...Hallelujah, as it turns out, is not a Christmas song. It's not even Christian. The song starts out talking about some "secret chord" that David could play to please the Lord. He didn't. The song says David was baffled. He wasn't. The song focuses on the adultery including when Bathsheba apparently tied him to a kitchen chair and cut his hair. She didn't. The song rambles on about love. it looks good, but
Love is not a victory march
it's a cold and it's a broken Hallelujah
In the end, what do we learn about Leonard Cohen's religious views?
Well, maybe there's a God aboveThis is what passes, even among Christians, as a sweet Christmas song. Clearly it's not.
But all I've ever learned from love
Was how to shoot somebody who outdrew ya
It's not a cry that you hear at night
It's not somebody who's seen the light
It's a cold and it's a broken Hallelujah
As always, this post is not about Stan or what he wrote specifically. He just offers a glimpse into the evangelical conservative trend of them deciding what is and isn't Christian, as if they are the guardians of and final arbiters on Christianity.
Now, to be clear, Cohen was a Jewish man who embraced aspects of Buddhism. So, I would imagine that Cohen himself didn't write it with the intention of the song being a "christian song." But here's my point: Poetry and songs and art in general, when it's put out there, means what it means to the one who is appreciating it.
Cohen's beautiful and wonderful song is a journey of self exploration and struggle and failure, of love and loss and perhaps some redemption. It's gritty and tough and real-world. It's hard and it's glorious. It's humanity and spirituality, both, seems to me.
And so, my point is, why would anyone consider this definitively NOT a "Christian song..."? What is it in some folks who think they need to make a ruling and put a label on aspects of religion and the world, to try to box up their religion and their god away from "the secular..."? Do they feel they need to protect their god? I tend to think God can take care of God's Self and if a song is meaningful to you in some way, then it is meaningful to you in some way, and no one can take that away from you.
And if a song brings you closer to God or Jesus in some way, then that's what it does and no one needs to tell you that the song doesn't belong to "Christianity," as if they are the arbiters of Christianity. Contrariwise, if a song doesn't appeal to you and your religion, you don't need to incorporate it into your religion or practices. Just don't try to decide for others what box their god should be kept in.
Any God worth their salt would likely refuse to be boxed in.
Seems to me.
Now, enjoy the beautiful Jewish, Buddhist, Christian, secular, spiritual words of St Leonard...
I did my best, it wasn’t much
I couldn’t feel, so I tried to touch
I’ve told the truth, I didn’t come to fool you
And even though it all went wrong
I’ll stand before the lord of song
With nothing on my tongue but hallelujah
Hallelujah
Hallelujah
Hallelujah
Hallelujah...
Even though it all went wrong, I'll stand before the lord of song with nothing on my tongue but Hallelujah.
Merry Christmas. Happy Hanukkah. Blessed Holiday Season, all.
117 comments:
"Apparently it's unclear from what I wrote that I'm not complaining about Leonard Cohen's song. I am not evaluating anything at all regarding its quality or wisdom or the like. I'm commenting on Christians who think it's a Christmas song. It's not. Go ahead and like the song if you wish; I don't mind. It's just not a Christmas song for Christians." ---Stan
It's pretty clear...to people not looking to find fault...that Stan was referring to Christians seeing this as an actual praise song. I don't see the problem here, except that you clearly believe that one has license to believe what they like about God/Jesus regardless of whether or not it is true or supported by Scripture. If you want to believe "You're A Mean One, Mr. Grinch" is suitable for worship services or a proper Christmas carol, knock yourself out.
I was just operating off, you know, his actual words. He stated at least two times unequivocally that this is NOT a Christian song.
But as to your conclusion, "...knock yourself out..." THAT is my point.
If you're merely saying, "I don't find this song meaningful from my Christian point of view, not for ME, personally..." No problem. Knock yourself out.
BUT, if you are, for some reason, wanting to say that "This song is NOT a Christian song. Period. Anyone who says otherwise is mistaken..." that's where I have a problem. Who are you (Stan, whoever) to make that call?
And especially if you're talking about such a beautifully poetic work of art, why would you say, "It's not Christian. Period."?
So, which is it? Live and let live, "knock yourself out..."?
Or, "This is NOT a Christian song. Period. I have decided."..?
To say it is not a Christian song is quite literally a fact. There's no debate about it. Indeed, Stan's point is that some...you included, apparently...want to regard it as such despite it not being so.
You also seem to think that acknowledging truth is the same as choosing or "deciding" to regard the song as "not Christian". It is not the same. That is, I'm (or Stan is) doing the former, while you defend doing the latter...if not actually deciding for yourself that it is.
So, no. You aren't a "knock yourself out" kind of guy. You DO have the definitive and authoritative answer.
I'll be sure to let God know.
He already does, and He also knows I got that answer from Him...from that rule book.
Mm-hmm. Where exactly and specifically did you find the ruling on Leonard Cohen's song? Can you admit that no such ruling exist?
What specifically makes a song a Christian song or not? What are your criteria?
My point is that acknowledging truth does not require any authority. It only requires honesty. Scripture provides truth regarding Christian doctrine, so with that in mind, it's pretty simple to determine whether or not a song such as Cohen's can legitimately be called " Christian". As such, it is not. If ever you need help with any other songs, let me know. I'm more than happy to help.
Mm-hmm.
1. Where exactly and specifically did you find the ruling on Leonard Cohen's song?
2. Can you admit that no such ruling exist?
3. What specifically makes a song a Christian song or not?
4. What are your criteria?
Don't comment further unless you're prepared to answer these specific questions directly and clearly.
1. Where exactly and specifically did you find the ruling on Leonard Cohen's song?
I don't understand why you're even asking me this question. I never claimed Scripture speaks to Cohen's song in any way.
2. Can you admit that no such ruling exist?
I can only admit I don't understand why you're even asking me this question. I never claimed Scripture speaks to Cohen's song in any way.
3. What specifically makes a song a Christian song or not?
I'd start with a distinctly Christian message, teaching or concept...something to do with Christ and His purpose. That which mimics or has some superficial similarity to Christian messages, teachings or concepts does not qualify simply because it mimics or has some superficial similarity.
4. What are your criteria?
A redundant question given Question 3.
Please respond to these answers rather than pretend they don't satisfy your demand.
Yes, I know you didn't say that about Cohen's song, I'm just clarifying. So, to clarify, you have ZERO word or ruling from God on Cohen's song and no biblical reason to say that Cohen's song, Hallelujah is "not Christian."
3. "Something to do with Christ and his purpose..."? So, is art about loss having to do with Christ's purpose? Art about forgiveness? Something about the struggles of every day life? How about simple living? Poverty? War and Peace? Jesus talked about a LOT of things... which topics are NOT having "something to do with Christ..."? Can you provide a list of topics that are NOT "christian enough" to be talked about in art/poetry/song and are so not "Christian enough" that you can say, "That's not a Christian song" with confidence and authority?
If you have such a list, where does it come from and on whose authority is it based?
"That which mimics/has some similarity to Christian messages..." So, are you suggesting that a song about forgiveness (that, for instance, doesn't mention God) does not "qualify..."?
How about an adventure/drama story that nowhere mentions God or Jesus and is more of a political thriller that emphasizes salvation through a person faithful to their community? Would that qualify as a Christian story?
It would be helpful if either you or Craig would provide an example of a secular song that you believe is worthy of inclusion in a Christian service, without which this conversation is at somewhat of a standstill.
"So, to clarify, you have ZERO word or ruling from God on Cohen's song and no biblical reason to say that Cohen's song, Hallelujah is "not Christian.""
Yes, I have no specific ruling in mind, except that...
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
...and as such no secular work is needed. In the meantime, Cohen's song is not Christian because it does not teach a thing about Christ, His purpose or our need for Him. Biblical references do not make a song Christian.
"So, is art about loss having to do with Christ's purpose?"
No. Simply because there exists some superficial similarity to Christian concepts and ideals doesn't mean a work is Christian or worthy for use as in a Christian worship service. Mormons speak of Christ, but they are definitely not Christian.
It is quite nonsensical...idiotic, even...to suggest because Christ spoke of many things that somehow they are not necessarily Christian. Once again you make the mistake of equating what we do (or what YOU do) with Christ. What's more, that Christ mentioned non-religious issues does not make them Christian. Indeed, His parables were not about religious things, but told stories by which He can make a point in His teaching. In kind, we can indeed use secular things to illustrate a Christian point. But that's a far cry from using a given secular thing as part of the worshiping of God, such as singing a song, reciting a poem or in any way holding up that secular thing as "Christian". It's absurd.
And again, the authority I have is that which Scripture suggests when it speaks of righteous judgement and discernment. Here it's an easy call.
It would be helpful if either you or Craig would provide an example of a secular song that you believe is worthy of inclusion in a Christian service, without which this conversation is at somewhat of a standstill.
? You are still not getting the point, so how would it help? We've had Yellow Submarine in our church service. We've had all manner of "secular" songs. Bob Dylan songs (I Shall Be Released, Ring The Bells, Blowing in the Wind, etc), Tracy Chapman songs (Talking 'Bout a Revolution, maybe others), Old Crow Medicine Show songs (Take 'Em Away, I Hear Them All, etc). Pick any one.
My point is, WHO decides what is "worthy of inclusion..." and ON WHAT BASIS is a song "worthy of inclusion" in your esteemed opinion?
...and as such no secular work is needed.
Says who? On what basis? Just because you cite a passage about "all scripture being useful for teaching..." who says we are LIMITED to words from the Bible? Do you know that words appear in the Bible that came from non-biblical sources?
Simply because there exists some superficial similarity to Christian concepts and ideals doesn't mean a work is Christian
SAYS WHO and on WHOSE AUTHORITY?
to suggest because Christ spoke of many things that somehow they are not necessarily Christian.
I ain't said that.
What's more, that Christ mentioned non-religious issues does not make them Christian.
Who decided that some issues are "non-religious"? On whose authority and what basis?
That Bible doesn't say what you think it says, Marshal. The evidence is in your complete inability to cite a verse to support anything you've said.
The lyrics to I Shall Be Released...
They say everything can be replaced
They say every distance is not near
So I remember every face
Of every man who put me here
CH:
I see my light come shining
From the west down to the east
Any day now, any day now
I shall be released
They say every man needs protection
They say every man must fall
So, I swear I see my reflection
Somewhere inside these walls
CH:
I see my light come shining
From the west down to the east
Any day now, any day now
I shall be released
Yonder standing in this lonely crowd
A man who says he's not to blame
All day long I hear him hollering so loud
Just crying out that he's not to blame
CH:
I see my light come shining
From the west down to the east
Any day now, any day now
I shall be released
Is that song "Not Christian" or "not Christian ENOUGH" or not "worthy of inclusion" and, if so, ON WHAT BASIS?
Or how about the story I already asked you about...?
How about an adventure/drama story that nowhere mentions God or Jesus and is more of a political thriller that emphasizes salvation through a person faithful to their community? Would that be "not Christian" and therefore, "not worthy of inclusion..."? Why?
Also, these questions:
Can you provide a list of topics that are NOT "christian enough" to be talked about in art/poetry/song and are so not "Christian enough" that you can say, "That's not a Christian song" with confidence and authority?
If you have such a list, where does it come from and on whose authority is it based?
" We've had Yellow Submarine in our church service"
Why? What idiot thought it appropriate and on what basis?
"We've had all manner of "secular" songs."
Why? What purpose did any of them serve that could not have been served better by a truly Christian song or hymn? Is it just to be "hip"? I would wager so, despite any objections to the suggestion.
"...ON WHAT BASIS is a song "worthy of inclusion" in your esteemed opinion?"
Asked and answered.
"Says who? On what basis? Just because you cite a passage about "all scripture being useful for teaching..." who says we are LIMITED to words from the Bible?"
You haven't explained why one would need more. You haven't explained why Scripture is insufficient for those at Jeff St.
"Do you know that words appear in the Bible that came from non-biblical sources?"
Such as...
"'Simply because there exists some superficial similarity to Christian concepts and ideals doesn't mean a work is Christian'
SAYS WHO and on WHOSE AUTHORITY?"
Typically the composer, and barring any specific word on the subject by the composer, any honest, intelligent person with even an average sense of discernment. In the meantime, on whose authority do you presume any old song is appropriate for an allegedly Christian worship service? Don't get me wrong... I have no illusions about the gang at Jeff St. Based on your own words, you folks have taken all manner of liberties and asserted them as reflective of the faith you call "Christian". I just think it's way passed high time one who constantly demands "on whose authority" provide "on whose authority" decisions are made as well.
"That Bible doesn't say what you think it says, Marshal."
Until you can provide a coherent argument that it says something different, yeah, it pretty much does. "Nyuh uh" doesn't cut it.
"The evidence is in your complete inability to cite a verse to support anything you've said."
Didn't I cite 2 Timothy somewhere up there? If not, I certainly alluded to it. But there are also those listed here.
"Is that song "Not Christian" or "not Christian ENOUGH" or not "worthy of inclusion" and, if so, ON WHAT BASIS?"
A far, far better question is, on what basis was it chosen for a Jeff St. service? How does it praise God better than an actual praise song/hymn? What Christian lesson, concept or principle is taught that couldn't be taught just as well, if not better, by an actual Christian song/hymn? Be specific. I know "chair" can mean "sump pump" to you Jeff Streeters, but how did you make this song (I Shall Be Released) appropriate?
"Or how about the story I already asked you about...?"
Not nearly enough info. "Salvation" from what by whom? If you're just suggesting reference to a story to make a point, I'm quite certain I've covered this point already, either here or at Craig's, if not both.
"Can you provide a list of topics that are NOT "christian enough" to be talked about in art/poetry/song and are so not "Christian enough" that you can say, "That's not a Christian song" with confidence and authority?"
Probably. Don't see the point in doing so.
And once again, the authority I claim is that which is encouraged by the teaching of Scripture to discern between right/wrong, truth/falsehood and the like.
Marshal, are you going to even TRY to answer ANY of these questions? Because if you're just going to completely ignore them and answer with gibberish, then there's no point. One of the things I appreciate about you is that you tend to at least try to directly answer questions, even if your answers are not rational or consistent or meaningful. But here, I don't think you've even tried to answer any points/questions, opting to respond with "I don't have to" or Nyuh uh, as you wrongly suggest about my questions.
For instance, this...
Why? What purpose did any of them serve that could not have been served better by a truly Christian song or hymn?
The question is, WHY NOT? What is WRONG with Any Day Now? And it's addressing a life of imprisonment and seeking to be free. I don't know of any existing hymn that addresses this so powerfully.
And to the question of, "Why not use an existing song?" Because, Art. Because Time. Because New expressions. If we have ONE SONG that addresses some form of imprisonment, that doesn't mean we can't have a second, third or 1,000th song to express it in another way.
I think one problem many conservatives have is that they just don't understand art and expression.
At any rate, your arguments seem to come down to something like this nonsense...
1: Here's some lemon pudding, that might be nice.
2. No! We should only eat vanilla pudding!
1: But why?
2: Because it's been fine in the past. Also, the bible!
1: What about the Bible? It doesn't address lemon v vanilla pudding or offer any reasons why NOT lemon pudding.
2: Uh huh. Look, "Jesus wept!"
1: ? But that doesn't say anything about why not lemon pudding..??
2: Until you can provide a coherent argument that it says something different, yeah, it pretty much does.
1: ??? But it literally does not.
2: Saying "nyuh uh" doesn't cut it!
1: But, No, it doesn't, IS precisely correct. I don't need to provide another argument to support WHY it doesn't say that. It literally doesn't.
???
This conversation with you feels just like THAT silly example.
WHY choose Any Day Now? The same reason why we might choose Leaning on the Everlasting Arms... Because it's meaningful to people, because it expresses some point that is good and lovely or important and challenging in a way that inspires us/strengthens us to walk the Christian Way.
There ARE people out there struggling to hold on to hope that one day they will be released... released from their addictions, from their past, from literal prisons, from metaphorical ones. "Any day now, any day now... I SHALL be released..." That is a powerful promise of hope for someone who needs that hope.
Why NOT use it?
In the story I asked you about, it was about salvation from an oppressive gov't of a community whose very lives were threatened. A promise of a hero (in the form of a human woman, NOT God) providing relief and release is a powerful message. This hero won the community's salvation from genocide by cleverly outwitting the bad guys, who ultimately pay the price.
Is THAT story "Christian enough..."? If not, why not? Because it doesn't mention God? Because the salvation in that story came from one within their community using cleverness to outwit bad guys (even at some personal risk to herself)? Is it "worthy of inclusion" in your church services? If not, why not? On what criteria?
