Re: I concur
|October 30 2010, 4:41 PM |
More to the point, Dr. Crump. People of your particular belief system, according to the teachings of folks like you, believe that somehow God only gave you and others with whom you agree the power to discern what the bible is teaching. I recon there are 1.5 billion Muslims who would totally disagree with you. On this point you and I would be on the same side. I only need to read about the crusades and what happened throughout Europe several centuries ago to see what happens when a few people get together and think they have all the answers.
I was raised in the "one true church" by a set of parents who followed that form of doctrine, in fact, my dad was a preacher for many, many years. Even as a child I had disagreements with my father because what he preached from the bible was not what I was reading and understanding. My teaching in Christianity 101, from the time I was a child, was that as long as you worshiped in the correct manner and lived a decent life, you were ok. Then there were the arguments about what if I were on the way to be baptized and I got killed? Or, what if I were about to have a fatal car crash and said a dirty word just before impact? I could go on forever about all the ignorant arguments there were over the most insignificant things.
The whole point I was trying to make about "barely mentioned", was that they acts of worship that I was taught as a child to be the one true way to salvation are not mentioned in the same context I was being taught. There are things about the church of Christ that keep me there. I believe that baptism is essential for salvation, I do not agree that once we are saved we are always saved; that's where the story ends. I prefer a capella music, and I would never attend a worship service where that sort of thing goes on. I don't agree with the church of Christ concept of the Lord's Supper, that's taken way out of context as far as I can see, but I can tolerate the symbolism for what it is.
The thing that bothers me is that all I ever heard about was works and a worship service, and then I read the bible and it talks about love and forgiveness. Yes, I understand that there are things that we have to DO because we are Christians, but those things we are to DO are not part of some worship service, and the things we do can not save us. That comes from grace through faith and is a gift we are given. Worship is spiritual, not physical, and I'm not going to retype the verses I used in my last post. Christianity is about a way to live a life, not wether we can check off a list of things we do on Sunday morning that will somehow justify our salvation. The worship service so many people get so upset over couldn't have been all THAT important. If it were, wouldn't it have been laid out just as plain as baptism is? Would not the scripture go into great detail if that worship service was that important? I think it would have, in fact, I know it would have because there are so many things that the scriptures do tell us, and the bible is very specific with those commandments. What I do see, all through the new Testament, is how we are supposed to live our lives, and how we are to conduct ourselves with the world and with our brothers and sisters in Christ. These things are listed over and over again throughout the New Testament and that "all important" worship service is not mentioned at all. When it did talk about a worship service over in Corinthians, it looked nothing like what we do today.
No smearing here sir. I'm sorry if I sounded a little defensive in my last post. I've read so many of yours that seem to reek of sarcasm, but maybe I'm wrong and just don't know what's in your heart. For that, I'm truly sorry for judging your intent. I am no liberal, just someone who enjoys reading and who tries to take away past experience and accept things for what they really are. I am a very moral person, and I do my best to live a good clean life and attempt to live by the teachings of Jesus. I don't always do a good job of that, but thank God for his son and the salvation we are offered through grace.
Missed Mount Sinai 101aaa?
|October 23 2010, 6:28 PM |
Ancient scholars understood the TWO THREADS in the Old Testament. They understood the Mount Sinai Event.
I have no reason to doubt that only about 3 members of the Church of Christ understand it.
Because of musical idolatry God "turned them over to worship the starry hosts." Therefore when people like Rick Atchley IMPOSE "worship teams" (a blasphemy) and then instruments they run SPECIFICIALLY to the patternism of the worship of the starry hosts. That is prophetic: neither he nor any of the hireling-changelings had anything to do with it.
I am reviewing Jay Quin who is on the attack against those who WILL not use instruments. This is wholly irrational.
I have reviewed part two of the New Wineskins magazine: maybe we need a thread.
Almost without exception the "punch line" is not quoted and most of them implicate the emasculated priests of the Mother Goddess. Revelation 17-18 could never in recorded history be so literally fulfilled as the frontal assault of the NACC who has found a tiny few "dupes" they can ride like "beasts." Beast in Revelation doesn't speak of an animal but of "a new style singing and drama."
Gender compromised "praise singers" are the world's OLDEST profession. Emotionally or sexually abnormal men were always believed to be Enthus-O-Mania: only the MAD were ever used in this prophetic-priestly role.
Repeated in Jerusalem at the temple
In the cultic practices, humans fulfilled their destiny: to take care of the gods' material needs. They therefore provided the gods with houses (the temples) that were richly supplied with lands, which people cultivated for them. In the temple the god was present in--but not bounded by--a statue made of precious wood overlaid with gold. For this statue the temple kitchen staff prepared daily meals from produce grown or raised on the temple's fields, in its orchards, in its sheepfolds, cattle pens, and game preserves, brought in by its fishermen, or delivered by farmers owing it as a temple tax. The statue was also clad in costly raiment, bathed, and escorted to bed in the bedchamber of the god, often on top of the temple tower, or ziggurat.
To see to all of this the god had priests trained as cooks, bakers, waiters, and bathers, or as encomiasts (singers of praise) and musicians
to make the god's meals festive, or as elegists to soothe him in times of stress and grief. Diversions from the daily routine were the great monthly festivals and also a number of special occasions.
