, I would like to address something you said: :"Are we all conforming to society? Drum sets were not invented until well after the bible. The clothes we wear also was invented well after the Bible. Most of the music we listen to in Church was wrote in the late 1800's. What would those that lived 200AD think of our society today?"
Realize the drums, as we know them today, were existing in pagan nations around ancient Israel during Biblical times. That includes Babylon, Egypt, Assyrian, etc. If Israel didn't want to use them because of their fear and reverence to God, why should we use them today?
Let me put it this way. I know a believer in Columbus, Ohio who is named "David". He is also Jewish. His family had a funeral for him when he became a Baptist preacher. I asked him once if the timbrel was the same as a drum. This was back when I was making these same excuses to justify my acceptance of CCM. David got upset that I would say that the Jewish people would ever use a drum. I mean he got downright mad about it! Other Jewish believers I have talked to have had the same reaction. They feel like you have insulted them to say that they or their people would ever use a drum. They feel that strongly about it. Why is it if people are right that a timbrel is a drum?
|
|
|
Post by lovelace on Nov 2, 2005 7:09:40 GMT -5
Shane, don't know where you got this summary...but sounds like we are not following the bible in many ways. This is what I was hinting at earlier. Times have changed and customs have changed. Eastern vs Western. Does this mean we are all sinners for not following exactly what the Bible says? We all pick Bible vs and quote them, but others we do not follow.
Just food for thought!
Glory to God, Mike
|
|
|
Post by pitbull on Nov 3, 2005 9:02:28 GMT -5
lovelace, Here is a suggestion for you. As I read the Bible, I ask myself the following questions about the passage I am reading: 1. Whom was this verse or passage originally given and why? 2. How does this verse or passage fit in context to the rest of the book that it is found in? 3. How does this verse or passage fit in context to what the rest of the Bible teaches on this topic or subject? 4. How does this apply to me today?
When you take a verse or passage out of context, you cannot apply it to us today correctly. That is not allowing the Bible to interpret itself. That is not allowing the Holy Spirit to guide and teach us. That is why we see so much confusion today.
|
|
|
Post by lovelace on Nov 3, 2005 9:51:26 GMT -5
lovelace, Here is a suggestion for you. As I read the Bible, I ask myself the following questions about the passage I am reading: 1. Whom was this verse or passage originally given and why? 2. How does this verse or passage fit in context to the rest of the book that it is found in? 3. How does this verse or passage fit in context to what the rest of the Bible teaches on this topic or subject? 4. How does this apply to me today? When you take a verse or passage out of context, you cannot apply it to us today correctly. That is not allowing the Bible to interpret itself. That is not allowing the Holy Spirit to guide and teach us. That is why we see so much confusion today. Bryan, I got what you are saying. You also have to look at when it was written and the order. Would you say you are more "old testament" or "new testament" or equal? You hear many churches claim to be a"new testament" church. When they can not find something to support their belief or interpretation, they reflect back to the old testament. If the holy spirit is writing through the letters for that time period and announces dress codes and ways of life, then how to you apply them to todays standards. I was bringing up a historical and theological statement to Shane. To make one think about the Bible and the time it was written. The reason I keep bringing up the tambourin and timbrel is because it is a form of a percussion or drum. No, our drum sets of today...invented in the late 1800's...were not used in biblical times. There may have been tom-toms or cymbals...but not snare drums. Do you allow a piano in the Church? Do you consider it a stringed instrument or do you think the bible was stating a string instrument as a guitar or harp? I am just trying to get everyone to think as well! We created this website for all the brothers and sisters of Christ to come together and bring joy/fellowship to our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and talk about a hobby (powerlifting) that is secondary to our true mission...to Praise and spread the word of our Lord. God Bless, Mike
|
|