It SOUNDS like you're saying that your criteria is that it
1. MUST be about God and/or Jesus
2. MUST have been written from a Christian believer
3. MUST not be secular in nature, but religious in nature
My question is, why? Where does the Bible tell you that? Where has God told you that? IF not the Bible or God, WHO told you this must be and why do you believe them? Or is it something you're making up yourself?
Please answer the questions being asked.
And what DOES the Bible literally say about conducting worship? The answer is, not a lot of specifics, just vague generalities (which you and Craig hate, when it comes from me, but that's the reality of it, isn't it?)
You have verses like this...
What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has
a hymn,
a lesson,
a revelation,
a tongue, or
an interpretation.
Let all things be done for building up.
or this...
Therefore encourage one another and
build one another up,
just as you are doing.
or this...
Teaching and admonishing one another in
psalms and
hymns and
spiritual songs,
singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.
or this...
they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching
and the fellowship,
to the breaking of bread and
the prayers.
or this...
Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly,
teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom,
singing psalms and
hymns and
spiritual songs,
with thankfulness in your hearts to God.
(Those are from Ephesians, Colossians, Acts, etc... look 'em up if you wish.)
But where does it define "spiritual songs..."? Oh, wait, it doesn't. Where does it define "the fellowship..."? Oh wait, it doesn't. "Build one another up..."? Doesn't define how that's done.
Here are some songs that are/have been sung in our church. Choose one and tell me specifically why it's NOT Christian "enough" to be "worthy of inclusion..." in your mind. We All Need More Kindness (by Guy Davis)...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUnMiBXbt20
Come Healing (by that Jewish Buddhist, Leonard Cohen)...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91xb4jH3vk
Also, that raises a question... I guess you are probably fine with singing "Psalms" (i.e., from the book of Psalms) in your church services. These were written by non-Christian/pre-Christian Jewish folk... so it's not necessary that the song be written by a Christian, in your mind? It could be a Christian OR a Jewish person... is that right?
As to this, from Marshal... Didn't I cite 2 Timothy somewhere up there? If not, I certainly alluded to it. But there are also those listed here.
...that link takes you to a cite that speaks about the Bible being "sufficient," all we need to know stuff.
But presumably, your church services do not consist of someone reading the bible and offering nothing else, right? You DO have preachers offering sermons that aren't all Bible and prayers and songs that aren't all from the Bible.
Is that correct?
If so, then, you already have extra-biblical commentary coming in and you're fine with it. Right?
Just clarifying.
Still looking for a list of criteria that you all would deem appropriate for church services.
So far, I've seen Craig's suggestion that "It seems reasonable that a non negotiable for anything to be considered Christian would be that it/they focus specifically on Christ."
But then, he won't clarify that much, when pressed. The OT writers, for instance, don't focus specifically on Christ, so there's already an exception to his rule.
Working backwards, at least to a degree:
All of what constitutes "the Bible" by which actual Christians find truths about God is indeed Christian...even the OT. As most Christians understand, Christ didn't change anything as much as clarified and elaborated on what was already taught to God's chosen. There have been many studies regarding how Christ was foretold throughout the OT, so yeah, it focuses on Christ quite a bit.
"But presumably, your church services do not consist of someone reading the bible and offering nothing else, right?"
Being a Jeff St. congregant you haven't been to a Christian service in some time so that it might seem foreign to you, but my church services consist of someone reading the Bible and teaching from it. But once again, this is not to say that referencing secular or every day things aren't used now and then to make a point, to show a connection between Scripture and life in general. This has been stated by me several times now. The problem is in using non-Christian songs for corporate worship. Christian services are about worshiping and giving praise to God. At least that's the point of actual Christian services. What takes place within a Jeff St. service is another story.
"...songs that aren't all from the Bible. "
There have been a few blog posts at Stan's and elsewhere touching on the subject of music at church services and how some...even some considered among traditional hymns and praise music...are pretty worthless for the purpose. Generally the reason being that there is really very little that distinguishes it as Biblically sound. The best songs and hymns are directly drawn from something from Scripture.
So no, at the church I frequent, there's very little that I can think of that could be considered "extra-Biblical" commentary. Indeed, I find they are superb at restricting their commentary to that which is directly related to Scripture and what it teaches us.
"Still looking for a list of criteria that you all would deem appropriate for church services."
Then you should actually read our comments, as we've answered this question quite comprehensively already. Indeed, I just alluded to it again when I said "The best songs and hymns are directly drawn from something from Scripture."
"Marshal, are you going to even TRY to answer ANY of these questions?"
I've answered all sorts of questions from you. You keep asking more and never answer any of mine. The response preceding this latest question is filled with answers. Not all of your questions are reasonable or rational, but I answered each of them in one way or another anyway. I don't answer with "gibberish" even when your questions don't amount to much more than that.
"One of the things I appreciate about you is that you tend to at least try to directly answer questions..."
I don't "try", I do answer directly.
"...even if your answers are not rational or consistent or meaningful."
My answers are always rational, consistent and meaningful. I can't always account for your ability to comprehend. That's YOUR bad, not mine.
"But here, I don't think you've even tried to answer any points/questions, opting to respond with "I don't have to"..."
Anywhere it appears I've responded in this manner is likely the result of an absurd question that doesn't really address the issue, but is more a ploy on your part to box me into a corner unjustly. Said another way, some of your questions are just stupid. It's hard to provide an intelligent answer to a stupid question. In the future, I'll seek to be more forthright as regards difficulties such questions present.
"For instance, this...
'Why? What purpose did any of them serve that could not have been served better by a truly Christian song or hymn?'
The question is, WHY NOT? What is WRONG with Any Day Now? And it's addressing a life of imprisonment and seeking to be free. I don't know of any existing hymn that addresses this so powerfully."
No. As your quoting me proved, the question is "Why?" You didn't answer my question. I looked for lyrics to songs titled "Any Day Now" and found three or four, one or two of which seemed quite clearly to be religious in nature, one a love song and the last I have no idea what the hell it was trying to say. None spoke of "a life of imprisonment" so I can't respond to whatever song you have in mind without something more to go on. In the meantime, what does imprisonment have to do with Christianity unless you're speaking of being a slave to sin...in which case I'm sure there must be some existing Christian song that covers such a thing. Do you believe being moved is more important than being enlightened and informed about Christ's saving grace?
"I think one problem many conservatives have is that they just don't understand art and expression."
Nonsense and absurdity. Progressives think a crucifix in piss is art and expression. Don't give me that crap as if you have any idea about conservatives, religious or otherwise. This isn't about art and expression. It's about what's appropriate for a Christian worship service.
continuing...
"At any rate, your arguments seem to come down to something like this nonsense..."
What follows IS nonsense and another example of your woeful inability to craft an intelligent analogy. Please stop embarrassing yourself with these lame attempts.
"This conversation with you feels just like THAT silly example."
That's simply the result of your own shortcomings, not anything to do with my side of the discussion.
"WHY choose Any Day Now?
Why NOT use it?"
Without knowing the song, I can't respond. However, in general, if it does not speak to Who can provide the means of release, I'd say it's pretty freakin' pointless. Unless your people just like to whine.
"Is THAT story "Christian enough..."? "
No.
"If not, why not? Because it doesn't mention God?"
A good enough reason for now.
"Because the salvation in that story came from one within their community using cleverness to outwit bad guys (even at some personal risk to herself)?"
So what? If you're suggesting this story was told in order to make some kind of connection to Christ's salvation, the issue for me would then be whether or not that connection was legitimately made. If so, fine. However, the story in and of itself has no value for a Christian worship service. So once again, you touch on one of the points I've made repeatedly regarding the use of non-religious stories or songs within a worship service. To illustrate a point is one thing. For use to give praise is another. Which are you talking about now?
continuing...
"It SOUNDS like you're saying that your criteria is that it"
1. Yes
2. Not necessarily
3. If #1 is "yes", then it won't be secular, will it?
"My question is, why?"
Because it's a Christian worship service in which congregants are gathered together for corporate worship and praise of God/Jesus.
"Where does the Bible tell you that? Where has God told you that? IF not the Bible or God, WHO told you this must be and why do you believe them?"
Do you need to be led by a ring through your nose in order to know how to give worship and praise? Where in the Bible are you told that it's OK to use any old song or story for the purpose?
I know one problem all "progressives" have is that they just don't understand reverence. You think it's perfectly fine to wear whatever you pull out of the hamper and head off to Jeff St. where God is just another dude at the commune. But He is the God upon Whom we can't gaze without dying. And then there's 2 Samuel 6:6-8, Numbers 4:15, 1 Samuel 6:19. These are examples of the importance of reverence for God. He is not just some guy. So reverence and care in choosing how to worship and give Him praise is important. I put Him first, not my personal desires to be hip. IN the meantime, you have chosen for yourself that you can decide that anything goes, and you do so with absolutely no Biblical support.
"But where does it define "spiritual songs..."? Oh, wait, it doesn't. Where does it define "the fellowship..."? Oh wait, it doesn't. "Build one another up..."? Doesn't define how that's done."
You gotta be kidding! Here you go again promoting ambiguity in order to defend your position. You're seriously going to pretend that these verses leave open your desire to use any old thing for worship? In-freakin-credible!
"Is THAT story "Christian enough..."? "
No.
"If not, why not? Because it doesn't mention God?"
A good enough reason for now.
Yes, that IS a consistent answer given your criteria. The problem is, by YOUR criteria, the Biblical Book of Esther (a story written by a Jew that does not ever mention God and is about the salvation of a community of oppressed people thanks to the woman hero's actions and her outsmarting the oppressors) is not "worthy of inclusion" in your church services. YOUR criteria would block out a book of the Bible, given its contents.
But reasonable people and biblical authors and those humans who decided what books should be in the Bible all recognize that stories can contain valued, even Christ-ian stories and poetry, even though they don't meet your criteria. (Indeed, some of the humans - probably similar to your tribe - who compiled the Bible didn't think Esther was fitting to include in the Bible, but more reasonable people won out.)
So, the standards you offer (must be about God and must not be secular) would rule out the Book of Esther. And what a loss that would be! Similarly, if you write off powerful, meaningful stories and poetry that touches on Christ-ian themes, it would be such a loss.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
We All Need More Kindness In This World
Nothing particularly Christian here. Nothing that leads one to Christ. Why do we need anything cited in this song without Christ? Without God? There's no eternal ramifications if we have or don't have anything cited in this song without God/Christ. Without Him, it's just touchy-feely crap.
Come Healing
The more I read about Cohen and his work, the more pretentious I find him. This particular song is nice enough, but I'm not easily persuaded that the inclusion of religious symbolism makes a song worthy of inclusion in a worship service. I'm getting to believe Cohen does that on purpose, and he's been said to do so to make the sexual spiritual. He's been called a hedonist in several pieces I've read, and while I'm on record for insisting one can enjoy the work of assholes, that doesn't mean I'd include their work in a Christian service UNLESS a work is meant to convey a specifically Christian message (see "Amazing Grace").
My problem with secular works for this purpose is the fact that lines become blurred by their inclusion. There are those who believe that certain practices (Halloween, for example) carry spiritual danger for the Christian and are best avoided. I see a similar threat to mixing the secular with Christian worship. While you believe you're "building up" by use of these songs, you may just as easily...and maybe more so...leading the flock astray. And there's simply no need for it. If you can't get people to understand Christianity's message through devotion to Scripture, they won't get it any more easily by that which isn't Scriptural. It certainly hasn't helped YOU any.
it's a Christian worship service in which congregants are gathered together for corporate worship and praise of God/Jesus.
1. Does the term "worship service" appear in the Bible? If so, please provide the source.
2. Do the "meetings" that happen in the NT (the biblical NT term usually used for gatherings of the church... that and "gathering," I believe) ever describe the meetings as "worship services" for "corporate worship and praise of God/Jesus..."? If so, please provide the source.
3. Rather, isn't it more NT biblical to say that they "gathered" regularly to devote themselves to "teachings" as opposed to "praise of God/Jesus" or "corporate worship..." and for "fellowship" with one another?
"And they were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. … And day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart..." Acts 2
"And on the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul began talking to them, intending to depart the next day, and he prolonged his message until midnight." ~Acts 20
"What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification..." 1 Cor 14
In fact, here's a writing from a guy I suspect is pretty conservative and traditional and his take on this...
"What I found when I looked into the topic of the worship service for the first time, and what was so shocking, is that, under the New Covenant and in the New Covenant assembly—the ekklēsia, there is no such thing as a worship service. The term “worship service” never occurs."
https://www.wordofhisgrace.org/wp/worship-service/
My point being, the idea of the church meeting as a "worship service" for the purposes of "praising of God/Jesus" is a harkening back either to OT Jewish practices or Roman Catholic traditions, not the traditions found in the NT - in Jesus' teachings and examples OR in the description of the early church services. Instead, we had teaching times where the point was to "edify," support and lift up the group of believers, strengthening them for the Christian life.
So, is it okay if we set aside the goal of "praising God" as being THE ONE PURPOSE of church meetings?
And to be sure, I am not disrespecting the notion of "praising God/Jesus," just noting it's not found in the NT or taught as THE POINT of Church meetings.
Moving then, to the goal of lifting up/supporting the fellow believers in the church meeting, is there anything in the NT that prohibits referencing non-biblical stories from the OT (since the NT didn't exist)? Since they taught and prophesied and offered commentary given by the Holy Spirit, does that not suggest they were not limiting themselves to OT scriptures?
Also, did you know that there are sources offered WITHIN the canonical bible that are extra-biblical?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-canonical_books_referenced_in_the_Bible
The Any Day Now song I'm referencing is Bob Dylan's and, sorry, but it's actually called I Shall Be Released (which I knew, just called it by the wrong name...).
They say ev’rything can be replaced
Yet ev’ry distance is not near
So I remember ev’ry face
Of ev’ry man who put me here
I see my light come shining
From the west unto the east
Any day now, any day now
I shall be released
They say ev’ry man needs protection
They say ev’ry man must fall
Yet I swear I see my reflection
Some place so high above this wall
I see my light come shining
From the west unto the east
Any day now, any day now
I shall be released
Standing next to me in this lonely crowd
Is a man who swears he’s not to blame
All day long I hear him shout so loud
Crying out that he was framed
I see my light come shining
From the west unto the east
Any day now, any day now
I shall be released
"1. Does the term "worship service" appear in the Bible? If so, please provide the source."
You really need to end this practice of demanding that specific words must appear in Scripture in order to be valid in discourse simply to avoid honorably defending that which you cannot truly defend. It's just another dodge and you fool no one by continuing in that way. Or, you must provide Biblical evidence for things like "simple living" being "a thing" in Scripture.
At Craig's, I provided three links that describe early Christian services and to pretend they don't resemble closely enough today's worship services in order to be aptly described as such is dishonest.
"Since they taught and prophesied and offered commentary given by the Holy Spirit, does that not suggest they were not limiting themselves to OT scriptures?"
They were indeed limiting themselves to that which was directly related to God/Jesus, so, nice try.
"Also, did you know that there are sources offered WITHIN the canonical bible that are extra-biblical?"
Which ones are akin to using a Leonard Cohen song or "Yellow Submarine"?
As to Dylan's song, I don't see anything "uplifting" apart from perhaps the title itself, which I'm certain is more than enough for the likes of you and yours. It's clear that it comes down to simply whatever lamely subjective standard your church "leaders" deem allowable. So if someone feels spiritually uplifted by Ted Nugent's "Wang Dang, Sweet Poontang", what would prevent your "leaders" from disallowing it? On what basis and by whose authority? I'm not trying to be a wise-ass here (not entirely, anyway), but rather noting no criteria is as yet been forthcoming for how YOU do things, while our more distinct criteria of referencing God/Jesus/Christian teaching/Scripture doesn't qualify in any way.
As to Dylan's song, I don't see anything "uplifting" apart from perhaps the title itself
YOU don't find it uplifting for you, personally. Okay. Fine. But other people do. Do you think you get to trump what is empowering and supportive and uplifting for others because YOUR personal tastes aren't thrilled?
Please answer.
if someone feels spiritually uplifted by Ted Nugent's "Wang Dang, Sweet Poontang", what would prevent your "leaders" from disallowing it?
Not familiar with the song. If there is something that is uplifting, encouraging, helpful, loving, kind, trustworthy, etc, in the song that means something to someone, who am I to say it ain't so?
Now, if a song encourages harm or damages somehow, THAT would be a reason to not include it, so there are lines that can be crossed. Looking at the lyrics, it appears to be a song about teen-aged sex by an older pervert (Nugent, himself, I suppose? That upstanding conservative), so that would be a line of harm and a reason not to include it. Plus, almost certainly no one is going to say that this is a spiritually uplifting song, encouraging to the saints of God in following Jesus.
So, what would prevent us from including such a song? How about common sense and decency? How about a line of harm?
We also wouldn't include a song of overt sexuality, even if it was in the context of two married adults. Why? Because there is a time and place for everything and common sense dictates that a gathering of a mixed group of people that might include children or just people who don't want to hear about others sex lives. Good Lord, it's just not that difficult to use common sense. And common sense IS a criteria. Harm IS a criteria.
Now, on what basis other than "i don't like it" would you disallow "I Shall Be Released..."? Is there harm happening with the song? Is it sexually inappropriate? Or is it speaking to themes of redemption and salvation, you know, themes common to the Christian faith tradition as we learned from Jesus?
And when you say "your more distinct criteria of referencing... Christian teaching..." THAT is what I'm saying. Stories of redemption and salvation, of forgiveness and grace, of justice and work for the poor and oppressed, these ARE distinct Christian teachings. So, why disallow them?
That is the question you still have not answered.
I provided three links that describe early Christian services
I see no links. Why not answer the question that was asked of you here, here?
Where do the Biblical authors INSIST on your made up criteria? Can you admit that this is YOUR list of criteria, not something found in the Bible?
You'll see the links once he posts my comments. Be as patient for such as you expect others to be patient with you. I didn't save the links and haven't the time to search them out at present.
As to criteria, who insists on yours and where do you find liberty to speak out both sides of your mouth. On the one side, you question who's to decide what is uplifting to another, while from the other you would reject that one might be uplifted by Nugent's song. And this while counting yourself among church leaders. In the real world, church leaders set and maintain standards and congregants abide, lobby for change or find another church. So either a congregant gets to decide what lifts him up or you do. Which is it? It seems you only give lip service to the former while reserving the power to decide such things for you and the rest of the leaders. It clearly isn't both.
But the real answer to your questions is not disallowing, but the basis for allowing and choosing. Normal churches select songs that praise God/Jesus directly, cite Scripture in sermons for teaching and edification and leave "uplifting" to pastoral counseling and fellowship with other congregants. Personally, I find myself "uplifted" by the corporate worship of Sunday service, the preaching of the Word and the raising of voices in songs of praise to the Lord.
In my personal life, I find great value in secular music. There it has its place. In church, my focus is on God alone, not me. Feeling uplifted happens as a consequence, not a goal. Indeed, I see it as a great problem that one can't set aside one's personal problems for an hour or so per week to focus on God.
As to Dylan's song, how is it possible one can be more uplifted by such vagueness when Amazing Grace exists?
I don't know if you don't understand the questions...? Or if you don't know that you don't understand them and thus don't know that you're not answering them...? Or if you know and you realize you can't answer them well, so you just fake a non-answer that you're hoping will be ignored and accepted...?
I just know you're still not demonstrating you're getting it.
1. IF you find Amazing Grace inspiring and supportive of your Christian walk, then I fully support you listening to it and using it in your church meetings. If you think it is the perfect song and ONLY want to use it - because any other song is not as good as it, or can't be as legitimate and right or whatever - I fully support you doing that for you and any congregation that wants to go along with you on that point. You can start an All Amazing Grace Church, if you want. BUT - and here's the weird thing! - OTHER people may find OTHER songs and poetry and music inspiring and supportive of their Christian walk.
Do you recognize that possibility exists?
2. I support people and churches choosing songs and art that inspires that church and that cause no harm and that are appropriate. IF you can find a church that thinks Nugent's song is appropriate and wants to go along with you on that, I guess I support you all doing that. But here's the thing: I'm fully confident that no such congregation exists. Why? Because Nugent's song is reasonably out of place in a church meeting and does nothing to edify and indeed, may cause harm. Neither of us can prove it authoritatively and definitively, but I don't think you'll find anyone who would agree with it, including you.
3. Re: "Normal churches select songs that praise God/Jesus directly..." The reality is that churches are a mixed spectrum and not every church is "normal" in ways that you may approve of. I don't find "praise and worship" types of churches normative to the biblical text or to reason, but if some find that meaningful, I'm not disallowing it. MY POINT all along is that IF a song (like Cohen's or Dylan's) inspires and helps some in their walk of faith, who am I to say Don't use it? WHY would I say don't use it?
Because it doesn't praise God and cite scripture? Follow closely: THERE IS NO RULE AGAINST THAT. The Bible does not say "Only use songs that literally directly praise God... ONLY use songs that cite Scripture." God has not told you that. The Bible doesn't tell you that. It's a made up rule from your own mind/tradition.
Do you recognize that reality?
If you disagree, then all you have to do is cite where God has told you otherwise. You can't. That rule does not exist.
cont'd...
4. You keep ignoring all the precedent of words within the Bible speaking of Jesus and the early church. What happened in THOSE meetings were they were held FOR THE PURPOSE of building up the church, not singing God love songs. Every single story I've found speaking of early church practices has some version of "build up the church, teach, fellowship," and not one says "sing songs that glorify God."
Can you acknowledge that is the reality of the biblical witness of early church practice as found in the Bible?
5. Further, you are presuming that a song that speaks of the beauty of nature/God's creation - even if it doesn't mention God - CAN BE SEEN (and is by many) to be a song of praise for God, amongst those who view God as Creator. A poem that cites the hard struggle for justice and the reality of oppression CAN BE SEEN as a poem that cites Christian values and concerns, even if it doesn't mention God directly.
Just like the biblical story of Esther nowhere mentions God, but is a story of the faithfulness of God's community in fighting oppression just the same. THE BIBLE offers that example of a non-Christian-specific story that does not mention God. If it's good enough for the Bible, why is that not good enough for you?
"I just know you're still not demonstrating you're getting it."
I don't know if you don't understand the answers...? Or if you don't know that you don't understand them and thus don't know that I've answered them...? Or if you know and you realize you can't find fault, so you just ask again hoping my answers will be ignored and not accepted...?
I just know you're still not demonstrating you're honorable in discourse.
"and here's the weird thing! - OTHER people may find OTHER songs and poetry and music inspiring and supportive of their Christian walk."
...unless YOU and other "leaders" disapprove. I get it. What you don't get is that I still haven't said a damned thing that suggests I'm forcing anything on anyone. YOU, however, will force your will on those who feel uplifted by songs you don't like, while pretending to be tolerant to choices that are simply not distasteful to you.
Do you recognize that possibility exists?
Don't believe I've said otherwise. But it's quite irrelevant to the point.
"2. I support people and churches choosing songs and art that inspires that church and that cause no harm and that are appropriate."
Now you're moving the goalposts. You originally claimed support for what other people feel they find uplifting and strengthening to their walk. Now it must do so for the entire church?
"Nugent's song is reasonably out of place in a church meeting and does nothing to edify and indeed, may cause harm."
Sez you, but in doing so, you deny someone what they feel is uplifting.
"Neither of us can prove it authoritatively and definitively, but I don't think you'll find anyone who would agree with it, including you."
Hardly the point. And yet "Yellow Submarine" passes muster without it having any true connection with Christendom. So despite you people getting giddy over Yellow Submarine, you find it weird that Nugent's song might sit well enough for others. A real church wouldn't use either in a worship service.
"3. Re: "Normal churches select songs that praise God/Jesus directly..." The reality is that churches are a mixed spectrum and not every church is "normal" in ways that you may approve of."
So again you revert back to the "anything goes" direction and will remain so until something in YOUR opinion "doesn't go".
"MY POINT all along is that IF a song (like Cohen's or Dylan's) inspires and helps some in their walk of faith, who am I to say Don't use it?"
But IF a song like Nugent's inspires and helps some in their walk of faith, who are you to say "don't use it"? Make up your mind. I thought consistency was important to you.
"Follow closely: THERE IS NO RULE AGAINST THAT. The Bible does not say "Only use songs that literally directly praise God... ONLY use songs that cite Scripture." God has not told you that. The Bible doesn't tell you that."
Yeah, I know. You don't like rules. It's do whatever unless Dan doesn't like it. But of course, it wouldn't matter what the Bible says or what God would tell you. You don't abide Scripture anyway, unless it says something you personally like. I get that, too.
But I provided citations that speak to God's desire to be honored, respected, revered and Christian churches tend to run their worship services with that in mind, regardless of whether or not they're told to do so, because they honor, respect and revere God.
Allow me to check your criteria that I've tried to squeeze out of you all so far as to what makes a song/poem "christian enough" to be "worthy" of inclusion in your church services (I'm trying to synthesize what I've heard you all say to make it more understandable and complete)...
1. They should "praise God."
1a. The point of church meetings ("worship services") is to praise God... that is THE SINGLE POINT (single most important point?) and Requirement (?) of church meetings.
Question: What constitutes Praising God? Is it merely singing songs that say, "My God, I praise you, you so cool that way" and "The earth is beautiful for God created it that way" and "God's love is dynamite and I find it truly groovy..." words that extol God's nature in some way AND DO SO EXPLICITLY? Or can it be a song/poem/story that emphasizes Justice and Grace and Forgiveness, for instance, BUT it MUST mention God?
Please define "Praising God..."
2. It doesn't HAVE to be written by a Christian (a religious Jew would work? Or Jewish words from the OT, but ONLY those Jewish words/poems), but it MUST have been written with the purpose of somehow praising God and preferably (only?) from a Christian point of view (with OT words being an exception, but the ONLY exception)?
2a. If someone writes a song BASED on OT/Biblical words, but the poet/songwriter are not Christian, this is probably not acceptable or "church worthy" (Think the Byrds "Turn, Turn, Turn") or, at least, should be approached warily
2b. This is true because... (cite some biblical reason for that ruling)
3. The words should be "biblically sound" (by traditional/conservative consideration?)
And the question would be, Biblically sound TO WHOM? I find the words to Cohen's "Come Healing" to be biblically sound, and all the other songs I've mentioned as well. Also, what are the criteria for saying something is NOT biblically sound?
4. Ideally, the words should be "drawn from Scripture"
Presumably meaning that there is SOME "religious"/biblical message in the words, but then, again, according to whom? I find songs with messages about ending oppression and simple living to be biblically sound, but songs about Blood Atonement to NOT be biblically sound... what MEASURABLE CRITERIA do you have for something being "drawn from Scripture?
5. It "should point to God" (Craig said, but then he noted that this is only his opinion).
Define point to God? Is a song that speaks to a selfless love somehow NOT pointing to God? What criteria is there for deciding this?
6. It should be "intended to communicate a specifically Christian theology, message, through its lyrics" (Craig).
But then, what about OT psalms and poetry and stories... You are okay with that exception, correct? But what authority is there for making this "requirement..."? Again, what about the story of Esther, can SOMEONE please address that "exception..."?
Am I missing any other criteria that you all have offered?
To all of these, I'd just repeat my request for some SOURCE, some AUTHORITY, some RULING that says these rules are requirements OR an admission that it's a human opinion and that there is no authoritative source for saying which songs are "christian enough" to be "worthy" of inclusion in church services.
"4. You keep ignoring all the precedent of words within the Bible speaking of Jesus and the early church. What happened in THOSE meetings were they were held FOR THE PURPOSE of building up the church, not singing God love songs. Every single story I've found speaking of early church practices has some version of "build up the church, teach, fellowship," and not one says "sing songs that glorify God.""
So you didn't read any of the links I posted at Craig's. What a surprise.
Can you acknowledge that is the reality of the biblical witness of early church practice as found in the Bible?
I can only acknowledge you see what you want to see in order to do things as you want to do them.
"5. Further, you are presuming..." ...that YOU dictate what can or can't be seen as uplifting, edifying or in any way a reflection of God's creation. Nugent doesn't qualify in YOUR opinion and thus is rejected regardless of who in your congregation might desire it played in service.
As to Esther, no doubt you're aware of the scholarly opinions that speak to God's "absence" being purposeful in the recording of the story, and why it remains a part of the canon. If not, do some studying before trying this lame ploy to make your point.
Yes, I read all your links and responded to them on Craig's post. That he has not posted them is not my fault. Be patient, maybe he'll post them.
But quickly, your links do NOT demonstrate the rules or parameters that you would like to embrace. What a surprise.
IF you can point to a SINGLE VERSE that supports your claims/preferences, THEN DO IT, here. Now.
You can't. If you could, you would, but you can't because they don't exist. The rules are rules of your own making.
...that YOU dictate what can or can't be seen as uplifting, edifying or in any way a reflection of God's creation. Nugent doesn't qualify in YOUR opinion
I'm saying that Nugent's perverted conservative words in the song you cite don't match ANYONE's definition of edifying from a Christian point of view. You can't cite a single person who believes that Nugent's words in that song are edifying and Christian. Not one person.
I CAN make the case for how very Christ-ian the words are of "Come Healing" or "I Shall Be Released..." and have done so.
Further, IF a person existed in the real world who wanted to make the case for Nugent, I'd listen to them. But as noted, that person doesn't exist. You're trying to dream up a scenario that is non-existent and making it more difficult than need be.
If a person wrote their own song that praised killing all the conservatives and described how it should be done, there is not anyone who would say that is Christian in nature. There are no Christian values or themes in that message.
The point in all of this is that I would be/am willing to listen to my fellow church member making a case for a song that I don't "get" as being related to Christian ideals/themes... if they can make the case, I'm fine with it. AND at the same time, I just don't think it's that difficult. "Come healing" DOES speak to uplifting, Christ-like themes. "I shall be released" DOES speak of the hope of a better day and salvation/redemption. There isn't any real need for debate, reasonable people can see how uplifting these songs are.
It's just not that difficult, Marshal, when you're coming from a place of grace and good common sense reasoning.
Watch Marshal, "Come Healing," it's deep meaningfulness explained (just the first few lines)...
O gather up the brokenness [that we are now or at times "broken" is common to humanity and part of the teachings found within the bible... gather up THAT hard brokenness...
And bring it to me now [Cohen does not define who the Me is in "bring it to me now..." Perhaps for him, it was a lover, or a friend, or maybe God/Abba... I don't know what Cohen intended, but bringing our shared brokenness to one another IS a teaching found in the bible as is bringing it to God, that it can be interpreted either way does not make this distinctly "not Christian"]
The fragrance of those promises You never dared to vow [frankly, I don't know specifically what Cohen intended here, but art is, in part, mystery and exploration... those promises we never dared to vow... hopes for redemption? For a second chance? For change and repentance? It's all beautiful and lovely and nothing distinctly "Not christian" about it]
The splinters that you carry The cross you left behind [those sacred wounds of Jesus? Those sacred wounds we all suffer through? It's all good...}
Come healing of the body Come healing of the mind [Yes! Glory, Lord, Yes! I need that healing that comes from community, from my friends, from my God! The holy community lifts me up and strengthens me to carry on in hope of that healing! Nothing but beauty and power in those words, certainly nothing "not Christian" about it.]
Can you say ANYTHING in that is distinctly and specifically NOT Christian? What?
Do you have a problem with vagueness and open-ended art? Then maybe this song is not for you, but many of us are fine with vaguely hopeful promises, because life is vague and hard and a vague and hopeful promise is more meaningful to us than certain assurances that at times seem empty. We can sit in the mystery and unknown and generally hope for that glorious healing, along with our Holy Community and our God. That IS meaningful to many folks in the world.
On the other hand, Nugent's words have nothing that I can see to recommend them.
"That Nadine, what a teenage queen
She lookin' so clean, especi'lly down in between
What I like"
What is the "this is edifying Christian art" in those words?
Also, knowing that many men like Nugent have molested and assaulted and taken advantage of teen-aged girls speaks of harm and oppression... sort of the OPPOSITE of edifying. In short, NO ONE is going to make the case that this is a Christian song, speaking of Christian values.
AND AGAIN, for other songs not so overtly predatory and anti-Christian, if someone came to me to make the case for, for instance, "God Bless the USA," I/we'd consider it. We may also have a discussion about the values that church folks like us have and why it might be a problem, but we wouldn't rule it out.
Grace. That, and the fairly complete lack of specific biblical guidance to say what the criteria is for art in church.
Marshal... "As to Esther, no doubt you're aware of the scholarly opinions that speak to God's "absence" being purposeful..."
Scholars have all sorts of opinions. My point is simple. In the Bible, we have an example of a story that does not mention God and that speaks generically oh salvation that comes from solidarity, from within the human community. This is a good and godly thing. There's nothing not Christian in that idea.
Do you agree?
If so, then on what basis would you demand or require that songs and stories in your church service must mention God or must speak of a Bible concept?
Conversely, why is a generic reference to Salvation and solidarity with one's community not Christian enough, given this story?
And lest it be lost in all the explanation (of what should be obvious), the questions I'm asking you are simple:
The list of criteria for songs/poetry/stories that are "acceptable" to be used in church, according to at least Marshal and maybe Craig, are...
1. It MUST have been written with the purpose of somehow praising God and preferably (only?) from a Christian point of view (with the OT stories as an exception)
2. The songs should "praise God/Jesus" in some manner. Specifically mentioning God/Jesus (or at least be abundantly clear).
3. Reference stories/teachings specifically from the Bible ("drawn from Scripture")
4. Biblically sound
5. It should point to God
6. It should be "intended to communicate a specifically Christian theology, message, through its lyrics"
A. Is that roughly the criteria you all have?
B. Are these requirements or just suggestions?
C. Is this a biblical list or something you two made up? Or is it otherwise from some human church tradition?
D. Can you admit that this is NOT a biblical list, and certainly not a biblical list of requirements - not in these words or in any other words?
E. Can you admit that the idea of a "worship service" whose "main (sole?) purpose" is to "praise God/Jesus" is not the example shown in passages dealing with NT Church meetings?
F. If you think you CAN show the concept of a "worship service" whose "main purpose" is to "praise God" is a literally biblical one, please present those passages, here.
G. Define "praise God." What are the parameters of what that might look like and be inclusive of?
Please answer directly before you comment on anything else. Before you say you HAVE answered it, save it. I've read your words and don't see any direct answers to THESE specific questions.
When will you answer our questions or provide any Biblical support for for YOUR position?
Also, you continue to use this "building up" term. What do you think it means when Paul's words more than vaguely imply the Christian's understanding of who Christ is and what His message is. YOU seem to suggest it's all about the congregant, like some kind of counseling psychological treatment session, and there's definitely NO hint that it means that at all.
1. When will you all EVER answer the questions put to you?
2. Edify, build up, encourage, pray, teach, fellowship... THESE are the words that describe (in generalities) what took place in the NT church meetings. There are NO words that talk about "worship" in a "let's praise Jesus with love songs about Jesus" kind of way.
3. Thus, I've explained why I think the Bible talks about church meetings AS church meetings for the point of edification of the church members... because THOSE ARE the words used in the Bible.
4. Still waiting on you all to define worship and praise and to admit that you have no verses that describe church meetings (not "worship services") in that way... or to provide the verses that DO describe it that way. You all haven't done so yet because you can't because those words and descriptions are not used in the Bible.
Last chance, Marshal. Answer the questions. AFTER you answer these questions, then, by all means, tell me which questions you think you've asked that you think I have not answered.
A. Is that roughly the criteria you all have?
Roughly. Is that a sufficient answer, or do I need to go back and be more specific in clarifying your assessments?
B. Are these requirements or just suggestions?
How about "requirements I suggest all true Christian churches follow"? Another response is, that's how every Christian church I've ever attended in my life have done it, with a slight straying now and then by a UCC church in which I Chaired the Board of Elders and was Church Council President.
C. Is this a biblical list or something you two made up? Or is it otherwise from some human church tradition?
It's based on the earliest Christian traditions for "gatherings" of Christians.
D. Can you admit that this is NOT a biblical list, and certainly not a biblical list of requirements - not in these words or in any other words?
No.
E. Can you admit that the idea of a "worship service" whose "main (sole?) purpose" is to "praise God/Jesus" is not the example shown in passages dealing with NT Church meetings?
No.
F. If you think you CAN show the concept of a "worship service" whose "main purpose" is to "praise God" is a literally biblical one, please present those passages, here.
G. Define "praise God." What are the parameters of what that might look like and be inclusive of?
Praise means “to commend, to applaud or magnify.” To praise God is to call attention to his glory. Webster defines the word praise as to say good things about and it is synonymous to words such as admire, commend, extol, honor, and worship. A definition of Christian praise is the joyful thanking and adoring of God, the celebration of His goodness and grace.
"Before you say you HAVE answered it, save it. I've read your words and don't see any direct answers to THESE specific questions."
You haven't asked "THESE specific questions", so it's not surprising you wouldn't find direct answers to them in my previous comments.
"1. When will you all EVER answer the questions put to you?"
I always do. You just can't handle the answers.
"2. Edify, build up, encourage, pray, teach, fellowship... THESE are the words that describe (in generalities) what took place in the NT church meetings. There are NO words that talk about "worship" in a "let's praise Jesus with love songs about Jesus" kind of way."
No, the word "worship" isn't mentioned, but then, you're just doing what you always do, pretending that Scripture must use specific words for the concepts that define those words. For example, Scripture doesn't use the word "Trinity", but the concept is clearly expressed. The same with "worship". And while it doesn't speak of "love songs about Jesus", it also doesn't speak of the "Jesus is my pal who's totally cool with anything I do" kinda crap you spew to justify your many unChristian positions.
"3. Thus, I've explained why I think the Bible talks about church meetings AS church meetings for the point of edification of the church members... because THOSE ARE the words used in the Bible."
Your poor understanding of Scripture's descriptions doesn't invalidate anything I've said. You leave out much.
I'm out of time, but will be returning to continue my responses. Don't be a dick and pretend I've failed to comply with your ultimatum just yet.
Thanks for the answers. What's missing...
B. Requirements that YOU, personally, would like to see. Rules that you and rule-makers like you would like to require. And NOT a rule given by God, Jesus or the early church, right?
C. So, it's NOT a set of rules found in the bible, right?
Can you cite the post-biblical early church source that supports your suggestion that it comes from them?
Please do.
D. No, you can't agree these rules (or words that mean what these words suggest) aren't in the Bible? Well, then, cite the Bible verses that make these rules and call them requirements.
E. Then cite the verses that say what you're claiming.
Marshal... "you're just doing what you always do, pretending that Scripture must use specific words for the concepts that define those words."
As my words make clear, I'm not talking about where does that WORD appear. I'm talking about the CONCEPT. I keep asking you where does that word OR concept appear?
So stop with the stupid nonsense and just answer the question rather than continue pretending that I'm saying it has to be that word. It doesn't, of course. It does have to be that concept.
You can't point to Jesus preaching about the warnings about wealth and say "There! Look! See it says Jesus is talking about praising Jesus." That passage does not say that. So it does have to say or describe the concept. It doesn't have to use the word.
Which is obvious. Now with that nonsense out of the way, cite the passage that supports your claim. And, when you can't, have the intellectual wherewithal and honesty to admit it.
Marshal... "also doesn't speak of the "Jesus is my pal who's totally cool with anything I do" kinda crap you spew to justify your many unChristian positions..."
This is, of course, again, a stupidly false claim. I've never said that Jesus is cool with anything we do. Princeton's, I don't think Jesus is cool with stupidly false claims. If you're going to make a false claim, at least have the decency to try to make it a clever false claim. One that's believable. Can you make stupidly false claims, you embarrass yourself, in addition to separate yourself out from the realm of God.
If you're going to separate yourself out from the realm of God, then at least do it in the clever way. Make it worthwhile.
Still low on time, but checking in to see what I'll have to do when I have it:
"B. Requirements that YOU, personally, would like to see. Rules that you and rule-makers like you would like to require. And NOT a rule given by God, Jesus or the early church, right?"
It's not a matter of requirements so much as a more logical and thoughtful expression of reverence for the concept of Christian worship and "gatherings", all of which is patterned after the traditions begun during the earliest days of Christendom.
"C. So, it's NOT a set of rules found in the bible, right?"
See above.
"Can you cite the post-biblical early church source that supports your suggestion that it comes from them?"
This is the info I've been gathering and will present when I have the time to do it in what I feel is the proper manner. I won't be rushed as I am at this moment.
"E. Then cite the verses that say what you're claiming."
Again, all in good time. But for now, I can say that the links I posted at Craig's contained quite a few verses that support my position. Had you actually read them, you'd know this. I may re-post one or more them here along with other things I've found to respond to your many repetitive demands.
"As my words make clear, I'm not talking about where does that WORD appear. I'm talking about the CONCEPT. I keep asking you where does that word OR concept appear?"
Well, the "concept" certainly appeared in my previous links, but they'll be more obvious in links I'll be posting. (They're saved and it will take more time than I have to put them in a comment in a way that conforms with composing an argument. Be patient.)
"So stop with the stupid nonsense and just answer the question rather than continue pretending that I'm saying it has to be that word."
The nonsense is in your contradictory comment here, after spending so much time insisting "worship" is never mentioned. You want to whine about us not presenting your position properly and then you whine when we focus on your actual words. Maybe you should just stop the whining and get on with it.
"You can't point to Jesus preaching about the warnings about wealth and say "There! Look! See it says Jesus is talking about praising Jesus.""
Wow! That doesn't in any way represent anything I've ever done. But since you mentioned it, Jesus was preaching about not putting God first. He used wealth for the purpose. The warning was about devoting one's efforts to something other than God or putting God subordinate.
"...cite the passage that supports your claim. And, when you can't, have the intellectual wherewithal and honesty to admit it."
Oh, that you would abide your own demand!
"I've never said that Jesus is cool with anything we do."
Not in so many words, but "conceptually" you do it all the time. That's how you rationalize your support for sexual immorality, taking money from others through taxes, etc. And your manner of "worship" suggests, as Craig has described it, a commune rather than a "gathering" of people with reverence for God. The true embarrassment is in trying to defend against the claim after having posted so much about what goes on at Jeff St., which appears...by the way your present things...as far more separate from the realm of God than anything I've ever said or done.
But for now, I can say that the links I posted at Craig's contained quite a few verses that support my position. Had you actually read them, you'd know this
And...
Not in so many words, but "conceptually" you do it all the time.
Marshal, I can not tell you how incredibly boorish and embarrassing (for you) these stupidly false claims you make, with ease, just like your president. Of course, I have read them, just like I told you I had. But in spite of the facts, you still make this incredibly stupid false claim, as if any one who were following would believe it. As if you could fool God by making stupidly false claims.
Aren't you embarrassed by this un-Godly and childish behavior?
Just because I have read it and disagree with your irrational positions does NOT mean I have not read those three links.
Good Lord.
Dan: "E. Then cite the verses that say what you're claiming."
Marshal: Again, all in good time. But for now, I can say that the links I posted at Craig's contained quite a few verses that support my position.
1. If there were verses that CLEARLY SAID what you think or supported your claims, you could easily cite them. That you are struggling to find SOMETHING... ANYTHING to support your claims should be a red flag to you, Marshal. It is to anyone else who might be reading.
2. My point is and has been that the descriptions in the NT of the church services do not mention that
a. singing songs of praise to God being the primary point of the meeting,
b. nor do they insist that the meetings were primarily "worship services"
c. nor does it mention any requirements for what makes for a good song.
IN THE BIBLE, can you admit that this is the reality?
Before you move on to what some people say happened in the early church in the decades and centuries after the NT, can you admit that I'm not mistaken in what I've said?
Also, while I'm thinking about it, you have said that your requirements are requirements in churches/church traditions you've been familiar with... I'm questioning that, as well.
Of course, I'm not familiar with all church traditions, especially the more liturgical ones... but I have been around music programs in a lot of churches and I know of none that have any expressed rules (especially written down rules) about what makes for an acceptable song for church services.
Which is not to say that many churches would be as open as we are, especially the more conservative ones... just that my GUESS (and it is a guess, as I've done no research on the topic) is that very few if any churches have written down regulations and requirements about what songs can be included in church. My GUESS is that it's more of a gut check kind of thing... that if the music leaders and/or pastor and/or other leaders in the church hear that a song doesn't mention God, then they'd be opposed to it... (in spite of the Esther example). The point being that probably (I guess) most churches don't have any rules and regulations in place... they just decide based on the song (like our church does, in fact).
Is that the case in your examples? Or do they have actual written down, spelled out criteria?
In doing a little research, I found at least some church traditions having rules... Like this Reformed Church, that offered three rules...
1. Is the piece biblically /theologically faithful in content?
2. Does the song fit liturgically between what pre-ceeds and follows it?
3. Is it of good musical quality?
https://www.reformedworship.org/article/june-1997/not-just-any-song-will-do-three-basics-choosing-church-music
I found a generic and vague list from the Southern Baptists...
1. Choose hymns that teach
2. Choose hymns that admonish
3. Choose hymns that provoke thankful hearts
https://equip.sbts.edu/article/3-things-look-choosing-hymns-corporate-worship/
Beyond that, I found a few guidelines/suggestions here and there, but nothing like strict criteria for what would allow or disallow a song. It does not appear that churches or denominations out there have specific criteria for picking and, as I guessed earlier, I still guess that most churches just go by gut feeling and there are no universal rules and certainly no biblical rules for what would prohibit a song from being used.
https://www.laudemont.org/a-witec.htm
http://www.thetransformedsoul.com/additional-studies/miscellaneous-studies/-worship-in-the-early-church
https://www.seedbed.com/corporate-worship-discipleship-early-church-2/
The above were those I posted at Craig's. In reviewing them, only the third might be thrown out as having little value for the discussion, as it makes no citations of Scripture in supporting its premise. The first two, however, and particularly the second, are far more detailed in that regard. Your problem with them is no doubt due to the fact that it isn't supportive of the way you demand it must be in order to overcome your petulant objections to my position regarding the appropriateness of that which is included in a Christian worship service. That's typical, but it doesn't mean the case hasn't been made. It only means you don't like that it has been.
https://churchleaders.com/worship/worship-how-tos/145415-10-worship-guidelines-from-the-early-church.html
The above might be more to your liking, except that it doesn't present that irrational demand of specificity you require. But again, life doesn't work that way and the fact that you go out of your way to insist upon that which is never considered (what if Dan doesn't like it? How high will he set his goal post?) because no one would see the need. There's much from Scripture within it, as there was in the second link at the top. This means it's getting harder to insist "the Bible never says". More on that later.
https://www.9marks.org/article/biblical-theology-and-corporate-worship/
The above is yet another that should, based on your demands but likely won't regardless, provide you want you insist I present. Here's a snippet that is most relevant:
What then characterizes corporate worship in the new covenant? Reading and preaching Scripture (1 Tim. 4:14); singing Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs together (Eph. 5:18–19; Col. 3:16); praying (1 Tim. 2:1–2, 8); celebrating the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper (Matt. 28:19, 1 Cor. 11:17–34); and stirring one another up to love and good deeds (Heb. 10:24–25).
https://www.allaboutprayer.org/how-to-praise-and-worship-god-faq.htm
The above should also be sufficient for you, as it expressly begins with the question: Are there biblical examples of how to praise and worship God? and then goes on to answer it.
This is all my limited time allows, but what I've provided here is a sampling of quite a bit I could have listed. As to the first three links from that which I posted at Craig's, the first two provide Biblical examples which should have satisfied you, but you made sure it didn't. Thus, to insist you've read it is something I can't confirm one way or the other. To insist, however, that it failed to address your concerns does not instill confidence that you truly perused them. More likely, you simply moved the goal posts and will again now that I've provided even more support for my position from Scripture.
Next time, I hope to address your other concerns, but I'll hit on one of them right now. There was no "struggle" in finding the evidence that supports my position. The struggle is in finding the time to put it all together properly, given your penchant for moving the goal posts and adding additional criteria when your initial demands have been met. Note that I rarely, if ever, question why it takes so long for you to respond to anything. You know full well that life doesn't always allow for indulging in these debates, yet you wish to pretend that it's the truth that stymies my ability to respond. That's pretty cheap. Once again, when my work week begins, I'm looking at twelve hour shifts and the time it takes to prepare for and commute to and from the job. Even now I'm pushing it with regard to my departure time. To wait until week's end is not always advantageous as a discussion can proceed with scores of comments that move tangentially away from whatever it is I had hoped to give response. So, some of my comments are more of a drive by nature that I hope will keep the things from getting too far away from me. But "struggle" to defend my position? Hardly. I struggle no harder that you do in poorly responding.
More later.
You cite this as "MOST REVELANT":
What then characterizes corporate worship in the new covenant?
Reading and preaching Scripture (1 Tim. 4:14);
singing Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs together (Eph. 5:18–19; Col. 3:16);
praying (1 Tim. 2:1–2, 8);
celebrating the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper (Matt. 28:19, 1 Cor. 11:17–34); and
stirring one another up to love and good deeds (Heb. 10:24–25).
My questions were:
Where does the NT DEFINE the church meetings as "primarily for worshiping Jesus/God?"
THESE WORDS DO NOT support the suggestion that worship is the primary purpose for church meetings.
Where does the NT say/suggest that "praising Jesus/God" is a requirement for a song/poem?
THESE WORDS DO NOT support that suggestion/claim.
Where does the NT claim that the church meetings were primarily "worship services..."?
THESE WORDS DO NOT support that suggestion/claim.
This is what I noted when I read your links and wondered how in the world you would think that those links would help your claims/suggestions. They don't. They literally do not. You are reading INTO your links ideas that the words don't support. Just as you do with the Bible.
Are you now recognizing that your claims are not supported by the Bible?
If not, why not?
Same for this...
it expressly begins with the question: Are there biblical examples of how to praise and worship God? and then goes on to answer it.
Examples of how to praise and worship God? Sure, I'm fine with that. But suggesting that praying, lifting hands, dancing, etc are WAYS of praising God, it does not say that these were the primary purpose of church meetings, nor does it support the claim that IN THE BIBLE, the church meeting were primarily "worship services" for the primary purpose of "praising God." nor does it list some requirements for what should go in church songs.
It DOES say... "Praising and worshiping God is done in many different positions and forms." and indeed, I agree. We can worship God by hiking and acknowledging the beauty of God's creation. We can worship by acknowledging the beauty of a song sung by an honest and sincere voice and the unity of the fellowship of believers. It can be done by bowing in prayer and by hiking in prayer and in dancing with joy and in weeping in solidarity with the BODY of CHRIST... it can be done many ways and the Bible does not provide ways that limit how to "correctly" worship God or sing songs in the church (or outside the church).
Do you recognize all that now?
Perhaps you were never understanding what I was saying? What you were saying and now you do?
I hope so.
You're right, Dan, Stan's hearing of Cohen's song goes through all kinds of tortured manipulations in order to arrive where Stan, in his denial of God's mystic and unfathomable cosmic creation, needs it to arrive. And Stan puts into service all the usual habit of obviously corrupt readings of the song.
Stan infers that Cohen's song cannot be Christian because it doesn't get Scripture right: "Hallelujah, as it turns out, is not a Christmas song. It's not even Christian. The song starts out talking about some "secret chord" that David could play to please the Lord. He didn't."
Stan blindly baptizes Hebrew scripture, which is a bad faith reading already, but then he reads it really badly. David could, in fact, dispel God's bad side by his playing: "And whenever the evil spirit from God came upon Saul, David took the lyre and played it with his hand, and Saul would be relieved and feel better, and the evil spirit would depart from him."
Stan writes, "The song says David was baffled. He wasn't." But David was baffled: "David was angry because the Lord had burst forth with an outburst upon Uzzah; so that place is called Perez-uzzah, to this day. 9 David was afraid of the Lord that day; he said, “How can the ark of the Lord come into my care?” 10 So David was unwilling to take the ark of the Lord into his care in the city of David; instead David took it to the house of Obed-edom the Gittite."
Stan writes, "The song focuses on the adultery including when Bathseba apparently tied him to a kitchen chair and cut his hair. She didn't." By which Stan is either ignorant of, or willfully duplicitous by denying the knowledge of Samson and Delilah. And just as Samson's love for Delilah proved his undoing, so David's love for Bethsheba proved the undoing of his throne: Solomon, the last king of a united Israel, was the second child Bethsheba bore David.
Why are so many fundamentalists so fundamentally failures at simply reading the book they worship?
I've been wanting to return to this post but was distracted by your nonsensical comments at Craig's. Before getting to your last posted question-heavy comment, I need to address this:
"'Why? What purpose did any of them serve that could not have been served better by a truly Christian song or hymn?'
The question is, WHY NOT? What is WRONG with Any Day Now? And it's addressing a life of imprisonment and seeking to be free. I don't know of any existing hymn that addresses this so powerfully."
Count the above as a question of mine you haven't answered. I ask "why", and you respond with "why not?" That's not an answer. What's more, what Christian concept is it that deals with "imprisonment and seeking to be free"? If not being a slave to sin, you can't tell me that there is no standard, existing hymn that doesn't cover being saved from such a life and does so powerfully, and better yet, putting Christ as the means by which release comes, which is far more necessary for the "building up" of the congregation than any secular song could provide.
Now, you're questions:
Where does the NT DEFINE the church meetings as "primarily for worshiping Jesus/God?"
Once again, you ask a petulant question while ignoring that everything Scripture says about early Christian "gatherings" is focused on Jesus/God, be it through songs, rituals or teaching. All I've provided thus far absolutely bears that out. There's no need for Scripture to express it exactly as you childishly demand it must be for it to be true. It needn't be called a "worship service" specifically to be one. It needn't restrict all activity to that which is specifically praising God/Jesus in order for its purpose to be for praise and worship. Given everything we do is supposed to be for God's glory and sake, everything we do in that light would then be a form of worship...weekly gatherings included.
Thus, that the NT doesn't specifically and distinctly phrase things in the manner you demand it must is a weak attempt of you reserving the right to include secular songs as praise songs and other secular activities as appropriate in an ostensibly Christ focused gathering.
Where does the NT say/suggest that "praising Jesus/God" is a requirement for a song/poem?
Another pointless and irrelevant question, as I never suggested such a thing. A song might be a story about Christ that isn't necessarily praising Him, yet would still be appropriate in a Christian service. Teaching can be put to music and praise doesn't require music.
Where does the NT claim that the church meetings were primarily "worship services..."?
A wholly redundant question given it has been answered in a variety of ways already. And again, Scripture doesn't have to specifically say they were primarily worship services in order for them to be so. One thing is certain, all they did was focused specifically and unambiguously on Christ by all Scripture DOES say.
"This is what I noted when I read your links and wondered how in the world you would think that those links would help your claims/suggestions. They don't. They literally do not."
They do. They literally, absolutely do.
"You are reading INTO your links ideas that the words don't support. Just as you do with the Bible."
You are ignoring what the links proves about the nature of the "gatherings" of the early Christians, just as you ignore the teachings of Scripture you find inconvenient.
"Are you now recognizing that your claims are not supported by the Bible?"
Except that they most certainly are. There's nothing in any of the links that supports the use of secular songs at all. There's no mention of anything that suggests secular songs were used...even to make a point as I allowed isn't out of bounds for the purpose of teaching Christian concepts and relating those concepts to living a Christian life. All my links clearly demonstrate those early gatherings were for strictly Christian purposes. "Building up" was making sure each congregant was sufficiently educated so as to be able to spread the Good News to others, and to live a Christian life. It was done with hymns, Scripture, sacraments, and sharing with each other how Christ has bettered their lives.
The problem is you're too hung up on this "primary purpose" thing with regards early Christian "gatherings". You're too keen on denying there was even a primary purpose of any kind, regardless of what that purpose was. And to pretend that for the vast majority of Christian services worship isn't the primary purpose...corporate worship, prayer and praising...because teaching and fellowship was also involved is foolishness.
You're also too hung up on demanding there must be some specific words in Scripture without which the truth that they were indeed worshiping God in all they did during those "gatherings" is inane.
You're also too hung up on demanding some rule or law that "forces" compliance with the notion of Christ being the obvious and unambiguous focus of songs, teachings and whatever in a Christian service. I would ask what makes you want to do it any other way? Why would you think you need to do it any other way? Again, if your secular songs don't focus on Christ, then any connection made to Him is spurious and a stretch when doing such mental gymnastics is wholly unnecessary given the large body of actual Christ centered songs and poems and teachings available that should, for one insisting on one's claim of being Christian, should be more than sufficient to "build up" a person.
"Do you recognize all that now?"
What I recognize is your petulant defense of using non-Christian songs for nonsensical reasons without any argument that demonstrates that they're of any actual benefit for the purpose of "building up" the Body of Christ. Said another way, you're saying it builds up because it builds up. In addition, you concern yourself with what a song means to a given congregant as qualifying for use, while insisting someone who sees value in a pornographic song is out of line. That's nothing but subjectivity and of course, making rules you can't support Biblically. Indeed, you don't support your position at all. You simply assert. Typical.
Marshal... Count the above as a question of mine you haven't answered. I ask "why", and you respond with "why not?"
Except that I HAVE answered the question. As I suggested in the post itself...
"if a song brings you closer to God or Jesus in some way, then that's what it does and no one needs to tell you that the song doesn't belong to "Christianity," as if they are the arbiters of Christianity."
In short: WHY use a Cohen, Dylan or ANY song, including Amazing Grace? If it strengthens, encourages and edifies the body of Christ. That is why.
As I have noted repeatedly that the purpose of the early church meetings was to EDIFY... "Edify, build up, encourage, pray, teach, fellowship... THESE are the words that describe (in generalities) what took place in the NT church meetings. There are NO words that talk about "worship" in a "let's praise Jesus with love songs about Jesus" kind of way."
And thus, if a song is edifying to some members of the congregation, what is wrong with it? That there exists another song that other people may find edifying?
Is that really your position? IF a song exists, say from 200 years ago, that already edifies at least some people, encouraging them in their faith, THEN there is NO REASON for other songs?
Please answer.
It sounds like you're saying that if you are aware of a song that speaks of salvation or freedom from imprisonment or liberation or forgiveness, etc, and YOU PERSONALLY find that song pleasing and note that other Christians have enjoyed it for centuries, THEN there's no need for any other songs that speak of these themes.
This is, of course, rather silly. Is it what you're advocating?
If not, then answer my question.
WHY NOT?
========
As to the rest of your nonsense, you're just wrong. Factually wrong. The purpose of the early church meetings is described as edifying the church, building one another up, fellowship. If we find praise in all of that, too, that's fine. I have no problem with praising God (of course). But the Bible doesn't teach us that "praise" is THE PRIMARY purpose of church meetings... or even ONE primary purpose. That is an opinion and you're welcome to it, but it's not from the Bible, literally it's not. If you think it is, you're just factually mistaken.
""if a song brings you closer to God or Jesus in some way, then that's what it does and no one needs to tell you that the song doesn't belong to "Christianity," as if they are the arbiters of Christianity.""
That doesn't answer the question at all. You apply it subjectively as my reference to Ted Nugent demonstrates. Keep in mind that using that was compelled by your history of using the most outrageous and extreme examples to make points of your own, with the exception that mine outrageous and extreme example goes directly to your argument. Who are YOU to decide that a song even more pornographic than Ted's doesn't have spiritual significance to another? I'm not saying it does, but I do know that I've heard some, including a porn actress, express the notion that sexual behavior is for them "a spiritual experience". So you have "rules" for what is appropriate while suggesting I'm wrong for questioning the inclusion of songs like Cohen's. "And thus, if a song is edifying to some members of the congregation" even a song like Nugent's , "what is wrong with it?" It seems you're more than willing to dictate what is appropriate for edification but disagree on the criteria.
Is that really your position? IF a song exists, say from 200 years ago, that already edifies at least some people, encouraging them in their faith, THEN there is NO REASON for other songs?
Please answer.
Nothing I've said anywhere so much as hints such a suggestion. Rather, I've merely questioned the songs you choose to use. Clearly there are many who write/compose Christian music today and there have been discussions as to whether or not they're useful, Biblical, etc. Without question, some absolutely are because they actually teach about or praise God/Jesus unequivocally and unambiguously. So my point had nothing to do with when a song was written, but what the song says.
"The purpose of the early church meetings is described as edifying the church, building one another up, fellowship."
Using another of your favored and disingenuous tactics, I'll simply say that Scripture doesn't say "ONLY" edifying the church, etc. Just like today, they did it all...worship, praise, edify, fellowship, sacraments. Today we call it a "worship service". Scripture clearly describes it as such. You're whining about what term is used to apply to the practice. A far more important distinction between us is your "anything goes" attitude toward how to run such a gathering, while I believe focus on God/Christ is the point.
Dan: Is that really your position? IF a song exists, say from 200 years ago, that already edifies at least some people, encouraging them in their faith, THEN there is NO REASON for other songs?
Marshal... Nothing I've said anywhere so much as hints such a suggestion.
Also Marshal...
If not being a slave to sin,
you can't tell me that there is no standard, existing hymn that doesn't cover being saved
from such a life and does so powerfully, and better yet, putting Christ as the means by which release comes, which is far more necessary for the "building up" of the congregation than any secular song could provide.
It does not say so directly (which is why I asked), but this certainly at the least HINTS at the notion that, IF there's a "standard, existing hymn" that covers the topic.
So, IF a standard existing hymn exists that touches on themes of salvation AND we have a new song that ALSO touches on salvation/freedom from imprisonment AND if it is meaningful/encouraging to some, WHY NOT use this new song?
Beyond your dependence upon "standard, existing hymns," you also cite that it "puts Christ as the means..." but is that a requirement for such a song? Says who? On what basis?
Do you recognize that some people find "standard, existing hymns" to be trite and/or formulaic and/or lacking in artistic voice and, given that, find the song distracting, rather than encouraging to one's walk. Who says it MUST say Jesus or God? The author of Esther would beg to differ.
Dan... " find some hymns trite and formulaic..."
And just to be clear, by my saying this, that is not me saying that we should do away with these hymns or not use them. I'm saying we use the hymns and songs and poetry that serve to build up the body and edify the church, as is demonstrated in the writings about the New Testament Church. If Amazing Grace is Meaningful to you and build you up, I encourage that song to be played at your church. If I shall be redeemed is Meaningful, then play that. The point is the edification of church.
"It does not say so directly (which is why I asked), but this certainly at the least HINTS at the notion that, IF there's a "standard, existing hymn" that covers the topic."
The "age" of a song is not the point. An "existing" song doesn't have to be 200 years old. It could be very recently composed. Indeed, Christian songs and hymns are composed all the time. The criteria, however, extends to Christian songs as well, as there are quite a few contemporary songs that are hardly worth the time for how little they say. Some seem to be accepted on the flimsiest criteria of simply mentioning Christ or God. That is, there's no "meat". (Imagine a song that simply repeats "Jesus, Jesus, Jesus" over and over with nothing else said throughout.)
"So, IF a standard existing hymn exists that touches on themes of salvation AND we have a new song that ALSO touches on salvation/freedom from imprisonment AND if it is meaningful/encouraging to some, WHY NOT use this new song?"
If the new song contains that which I've mentioned as essential elements of a Christian song, there's no reason not to use it. But you seem to think that ANY song that has "freedom from imprisonment" is appropriate simply because it speaks of "freedom from imprisonment". How does that build up the body of Christ without any reference to Christ being the means of one's release? Being "meaningful/encouraging" is not equal to edification or building up since those terms are in reference to increasing one's knowledge and understanding of Christ and why He's important. So, IF a non-religious song is presented, the point of doing so MUST be to make some connection to Christian teaching, i.e. to illustrate a Christian principle.
This "meaningful" criteria seems clearly to be "me" focused, rather than Christ focused. For the former, go seek counseling.
"Beyond your dependence upon "standard, existing hymns," you also cite that it "puts Christ as the means..." but is that a requirement for such a song? Says who? On what basis?"
It's a Christian service/gathering, isn't it? What other basis do you need to focus on Christ in such a setting? How do you possibly justify omitting ANYTHING if you can't bring yourself to focus on Christ in a Christian service?
"Do you recognize that some people find "standard, existing hymns" to be trite and/or formulaic and/or lacking in artistic voice and, given that, find the song distracting, rather than encouraging to one's walk."
Sounds like a personal problem, and indeed a serious one. It's like being bored by, "oh geez! We gotta recite the Lord's Prayer AGAIN!!!???" If the selection of that "trite" song is due to its Scriptural soundness, then it is in keeping with the proper understanding of "building up", which is to better one's understanding of Christ and His purpose.
"Who says it MUST say Jesus or God? The author of Esther would beg to differ."
Without getting too deep in the weeds on this point, everything I read on why the Book of Esther is included in the Bible agrees on the same basic point...that the fact that God isn't mentioned was intentional, to illustrate how God is at work regardless. Such commentaries reference a couple of things Mordecai says that makes this point. Thus, it still focuses on God without mentioning Him specifically. I'll leave you to investigate this for yourself. Simply google "why is the Book of Esther in the Bible" and you'll find all manner of explanation.
With this in mind, you can't use Esther to defend your position, unless the composer of a song you like has explicitly stated he had the same intention...to refer to God obliquely. At least in such a case, a minister could explain the song to any who wonder about its use in the service.
I want to make the point about "edification" again. It means to instruct and improve in moral and religious KNOWLEDGE. A song being "meaningful" must do that if it has any value at a Christian service/gathering. Such a song is "meaningful" because it does that specifically. To put it more simply, it's like explaining a joke. A good joke doesn't need to be explained. Everyone gets it. The same is true with a song being "edifying". If the connection must be explained, it isn't truly edifying in and of itself.
Marshal... Sounds like a personal problem, and indeed a serious one.
So, not finding a given older hymn to be meaningful is a "personal problem" but not finding a song as powerful and beautiful as "Come Healing" to be meaningful is okay? Because... why?
I didn't say anything about finding a song trite due to its Scriptural soundness (or not). By trite, I mean just lacking in a pleasing artistic aesthetic and conveying a message in a meaningful way.
This can, of course, vary from person to person. I fully recognize what one person finds meaningful and inspiring and educational may not be found the same way by another person. Which is why I support variety and not just a select number of old songs and naught else. IF someone finds "Come Healing" meaningful and edifying, why would I oppose it? For what reasonable, biblical reason would I oppose it?
So, given these lyrics...
O gather up the brokenness
And bring it to me now
The fragrance of those promises
You never dared to vow
The splinters that you carry
The cross you left behind
Come healing of the body
Come healing of the mind
...and your suggestion that edifying should instruct and improve upon moral and religious knowledge, why is the instruction about gathering up our brokenness and bringing it forward not fit that definition?
Here's the thing, you appear to want to say that your list of requirements for "meaningful" songs appropriate for church" MUST include some specific mention of God, or Jesus... or maybe something biblical-ish...
but why? On what basis? WHERE does God tell you that this is a requirement for a song played in a church meeting?
THESE are the questions you have yet to answer.
And yes, I'm familiar with the various explanations that some humans have offered as to why Esther should be in the Bible. The fact remains, it is IN the Bible, there is NO mention of God in the text, and NO INSISTENCE within the text that it was written with the intention to illustrate God is at work. NOT in the text.
So, given THAT reality, if Esther's author can pass on this story and IF people can find it meaningful in a variety of ways, including the notion that "God is at work..." then WHY CAN'T Come Healing also teach the notion that God is at work within the community of faith?
That, too, is a question you have not answered.
Please answer.
As to this... A good joke doesn't need to be explained. Everyone gets it. The same is true with a song being "edifying". If the connection must be explained, it isn't truly edifying in and of itself.
Explained to who, though? We can play/sing "Come Healing" at our church and 90% of the people will GET the connection to God and the Beloved Community. Is it possible that SOME people don't get it (beyond the children)? Perhaps. But then, some people don't get "Bringing in the Sheaves..." (a traditional hymn that uses ancient farming terminology). If someone doesn't get it, then why not explain it to them? Why is THAT not edifying?
Please answer.
"So, not finding a given older hymn to be meaningful is a "personal problem" but not finding a song as powerful and beautiful as "Come Healing" to be meaningful is okay? Because... why?"
I never said your song wasn't meaningful. Who knows what some people find meaningful and why? My position is what is appropriate for a Christian service and why.
"I didn't say anything about finding a song trite due to its Scriptural soundness (or not). By trite, I mean just lacking in a pleasing artistic aesthetic and conveying a message in a meaningful way."
"Meaningful" is subjective. If the meaning is lost or not understood, that's what teachers are for. But if the song is sound from a Scriptural perspective, that takes priority over whether or not its artistically pleasing. If one needs to be entertained in order to attend a Christian service, then one doesn't understand the purpose of a Christian service. This notion once again makes it about the person rather than God...which makes it a personal problem.
" Which is why I support variety and not just a select number of old songs and naught else."
It's not about the age of the song. I quite certain I clarified that.
"IF someone finds "Come Healing" meaningful and edifying, why would I oppose it? "
If someone finds "Wang Dang Sweet Poontang" meaningful and edifying, why would you oppose it? It doesn't matter if anyone actually would. It goes to your criteria of "whatever floats your boat". My criteria for song selection is strictly focused on God and His Word. What could possibly be more meaningful than that for a Christian service? How could anything be more meaningful for one who ostensibly is attending for His sake? What's wrong with your church teachers and elders that they can't get your people to understand the meaningfulness of Scripture that it must allow that which doesn't focus on it?
"..and your suggestion that edifying should instruct and improve upon moral and religious knowledge, why is the instruction about gathering up our brokenness and bringing it forward not fit that definition?"
How does it, exactly?
"WHERE does God tell you that this is a requirement for a song played in a church meeting?"
You keep asking this as if you need such a thing in order to know better. That doesn't speak well of you at all. It's a dodge and a cheap rationalization to keep reverting to this lame tactic. Do you need someone to tell you to love your children? Do you need a rule to force you to be a good employee?
"The fact remains, it is IN the Bible, there is NO mention of God in the text, and NO INSISTENCE within the text that it was written with the intention to illustrate God is at work. NOT in the text."
This is similar and in the same vein as the immediately previous response. No amount of scholarly teaching and tradition matters to you if it confounds your efforts to further your agenda or position. The fact remains, most commentaries state the reason for including it is as I have mentioned. I'm not up for moving to this tangent as if it closes the deal for you. It doesn't and is irrelevant to the discussion.
"WHY CAN'T Come Healing also teach the notion that God is at work within the community of faith?
That, too, is a question you have not answered."
Yes I did. I said that the difference is in the intention of the author/composer to make that point or not. The scholarly interpretation of Esther states that it is with the Esther story. Where does any of your composers/authors state that about the pieces you choose to include in your services? It seems you just infer what you choose to infer and that's good enough...so long as it's a piece to which you don't personally object, such as the Nugent song. Very subjective.
"Explained to who, though? We can play/sing "Come Healing" at our church and 90% of the people will GET the connection to God and the Beloved Community."
Oh, really? Explain it. I'll wager that your explanation will be an incredibly subjective stretch of a type one could probably make for just about any song.
"If someone doesn't get it, then why not explain it to them? Why is THAT not edifying?
Please answer."
This question crosses over to the other issue...that of using the secular to illustrate how a Scriptural teaching can be applied in every day life. Ministers do this often during sermons preceded by saying something along the lines of, "This reminds me of a time..." or "Something like this happened to me the other day...", then goes on to explain some non-Scriptural episode that parallels the point of the sermon on the day's Scriptural message.
But to then say, "So let's all sing together 'Wang Dang Sweet Poontang'" is not appropriate.
Marshal, talking with you is impossible.
I said that the difference is in the intention of the author/composer to make that point or not.
BUT WHO SAYS that the "intent of the author to make that point" is what should or should not make a song suitable for inclusion in a church service?
WHO SAYS THAT?
DID GOD TELL YOU THAT?
No, God did not.
Does the bible tell you that?
No, the bible does not.
So, on what BASIS is this a requirement/should this be done according to YOUR PERSONAL HUMAN CRITERIA?
The scholarly interpretation of Esther states that it is with the Esther story. Where does any of your composers/authors state that about the pieces you choose to include in your services?
The AUTHOR of Esther has not told you that. And again, WHO SAYS that the authors' had to intend for you to find a bit of art inspiring to your christian walk?
Answer, NO ONE. It's a criteria you've pulled entirely from your ass.
Which is fine if you're fine with that, but you should be clear about the source of your ass-umptions.
Explain it.
The first verse of Come Healing...
O gather up the brokenness
And bring it to me now
The fragrance of those promises
You never dared to vow
The splinters that you carry
The cross you left behind
Come healing of the body
Come healing of the mind
We are, at times, a broken people. ALL of us are, including we who follow Christ. The notion of broken-ness and struggle with oppression/depression/sickness/poverty IS A CORE TEACHING of Jesus. Jesus said, "COME UNTO ME ALL WHO ARE WEARY AND HEAVY LADEN..." This song is saying something similar. Jesus told us to love and support one another. This verse is saying much the same.
That the "Bring it to me now" might have been intended by the author to "bring it to me, your friend..." or "me, your community" as opposed to bringing it to Jesus doesn't mean that it's not meaningful to Christians. Bringing our cares to the body of Christ is not significantly different than bringing our cares to Jesus privately in prayer, for instance. The church IS the body of Christ on earth. Bringing our brokenness to one another is SO powerful for those experiencing pain and brokenness. So, again, on what basis does this not meet your preferences?
I GET that it doesn't say (and maybe didn't mean, to the author) "bring it to Jesus" but bringing it to the Beloved Community IS bringing it to Jesus, for we who meet as the body of Christ. It's a distinction without a difference.
So, I'm finished with you on this. You've never said a single thing beyond, "Well, I don't like it, so it shouldn't be done... I, MARSHAL, have decided that if the author didn't intend to speak of Jesus, then the song should not be used in church. Jesus didn't tell me that. God didn't tell me that. The Bible doesn't tell me that. The early church doesn't tell me that. It's a hunch I pulled from my ass and I would like to establish it as my own personal Ass Rule for all who will heed my command..."
Follow your own rules if you want, but you can't seriously expect people to heed your rules pulled from your ass based on your say so, alone.
What you've said about me and my position and how I arrived at it is nothing at all like my position and how I arrived at it...even after I explained my position and how I arrived at it. And then to say I merely "pulled it out of my ass" is clearly false, though a typical example of how you "embrace grace".
In the meantime, you haven't done squat to explain where Scripture bestows upon you the authority and/or liberty to include any old song in a Christisn service under the flimsy pretext that for someone it's "meaningful", BUT ONLY IF YOU AGREE!! All you're doing is that which you do with Scripture itself, which is to do what you want regardless. You once again depend on ambiguity to cover your self-centered rather than God/Jesus centered desires. Your entire argument in this last comment of yours is proof of that.
I'm going to get more specific with the (intentional?) problems with this last comment of yours when I'm off work, because I'm not finished with YOU, particularly since you've basically lied about my position and how I arrived at it.
Don't tell me you haven't answer. Show me you have an answer.
From all that I can see, your answer is simply trust from your own ass. If God has told you what the rules are for having a song or poem in church, please share. If you are making it up yourself, please admit that.
Nothing more.
No more comments beyond that. Proof of where God told you these rules or an admission that they're your own rules.
Look, clearly to you, it makes sense to you that songs and poems that happen at church should be written by Christians or somehow connected to God in your particular Faith tradition. That's what makes sense to you.
I get that. It would have been true of me at one point in time.
Just admit that. That's all I'm saying. This is your preference, your rule. At the same time, the Bible offers no such guidelines for songs within church services. There are no rules about what is and isn't appropriate in a church meeting. Which is not to say did everything is appropriate. I'm not saying that. I'm just saying this is your own rule, your own guideline, your own preference. Not even God has told you. That's just the reality of it all. Can you admit to that reality?
"Marshal, talking with you is impossible."
I'm sorry truth and logic is so difficult for you.
"BUT WHO SAYS that the "intent of the author to make that point" is what should or should not make a song suitable for inclusion in a church service?
WHO SAYS THAT?
DID GOD TELL YOU THAT?"
Again with this nonsensical angle. There are two problems here:
1st, that you need to be told to make God/Christ the focus of all that you do in a Christian service. If you are sincere in your desire to "build up" your fellow Jeff Steeters, then it becomes a question of what you mean by "build up" or "edify". It's pretty clear that Paul uses the terms to denote instructing congregants about Christ and His Message, not about how congregants feel about themselves.
2nd, this angle is hypocritical as you've ironically held the position that God doesn't need to tell you not to murder to know that it's wrong, or to love others to know that's what you should be doing. Now you need God to tell you what songs are most appropriate for services that are presumably centered around Him. Amazing. Seems one who claims to be devoted to Him wouldn't need to be told how to worship, praise, show reverence to Him or keep Him the focus in such a service. Of course, that's how it generally works in a Christian service.
"So, on what BASIS is this a requirement/should this be done according to YOUR PERSONAL HUMAN CRITERIA?"
It's a Christian service, the focus of which is...for most of us Christians...Christ/God, not ourselves.
"The AUTHOR of Esther has not told you that."
No. Every reputable Biblical scholar commenting on that Book has. There's no parallel between the Book of Esther and any of the secular songs you favor for your "gatherings".
"And again, WHO SAYS that the authors' had to intend for you to find a bit of art inspiring to your christian walk?"
So, are you now saying that it doesn't matter what Nugent's intentions were so long as someone in the congregation finds it meaningful? I really don't know what provokes this question. I'm saying songs appropriate ARE intended for the purpose of praise and worship of God. There's no mystery or any ambiguity about it upon which you so strongly depend.
"It's a criteria you've pulled entirely from your ass."
No. That's clearly your methodology. My criteria come from my heart, mind and reverence for God/Christ that demand a bit more than keeping congregants entertained.
"The notion of broken-ness and struggle with oppression/depression/sickness/poverty IS A CORE TEACHING of Jesus."
Really? Cite the specific passage that covers this "core teaching".
"Jesus said, "COME UNTO ME ALL WHO ARE WEARY AND HEAVY LADEN..." This song is saying something similar."
Only if you stretch Christ's words beyond what He meant in the verse. It spoke of the people being weighed down by adherence to the Law, and particularly those additions created by the Pharisees. Trying to be right with God was especially difficult under those conditions. Christ offered Himself as a better way to God than the Law. It also referred to one's guilt and how to crawl out from under that burden. The Law also confounded such attempts, while Jesus offered Himself for that purpose.
"Jesus told us to love and support one another. This verse is saying much the same."
You're now conflating two disparate teachings. To suppose my support for my fellow man equates to finding rest in Christ is rather absurd.
"Bringing our brokenness to one another is SO powerful for those experiencing pain and brokenness."
Exactly what kind of "pain and brokenness" are you referencing? There's a huge difference between having a shoulder to cry on over some personal problem versus wrestling with the knowledge that one is a sinner in need of salvation.
"I GET that it doesn't say (and maybe didn't mean, to the author) "bring it to Jesus" but bringing it to the Beloved Community IS bringing it to Jesus, for we who meet as the body of Christ. It's a distinction without a difference."
The hell you say! Do you believe non-Christians don't offer their shoulders to comfort other non-Christians with burdensome issues? There's a HUGE difference!
But all this strays from the point, which is how we choose songs for Christian services. You still haven't made ANY case for accepting what you accept versus denying what you won't! So far, all you've said is something along the lines of, "No one would consider Nugent's song appropriate." But that isn't an answer. It's just you crappin on the very same type of extreme example you employ with abandon where it suits you to do so. Personally, I indeed wouldn't expect anyone would suggest Nugent's tune. But YOU'RE the one who used "if someone finds it meaningful" then the song is a go. That's a pretty weak standard considering all the types of music possible. Totally subjective.
"So, I'm finished with you on this. You've never said a single thing beyond..."
...and then you go on with a load of crap that doesn't in the least reflect anything I've said on the subject. It IS, however, what you need to believe...clearly...since in turn, you have no criteria at all but whatever floats your boat. MY criteria clearly reflects a reverence and honoring of God...given the whole gathering is because of and about Him...and a TRUE understanding of what "edifying" and "building up" means in the context of a Christian service. And actually, that is indeed what the early church was doing as well. But because Scripture isn't absolutely specific about it in such a way that denies your exploitation of that ambiguity, you pretend otherwise. Clearly, you Jeff Streeters can do whatever the hell you like and call it Christian. Good luck with that. You clearly cite Scripture when it suits you, when you can force meaning that works for you and carve out loopholes to allow for just about anything. Real Christians will deny themselves rather than take foolish chances with displeasing God. But I know God has to do things your way in order for Him to expect you'll give a darn about Him.
So go ahead and pretend I haven't made my case. There's nothing in Scripture that compels you to do anything, as your rejection of God's clear position on homosexual behavior demonstrates. I look to see what Scripture teaches. You look to see what you make Scripture mean.
"Look, clearly to you, it makes sense to you that songs and poems that happen at church should be written by Christians or somehow connected to God in your particular Faith tradition."
And among the questions you have yet to answer is, why would any true Christian do it any other way? You've offered nothing to justify your choices except your own anal extractions. Mine reflect what Scripture DOES say and doesn't take liberties based on what it doesn't.
So, I asked...
"BUT WHO SAYS that the "intent of the author to make that point" is what should or should not make a song suitable for inclusion in a church service?
WHO SAYS THAT?
DID GOD TELL YOU THAT?"
And you give a WHOLE lot of words that say, if I'm reading correctly, "NO one tells me that. These ideas of mine are MY ideas, there is literally NOT A SINGLE LINE IN ALL THE BIBLE that establishes these rules I'm making up. God has NOT EVER told me this. It's simply what makes sense TO ME (and those who think like me).
Got it. That's fine. I wish you would just understand that and state that more clearly.
Marshal... "among the questions you have yet to answer is, why would any true Christian do it any other way? You've offered nothing to justify your choices except your own anal extractions..."
Grace, Marshall. One word, grace. You see, many of us don't live under a god of rules but a god of Grace. If Amazing Grace is Meaningful to you and build you up, I support you using it in your Church meetings. If come healing is meaningful to you and builds you up, I support you using that in your service.
Why? Because I have no reason not to. Because Grace. Because why the hell not?
Marshal... "all this strays from the point, which is how we choose songs for Christian services. You still haven't made ANY case for accepting what you accept versus denying what you won't!"
Here's the thing, Marshall. I grew up in this world that you're talkin about here. This world of rules, of impropriety and propriety, and of regulations made up based on human assumptions. And then calling those human assumptions "what's only right according to God," conflating those human assumptions with God's word. I'm familiar with the Pharisaical way of doing things, I grew up in that.
But not all Christians live that way. Some of us Embrace Grace. We Embrace freedom.
If there's not a reason to forbid something, then it's not forbidden. If it causes harm, like secondhand smoke, then that's a reason to say, hey let's not smoke in church. But if it doesn't cause harm, like "let's listen to come healinf, that reminds me of God's Grace and love," then there's no reason not to do that.
It causes no harm, it's not forbidden anywhere, it does have the effect of building people up... why not do it? You see, that's what living under grace is like.
I grew up in southern baptist land, ultra-conservative Southern Baptist land. We didn't play cards because some men decided that that would not be pleasing to God. We didn't dance because some men decided that wouldn't be pleasing to God. We didn't use electric guitars or sing "non church" songs because some men decided that wouldn't please God. It was all based on assumptions of humans and those assumptions were then elevated to being equivalent to God, but not based upon any rule given to us by God or by reason.
I choose Grace.
For you, Dan, because you read scripture closely and with Christ in your heart; and to your point, any hymn or music may edify when brought to build up the community.
What should be done then, my friends?[c] When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up.
Seems pretty clear, eh?
Pretty clear? In what way can you defend the notion that Paul was including the secular for the purpose of "building up"? I don't believe you understand the meaning of the term. You'd have to engage in your well-known practice of stretching a verse beyond all meaning in order to make that defense. It would be interesting to see either of you make the case that feo's offering refers to anything NOT God-centered, but includes secular things as well. Good luck with that.
So let's go over your main objections:
1. God has not told me.
I never said He had to. I DID say, more than once I believe, that my position is based on the things like reverence for God, the primary purposes of a Sunday service and things of that nature. I choose songs that are based directly on Scripture because the point of the service is Christ/God...NOT me or any other congregant. If we're truly talking about "building up" in the sense Paul used it, it's about informing, teaching and strengthening our knowledge of God and His Word. Songs in church are for the purpose of praise, worship and teaching. Yeah, this is not something God says specifically, but as links I've offered clearly show, reverence for God is expected and any Christian who truly is devoted to Him would do no less in the selection of songs for service.
2. Nothing is the Bible says...
Nonsense. Nothing in the Bible suggests the possibility of secular songs for worship services. All that Scripture does describe suggests songs and hymns that, like the Temple services upon which the early church based theirs, are based on Scripture. This isn't as ambiguous as you need it to be in order to make your case.
3. What's wrong with it?
It doesn't point to God/Christ. If your songs don't specifically point to Him as the means by which whatever message you think it expresses, then it can point wherever the listener "finds meaning".
4. If people find it meaningful....
That's purely subjective and you've yet to explain why the Nugent song can't be among them. Who are you to say what is or isn't meaningful? Yet as a church leader or elder, why would I leave it up to whomever decides they like a song they find personally meaningful when the elders have the entire congregation to consider? Elders are put in place to lead, not to be told how to lead. Building up the knowledge of God and His Will is their duty and they fail in that by wasting time with songs that don't accomplish that goal.
You want to pretend that I'm without Biblical basis for my position despite my having offered numerous links for the very purpose. But that's not unexpected. Just as you reject Scripture you don't like, rejecting Scriptural bases for my positions are no more difficult for you to reject. But like your rejection of "interpretations" you don't like, you once again fail to provide a logical, coherent alternative understanding for anything I've presented. Indeed, you rely on "hunches" of an incredibly weak and self-serving sort, while falsely accusing those like myself of doing likewise.
In answer to the question "why would any true Christian do it any other way?", you fall back on your ambiguous and undefined "grace", as if that's an actual answer. Truth to tell, it's an answer of a type you'd NEVER accept from me as it says nothing. You could just as easily have said, "Chair. Because Chair. Why the hell not?"
And again, as far as "why the hell not" when choosing songs, it's because it ain't about what's meaningful to me or you or anyone else. It's about Christ and learning about Him and praising and worshiping Him. What could possibly be more meaningful to anyone? Why would or should anyone want more from a Christian Sunday service? All of the personal stuff can be...and should be...handled outside of Sunday service so as to devote all attention on Him...as it should be.
"Here's the thing, Marshall. I grew up in this world that you're talkin about here."
Here's the thing, Dan. Based on years of evidence that your understandings are horribly flawed, childish and self-serving, I'm not impressed with tales of what you think the world in which you grew up was all about. I doubt your understanding was any better about that world than is your understanding about today's world.
"But not all Christians live that way. Some of us Embrace Grace. We Embrace freedom."
Not at all Biblical, if by that you're referring to an understanding of Scripture and the Christian faith. Indeed, it flies in the face of New Testament teachings regarding discernment, error and Jesus teaching His Way. Again, if your "embrace of freedom" is consistent, then it would allow for Nugent, Trump (your view of them) and others who stretch Christian teaching into far more outlandish "understandings" than even yours. Your "embrace of freedom" is simply "anything goes" to whatever extent necessary to believe as you choose, rather than as you should...but ONLY as YOU choose.
"But if it doesn't cause harm, like "let's listen to come healinf, that reminds me of God's Grace and love," then there's no reason not to do that. "
Once again you clearly indulge in self-serving subjectivity. And with "harm" that's been demonstrated multiple times in past discussions. Here, you ignore spiritual harm that including secular works might bring about. My position of focusing on God/Christ/Scripture prevents such harms as there is no harm in God. You are clearly not wise enough to make such determinations.
" It was all based on assumptions of humans and those assumptions were then elevated to being equivalent to God, but not based upon any rule given to us by God or by reason."
It was based on their devotion to pleasing God, I would wager. You base your nonsense on what's pleasing to you and those who find secular songs "meaningful". I'd side with your alleged conservative "Baptist Land" men any day over you and your "anything goes", whatever pleases ME policies. You choose the self...not "grace".
Seems crystal clear.
Paul, to the Church of Corinth - only three years old at this point, and before there was gathered Christian scripture - “What should be done then, my friends? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation.”
Marshal wants proof that no person whatsoever brought a hymn to the community that was secular. Bear in mind that there was no Christian hymnal from which to pick a hymn. And the minority of Corinth’s Christians were Jews; the majority were Greek speaking Gentiles, not well off. So the Jews could presumably bring a cherished synagogue hymn. The assorted gentiles... I wonder if Marshal thinks hymns to the Sun or to Mithras is preferable to secular dong? Either way, good ole gospel hymns weren’t the usual.
But secular is not what Stan originally chose. What Dan finds edifying. Marshal wants to move the goalposts. He’d rather us forget that Cohen, an observant Jew, sings his song, “Hallelujah.” Marshal tried to lie his way past his ignorance of the Letter to the Corinthians. Yet another in a long line of occasions were his reliance on helicopter engineers for biblical knowledge leaves a gaping vacuum of swirling bullshit.
Paul recommends that Corinthian Christians bring an edifying hymn. The Jewish Christians, formerly synagogue goers, may we’ll have brought something by a Cohen to the gathering.
Marshal...
In what way can you defend the notion that Paul was including the secular for the purpose of "building up"?
and...
Nothing in the Bible suggests the possibility of secular songs for worship services.
Provide some support, please, for the notion of separating out "sacred" and "secular," especially as it has to do with "rules" for what songs to use in church meetings.
It is my understanding (and I could be mistaken, but don't think I am) that notions of sacred/secular and a division of the sort you are speaking of are a medieval invention, not part of the Bible's teachings.
Instead of "This is secular, this hymn, this psalm, the "praise song..."" and "THAT is secular, that rock song, that country song, that book..." I think the more rational and Christian way of thinking about it is, "THIS is helpful, it builds up, it edifies, it strengthens, it challenges, it encourages..." and "THAT is harmful, it divides, it destroys, it sickens..."
THAT is what I would rely upon for "rules of edification," if I felt a need for rules.
WHY does this seem reasonable to me (beyond how incredibly obviously reasonable it is)? Well, Jesus offered fairly "secular" (i.e., having to do with the regular work world) parables to teach lessons. Consider the shepherd... Consider the rich man who cheated his employees... consider the widow who was persistent... There's nothing overtly "sacred" about those stories, in the sense you probably mean.
Also, for what it's worth, the word sacred doesn't show up in KJV and in other translations, it's primarily an OT word and some portion (1/2?) of those are referring to the "sacred pillars" of false religions, so it's not a good thing.
Again, to get to the questions that you dodge: Where does the early church say that there is such a thing as a distinction between sacred and secular and that we ought not use "secular" songs/art in our services?
Can you admit the simple reality that this is not in the NT?
To your attempts to sort of answer something close to my questions...
1. I DID say, more than once I believe, that my position is based on the things like reverence for God, the primary purposes of a Sunday service and things of that nature. I choose songs that are based directly on Scripture because the point of the service is Christ/God...NOT me or any other congregant.
So, it is YOUR OPINION based upon YOUR FEELINGS and IDEAS, not anything that God has told you. Not anything that the Bible says. For YOU, YOU FEEL like songs should have what feels like TO YOU to be "reverence." If it doesn't feel "reverent" TO YOU, then YOU DON'T approve. But it's NOT what God or the Bible tell you, because they have not given you a rule about songs.
Is that right?
2. Here, you ignore spiritual harm that including secular works might bring about. My position of focusing on God/Christ/Scripture prevents such harms as there is no harm in God. You are clearly not wise enough to make such determinations.
So, YOU FEAR that a "secular" song (your determination, NOT something from God or the Bible) might maybe perhaps somehow "might bring about" some vague and unstated "harm," so, to play it safe, YOU would like to choose songs that, FOR YOU, feel "reverent" and somehow directly mention God or Jesus or something like that. But it's YOUR rule for YOU, not something from the Bible or based on any real harm that you can support, just your fear that MAYBE it "might" cause some vague harm that you can't prove.
Is that right?
3. It doesn't point to God/Christ. If your songs don't specifically point to Him as the means by which whatever message you think it expresses, then it can point wherever the listener "finds meaning".
3a. Who SAYS a song like "come healing" doesn't point to God? Because it doesn't point YOU to God, for YOU PERSONALLY? For YOU PERSONALLY, if a song doesn't specifically, literally "point to God," then you don't have a way within you to find God within a song. Fine, then FOR YOU, perhaps songs like "come healing" are not the most edifying. And yet, for others, it is.
Much the same way that a sunset does not IN ANY WAY directly, literally specifically "point to God" and yet for someone like me, I can't see a sunset or hear "come healing" without seeing God. So, for people like me, it IS edifying in a Christian and spiritual way.
And STILL, there is no rule that states that IF a song doesn't edify Marshal, specifically, then it shouldn't be used in church.
Is that right?
3B. What is wrong with someone "finding meaning" in something vague and still beautiful, and thus, being edified by something that doesn't specifically point to God in a way that you approve of?
"Provide some support, please, for the notion of separating out "sacred" and "secular," especially as it has to do with "rules" for what songs to use in church meetings."
I did. You rejected it all because your position doesn't hold up otherwise.
"It is my understanding (and I could be mistaken, but don't think I am) that notions of sacred/secular and a division of the sort you are speaking of are a medieval invention, not part of the Bible's teachings."
Upon what do you base this alleged understanding? I would wager the opposite is true, more specifically, that there was never any consideration of using anything secular for Christian services until very recently in history....like the last 50 years.
"I think the more rational and Christian way of thinking about it is..."
Funny how you think YOU get to determine what constitutes "rational", and how it...in a very self-serving way...legitimizes anything you need legitimized. It's certainly not "more Christian" to bring in non-Christian music into a Christian service. That's absurd and clearly so.
""THAT is harmful, it divides, it destroys, it sickens...""
So now you're saying restricting one's choices to that which is God/Christ/Scripture focused is somehow harmful, divisive, destructive and sickening? How's that work, exactly?
"THAT is what I would rely upon for "rules of edification," if I felt a need for rules."
Not at all surprised your rules would say nothing about God/Christ/Scripture.
"Well, Jesus offered fairly "secular" (i.e., having to do with the regular work world) parables to teach lessons."
What an incredibly idiotic attempt! Christ was using real world scenarios to explain "Christian" concepts and teachings. In other words, He was making a comparison to that which is easily understandable to the listeners of His time in order for them to understand the concepts He was imparting to them. (This goes to my point about the legitimacy of using secular examples for the same purpose.
But songs sung by the congregation aren't accomplishing that goal. Citing the song by the pastor...even yours...to make a point about a Christian teaching is NOT the same as encouraging all to sing it during a service. Such songs do NOT teach Christian concepts by themselves. Christian songs do. That secular songs might mirror Christian concepts doesn't mean they are teaching Christian concepts. That requires the connection be made by a teacher. I have no problem with that...but I STILL wouldn't concede that makes the song an appropriate choice for a group sing during Sunday service.
"Where does the early church say that there is such a thing as a distinction between sacred and secular and that we ought not use "secular" songs/art in our services?"
You ask these questions as if they're honest attempts to reason, rather than what they are...cheap rejections of my more logical and reverent criteria. So I ask again, what is the purpose of your "gatherings"? If it to make people feel good, then you certainly don't need God for that. In my church, the gatherings on Sunday are to praise and worship God, and to teach about Him...what Paul meant by "edifying" or "building up".
The links I provided earlier give a far better description of early church services than what you're trying to pretend was the case just so you can sing Chuck Berry's "My Ding-a-ling".
"Can you admit the simple reality that this is not in the NT?"
Again with this nonsense. It doesn't have to say such a thing. One would think a real Christian would not need such specific, elementary direction. But then, evidently God doesn't rank in your church, does He?
"So, it is YOUR OPINION based upon YOUR FEELINGS and IDEAS, not anything that God has told you."
Only if you ignore those references I cited to God's desire to be properly revered. He is the Supreme Being and all.
"For YOU, YOU FEEL like songs should have what feels like TO YOU to be "reverence." "
And therein lies another stark difference between those like yourself and actual Christians. We don't act on "feelings", but on truth, fact, logic, etc. drawn from an honest reading of Scripture. We don't "feel" that a verse speaks of "some form" of a prohibited behavior. We see clearly that it simply prohibits the behavior...which is how honest people respond. Either a song expresses reverence for God/Christ, teaches specifically about God/Christ, actually give Him praise...or it doesn't.
"So, YOU FEAR that a "secular" song (your determination, NOT something from God or the Bible) might maybe perhaps somehow "might bring about" some vague and unstated "harm," so, to play it safe, YOU would like to choose songs that, FOR YOU, feel "reverent" and somehow directly mention God or Jesus or something like that. But it's YOUR rule..."
Not so much a "rule", but simply common sense. It's a Christian service. Songs should reflect that.
But while Scripture clearly does present us with rules for living a Christian life, it is crystal clear that you are an example of why rule are necessary. But rules mean you can't do whatever the hell you want. They mean church ain't a "come as you are" party where you sing "99 Bottles of Beer on the Wall" because some jackwagon finds it meaningful. OH, and HEY! Let's say something about that Christ fella, just to feel all holy-like!
"Who SAYS a song like "come healing" doesn't point to God? Because it doesn't point YOU to God, for YOU PERSONALLY?"
Clearly you're saying exactly what I've been insisting, that you choose based on what someone personally finds satisfying, rather than on whether or not the song is truly edifying. YOU think "Come Healing" is close enough, so it passes YOUR rules for inclusion. In the meantime, YOU reject Nugent's song because in YOUR opinion, no one would find it "meaningful". Forked tongue, anyone?
"Much the same way that a sunset does not IN ANY WAY directly, literally specifically "point to God" and yet for someone like me, I can't see a sunset or hear "come healing" without seeing God."
Thanks. I just threw up a bit in my mouth. Pretentious much? You wouldn't see God anywhere in anything if you weren't raised in a Christian culture. At the same time, you CHOOSE to see God there and not in Nugent's song or any other song that YOUR rules would deny inclusion...and to hell with what anyone else might feel. Again, virtually talking out both sides of your virtual mouth.
"And STILL, there is no rule that states that IF a song doesn't edify Marshal, specifically, then it shouldn't be used in church."
And STILL, you pretend you have no rules of your own for deciding what songs to include in your "gatherings". You just aren't honest enough to admit it, and less so that those rules don't consider reverence for God as a primary consideration.
"What is wrong with someone "finding meaning" in something vague and still beautiful, and thus, being edified by something that doesn't specifically point to God in a way that you approve of? "
The question is irrelevant. I find all sorts of meaning in all sorts of songs I like. Even among those songs with positive and beneficial meaning, they aren't necessarily appropriate or ideal for Sunday service. THAT'S the point here. More importantly, after all these thousands of keystrokes, the fact remains that Cohen's "Hallelujah" isn't a Christian song.
The End.
The early church didn’t have christian songs. They had synagogue songs and religious hymnology from Roman and Eastern religions. Paul said each can bring what they have. Because it is the community that reshapes it as edifying.
Marshal’s biblical Christianity moves by biased whim. There is zero rational system in how he reads scripture because there is zero thought involved.
I never said anything more specific about what songs were used by the early church other than they were specifically religious. Try paying attention.
Paul said nothing that suggests what each could bring was akin to the types of non-religious secular songs as suggested by Dan. Talk about "biased whim". But I'd never suggest either of you read Scripture without thought. You both think hard about how to make Scripture say what you want and need it to say to placate your leftist ideology.
I, on the other hand, read with the internet of learning and understanding GOD'S will and terms, given it's all about Him, not me...and certainly not you.
That should read, "read with the INTENT of learning..."
Marshal: “the fact remains that Cohen's "Hallelujah" isn't a Christian song”
Paul doesn’t care: “ When you come together, each one has a hymn”
It is the community who, by their worship of the living god, makes anything edifying.
Marshal: “I read with INTENT of learning.” Dead wrong.
Intent to be stupidly ignoring what scripture says.
Marshal: “Jesus never mentions the word, grace.” Dead wrong.
“Jesus never taught it.” Dead wrong.
“Jesus never specifically cared about the poor.” Dead wrong.
The hard facts remain:
1. Marshal has NO biblical reason nor has God told Marshal to implement these rules on others. It's just the pharisee in him who would add rules that aren't God's as if they were from God. If he had an ounce of integrity, you'd think he'd just admit what is obvious to all.
2. Songs that edify the body of Christ serve a purpose. What is that purpose? EDIFYING THE BODY OF CHRIST. There are no rules or limits or regulations imposed on this practice in the Bible and it is a tautology that That which is edifying IS EDIFYING.
Case closed, Marshal's done.
It’s also the brutalizing white supremacist in him that gives the lie to his *faith in the *christian foundations he claims when he denies and diverts from scripture itself. Paul to the church in Corinth: “When you come together, each one has a hymn...”
About your "hard facts":
"1. Marshal has NO biblical reason nor has God told Marshal to implement these rules on others. It's just the pharisee in him who would add rules that aren't God's as if they were from God. If he had an ounce of integrity, you'd think he'd just admit what is obvious to all."
I don't know how many times I have to say it...I haven't appealed to any Biblical rule, but to that which the Bible does say, whereas you hang your pointy hat on what it doesn't, because that ambiguity allows you to ignore what Scripture DOES say. What's more, never and nowhere have I stated that my position is a rule, but rather something that actual Christians do, as opposed to what "progressive" "Christians" do. We are compelled by our reverence for God/Christ/Scripture and a better understanding of what a Christian service is all about and should be.
In the meantime, you haven't cited any Biblical reason or revelation from God for selecting secular songs you use while rejecting others like Nugent's. You use subjective and malleable criteria regarding "meaningfulness", but the Pharisee in you sets rules of your own for deciding who's notion of "meaningful" is appropriate. Somehow that seems just a little less formal than me. Hypocrite.
"2. Songs that edify the body of Christ serve a purpose. What is that purpose? EDIFYING THE BODY OF CHRIST. There are no rules or limits or regulations imposed on this practice in the Bible and it is a tautology that That which is edifying IS EDIFYING."
Circular reasoning. You call it edifying and thus it is because you say it is. But you have shown no understanding of what is meant by edifying or building up the church. Songs written to praise or teach about God/Christ/Scripture are edifying in the manner meant by Paul because they "do what edifying is: increasing knowledge of God/Christ/Scripture because they deal specifically with God/Christ/Scripture. My song selections put God/Christ/Scripture first...not myself or any other congregant, all of whom are helped no better by secular songs than they are by the Word of God.
And now you cut me off without actually defending your position nor defeating mine. As usual, you simply reject and dismiss because it exposes the petulance of your position, not because you've found any flaw in mine. The case was closed long ago, but you continued to pretend there's something wrong with my position on the matter and that you have any real justification for using secular songs like Cohen's and the others you've mentioned. There's a distinct "thou doth protest too much" thing happening with your objections. That is, you know your argument is weak.
I'm cutting you off because you have made no case. You stated your opinion as if it were a fact. You have no political reason to insist upon your rules. They are simply your rules. I'm fine with you having your own rules, I'm just saying acknowledge that they your own rules and they're not biblical and they're not from God.
For instance, the slightest suggestion that sounds should be in a manner meant by Paul, as if Paul somehow has suggested your rolls. Paul did not make any suggestions about your rules. Paul said things like it should be edifying or build-up. Who the hell are you to decide what is edifying for someone else? What sort of arrogance do you have?
I know: The arrogance of a Pharisee.
That line should have read you have no biblical reason, Not political reason.
In the second paragraph, it says the slightest suggestion, it should have said you made the suggestion.
"I'm cutting you off because you have made no case."
Nonsense. I've more than made my case, but as I said, you once again simply dismiss and reject the case I made, and that which I cited for support, simply because you can't overcome it...because it exposes your own obvious flaws.
"You stated your opinion as if it were a fact."
Not at all true. You chose to regard my position as fact, though I will say it's an absolute fact that my argument is more in line with what Scripture does say than is yours. Indeed, mine is based on the Scripture, while yours is based on "feelings".
"You have no [biblical] reason to insist upon your rules."
Clearly, the links and citations I've provided show that to be a lie. The question is whether or not you are willing to abide any of what I provided in establishing your rules. That's up to you. You simply lack a coherent argument in defense of your rules for song inclusion.
"I'm fine with you having your own rules, I'm just saying acknowledge that they your own rules and they're not biblical and they're not from God."
Golly, how gracious that you'd allow me and mine to have set appropriate standards for song selection. But to say they're not Biblical is absurd as I have provided links and citations that more than merely suggest otherwise. Again, you reject and dismiss them, like you do any bit of Scripture that is inconvenient to your agenda.
And you DO have rules, as I have pointed out. They are:
1. Is the song "meaningful" to anyone in the congregation.
2. Do I, Dan Trabue, approve based on what I, Dan Trabue, believe.
"For instance, the slightest suggestion that sounds should be in a manner meant by Paul, as if Paul somehow has suggested your rolls."
More than just "made the suggestion" is grammatically problematic here, but I get the gist. Paul has indeed suggested how we, or I if I was in charge, should run a Christian service. I simply don't pretend it's as ambiguous as you always need things to be.
"Paul did not make any suggestions about your rules. Paul said things like it should be edifying or build-up."
You contradict yourself.
"Who the hell are you to decide what is edifying for someone else?"
If I am the one tasked with putting together a Christian service, or overseeing one, I'm the one tasked with determining what is "edifying". It's really that simple. And as I would be held more accountable, the songs I choose would indeed be edifying and up-building, because the Word of God is both, the teachings of Scripture and Christ Himself is both. Your secular songs? Not so much, and definitely not without someone going through contortions to make them so.
Again, using a secular song to make a point about an actual Scripture-base lesson is different from using the song for worship/praise purposes. I'm totally good with the former, and totally opposed to the latter for reasons already clearly expressed exhaustively. The former is the true analogy to Christ's use of parables. The latter is not.
There's not a bit of arrogance in what I say, though there's a ton in you insisting you can pretend I'm somehow in the wrong here. Indeed, it is just the opposite as my position requires total concern for serving, praising and pleasing the Lord. All songs must lead directly to Him, or must teach specifically and directly about Him. Those are the types of songs I would select for my congregation, as those are what actually serves to edify and build up. The problem is that you don't understand those terms.
Fact 1. There are literally ZERO rules in the Bible saying don't use secular songs.
Do you recognize that reality?
You continue to ask a question I've already answered. You continue to ask this question that is wholly irrelevant. You continue to pretend that any Biblical rule would make any damn difference to you.
IF you're claiming that these are "christian" rules, or "rules from God," or "rules from the bible..." then asking you to recognize the very simple and obvious reality that these are NOT rules found in the Bible, NOT rules that God gave you, NOT rules that the early church implemented and NOT rules that Jesus told you about.
If you want to admit that they are simply your personal preferences, no worries. You're welcome to all your personal preferences you want to hold. Just don't expect anyone to go along with your rules for themselves.
Deleting agsin?
Just expecting you to answer questions that are put to you, clearly and directly. If you want to comment here, you can, but you must answer questions that are asked of you because that's how conversation works.
Fact 1. There are literally ZERO rules in the Bible saying don't use secular songs.
Do you recognize that reality?
I don't need any explanations, I just need to know if you recognize reality or not.
As to this... "You continue to pretend that any Biblical rule would make any damn difference to you."
If GOD has a rule for me, then I care deeply. If YOU say, "here's a line in the bible and, I, MARSHAL, am telling you that it means THIS RULE..." no, I don't give a damn about your rules. Just like I don't give a damn about the rules that the Pharisees piled on the backs of people.
In this instance, you have YOUR rules for what makes a song acceptable and I don't give the slightest damn in a pile of shit about your rule. You are welcome to it, FOR YOU, but you can't seriously suggest others ought to care about your rules.
So, the question is, DO YOU RECOGNIZE that it is your own rule that you've made up and absolutely not in the Bible?
It's a reasonable question, please answer.
The corollary, Dan, to your Fact 1, is that critical study of 1 Corinthians concludes that Paul is encouraging this brand new Christian community of some Jews but more Greek speaking Gentile Roman citizens to bring hymns that are not Christian but are brought “for building up.”
Rather than complete silence, there is indisputable Biblical precedence for non-christian hymns.
The biblicist necessarily has to accept this or break the foundation of his faith by turning into a liberal but without the ethics of liberal reading of scripture: I do not accept this biblical claim.
I answered the question repeatedly. Are you that dense? I've never said that there was a rule in the Bible regarding song selection. Why do you keep asking me this idiotic question? If I never said there was such a rule, what makes you think I have a problem understanding this "reality"? Again...are you really this dense?
What's more, I've been freaking crystal clear that I believe a good Christian, who understands what Paul means by "edifying" and/or "building up", chooses songs that focus on the point of the "gathering" of a Sunday service. Those terms refer to educating the people about God/Christ and song selection reflects that for a real Christian...which is why you're struggling so badly with the concept.
And again, "MY" rules for song selection reflect Scripture far better than do YOUR rules because:
1. They are based on what Scripture (Paul in particular) actually says.
2. They result in songs that are based on Scripture and thus actually edify and build up in the manner Paul intends by his use of those terms.
So, I have AGAIN answered your question. Do you have any more that you have waiting up your ass that you can pull out as if they have anything to do with what I've actually said? Aren't you the whiner who complains that others accuse you of saying things you didn't say? And you have the freaking gall to say talking with ME is impossible!!
So here's the thing: Only "progressives" would insist there's a place for secular songs in an allegedly Christian service, because Scripture just isn't good enough for "progressives" who know better than God Himself.
Feodor, good points.
Marshal... " I've never said that there was a rule in the Bible regarding song selection. Why do you keep asking me this idiotic question? If I never said there was such a rule, what makes you think I have a problem understanding this "reality"?"
I never asked you if you said there was a rule. I asked you if you UNDERSTOOD that there were no such rules as what you're suggesting. Simple yes or no. I have a hard time telling if you recognize that reality precisely because you never directly answer the question.
SO, it SOUNDS LIKE you are agreeing with reality and acknowledging, "YES, this is MY RULE that I've made up, not one from the Bible, Jesus or God."
IS THAT RIGHT? Please answer directly.
Marshal, about YOUR PERSONAL PULLED-FROM-YOUR-ASS rules... "They result in songs that are based on Scripture and thus actually edify and build up in the manner Paul intends by his use of those terms."
WHO SAYS that "Paul intends" for songs to be "edifying" in the manner that YOU suggest? WHAT SPECIFICALLY do you think that "Paul intends" and are you a reliable arbiter of Paul's intentions? Says who?
"IS THAT RIGHT? Please answer directly."
Dear Lord give me patience with fools!!! YES, DAN!!! SINCE I NEVER...NOT ONCE!!...EVER SUGGESTED THAT THERE IS ANY STATED RULE IN SCRIPTURE GOVERNING THE SELECTION OF SONGS FOR CHRISTIAN WORSHIP, I CLEARLY, AND WITHOUT THE SENSE THAT I NEED TO ACTUALLY BELABOR THIS RIDICULOUS POINT, OBVIOUSLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY UNDERSTAND THE OBVIOUS!!!
You're an idiot.
"Marshal, about YOUR PERSONAL PULLED-FROM-YOUR-ASS rules..."
I have no such rules. So nice to see you continue to "embrace grace". Fraud.
"WHO SAYS that "Paul intends" for songs to be "edifying" in the manner that YOU suggest?"
Paul does, and I'm certain among my links were citations of Scripture that justify that position. Again, unlike you, I don't need to have things spelled out in exactly the manner that you demand from others in order to see clearly, because I draw from Scripture in order to justify my positions and choices...I don't force meaning that doesn't exist, or abuse what it doesn't say in order to rationalize what I'd prefer.
"WHAT SPECIFICALLY do you think that "Paul intends" and are you a reliable arbiter of Paul's intentions?"
This I've also answered already by explaining what he means by "edify" and "build up". It's no freaking mystery except for those who rely on ambiguity in order to rationalize their self-satisfying choices.
"Says who?"
Paul. Why don't you truly seriously and prayerfully study Scripture for a change, but with the intention of what it ACTUALLY means, rather than what you'd like it to mean.
P.S. The only "point" that feo has is his pointy head. Don't encourage the troll.
Art, too, is a problem for Marshal (pun free of charge) with his no-rules, many laws control about what is allowable in Christian worship. The massive Ghent altarpiece by Jan Van Eyck has been partially restored and people are disturbed by his depiction of an eyes front, direct staring Lamb of Christ. I wonder what Marshal thinks when he views medieval Christian art like that. It was, of course, the art and the space and the light that was central to Christian worship and not at all the Bible for hundreds of years. To let art be the gospel of Christ takes a vulnerable and open heart and a searching, humble heart. To live in a world of objects rather than words serving as the medium of the Christian faith is extraordinary difficult for Protestants.
Does the Ghent altarpiece, with its bleeding-into-a-chalice lamb, serve to build up the church? Does Salvador Dali's Corpus Hypercubus? Chris Ofili's The Holy Virgin of Mary? Ofili's use of elephant dung and genitalia offended Rudy Giuliani, who had no problem dressing up as a woman for a bit part in an opera.
How can Marshal apply his no biblical rule, many laws approach to music and art? You and I, Dan, know too well. Whenever Marshal feels someone is actually being freed by the truth THAT! is a betrayal of Christian values.
You wouldn't know truth if it kicked you in the crotch.
Your recent responses exhibit your anger and your inability to answer to substance. You’re losing it.
In short, your credibility has no value.
However will I sleep knowing you feel that way?
Why do you think anyone cares how you sleep?
I don't. I am concerned about your obsession with me, however. It kills you to know you don't impress me in the least...so much so you couldn't last more than a day or two after insisting you're done with me. So clearly, YOU care how I sleep.
If you’re telling people how you sleep without their asking about it, then the obsession is not theirs. It’s yours. Maybe you’re too stupid to see that, though.
But I wasn't telling people how I sleep. I was telling people your opinion of me has no value. You're clearly too stupid to see that, though.
Then: “However will I sleep...”
Now: “But I wasn't telling people how I sleep...”
As unmoored from reason and ready to blatantly lie about your own words as always.
Feodor: Marshal cannot deal with the Ghent altarpiece; nor does he have an answer for centuries in which space and light and Art was the sole medium of the gospel story.
Marshal: “I am concerned about your obsession with me...”
Marshal: “I was telling people your opinion of me has no value.
Marshal cannot deal with the Ghent altarpiece; nor does he have an answer for centuries in which space and light and Art was the sole medium of the gospel story, the sole text of worship.
Instead we got news on his sleep and his obsession with me.
Dodge, diversion, denial, lies. All a cover up as empty thoughts upon empty thoughts.
"As unmoored from reason and ready to blatantly lie about your own words as always."
Some folks aren't familiar with the word "sarcasm".
"Marshal cannot deal with the Ghent altarpiece; nor does he have an answer for centuries in which space and light and Art was the sole medium of the gospel story."
If you say so.
"Dodge, diversion, denial, lies. All a cover up as empty thoughts upon empty thoughts."
If you say so.
1. Some lie about their own lies
2. Agreed, thank you.
3. Agreed, thank you.
Post a Comment