Both the tithe and the Sabbath WORSHIP are of Babylon: God gave the sabbath to REST where the synagogue was held in each local area.
|October 24 2010, 10:54 PM |
I am interested in hearing more from both brothers.
You mention again that your (3 men on this site) view on instruments is not held, even, by most in Churches of Christ. You have been honest with me about this earlier too on another thread and cyber-discussion on your interpretive method(s).
Anyway, do you believe that as long as churches do not practice IM, that those with "praise teams" are o.k. with God (at least on this issue), or do you believe that acappella praise teams are also always wrong? It is my understanding from Brother Cruz that he bases it on 9 questions / issues, respectively.
I personally believe that Brother Cruz brings up some valid points based on "principles" taught in Scripture pertaining to worship, and personally believe that a congregation could utilize singers in some ways, which I believe he implies in his answer. (If this is wrong Brother Cruz, you can correct me.) However, I have never been at a congregation which worships weekly with a praise team.
Thanks for sharing your perspective.
Also, for Brother Cruz:
What became the "breaking point" so to speak for you with Madison? The reason I say this is because you seem to be willing to tolerate some change/diversity, so I am interested in learning what caused you to be at odds with the church/leadership. (I realize it may not be 1 thing but several, and don't feel you must go into great detail on any point as I will not be trying to critique your response, as some might, but I am interested mostly in hearing what change/diversity you were willing to tolerate / be at peace with, though perhaps sharing your concerns or disagreement before matters became too much in your mind.) Like, were you tolerant of praise teams to a point, but not the instruments? Were you intolerant of both, but were tolerant of clapping during an occasional song, etc. I think you get the idea of what I'm asking.
Thanks also to you for sharing your perspective.
|October 25 2010, 3:18 AM |
Thanks for your interest. "I shall return" to respond ... later on. I appreciate your patience.
|October 26 2010, 3:20 PM |
LOL, you've brought up the subject of "praise teams," but yet you said: "I have never been at a congregation which worships weekly with a praise team." You know, I was wondering about that and going to ask how thrilling, exciting and enjoyable is your "Praise Team" performing to and for YOUR own congregation.
It is more than just recognizing the post-modern shift "in the church" [or I should say more accurately: in certain mega congregations of "the Lord's church"]:
(1) FROM: Congregational singing with someone leading or starting the song
Much of today's concept of worship is based on the change agents' agenda that "worship" is about being able to say and express: "My Jesus, oh, how I love you. My heart yearns for more of you. Your name is like perfume poured out. Jesus my darling, lover of my heart. How beautiful You are, my darling." Or, express "I worship and bow down before you, Lord" in an upbeat tempo and "clap-clap, clap-clap-clap" simultaneously. It's a pathetic scene to clap and bow before the Lord at the same time.
(2) TO: Performance-driven "Praise Team" coordinating "worship" with the "Worship Leader"
If the Praise Team members weren't on stage or seated in the two front rows with their overpowering, amplified "sound(s) of music," if they were just sitting in their regular seats but can still be heard, there wouldn't be an official, elite group called "Praise Team" vs. congregational singing. [There's more to say about this when I respond to Richard's post above.]
Since most of the "breaking point" you mentioned has already been discussed all over this forum, I'll just make a few brief statements:
"Being at odds with...."? I'll let you determine that from what I've written. I think that the question should be that the change agents are at odds with the entire brotherhood. Well, my break time is over.
- Foremost concerning the Madison congregation was the intrusion and infiltration by the change agents in the 90s for about a decade. The slick methodologies used were gradualism, incrementalism, etc. You've heard of the "boiling the frog" story, haven't you?
"They say that if you put a frog into a pot of boiling water, it will leap out right away to escape the danger. But, if you put a frog in a kettle that is filled with water that is cool and pleasant, and then you gradually heat the kettle until it starts boiling, the frog will not become aware of the threat until it is too late.
The frog's survival instincts are geared towards detecting sudden changes."
- Certain church leaders were actually on the Saddleback Community Church campus in CA (Rick Warren is still the pastor) to observe and learn about the culture-driven "church growth" phenomenon in the 16,000-member "Community Church."
- The leadership was to implement a number of changes including but not only the involvement of the "Praise Team" [similar to the Baptist CHOIR] in "worship services."
- The eldership was divided over a number of changes and issues. Of course, there were elders, not wanting to compromise the truth and divide the congregation, who resigned or left. The winning part of the eldership continued with the changes and told the congregation "to get over it; we must move on."
- The "Praise Team" was one of the biggest issues. It is a long story. In the end, half of the membership left or went to seek fellowship with nearby congregations. It's been almost 10 years since the upheaval. It is said that the congregation is recovering -- time will tell. Currently, "worship services" are split between: (a) "traditional" [without the Praise Team being "visible"] and (b) "contemporary" ["Worship Leader" with "Praise Team" co-leading and musicating].
- I am not opposed to changes in the use of new technologies. Powerpoint is wonderful. I'd prefer displaying the "hymns" with musical notes on the wide screen rather than just the words. [There are rules concerning the display of words, such as by not using the comma, etc.] Have you heard of the "Paperless Hymnal"? Some congregations display hymns from "Paperless Hymnal." I think that the use of it would mean less dependence on the CHOIR and more singing by the congregation, especially among those who can read music notes. Those who can read music notes are not stupid, you know.
- Clapping? I clap when I'm entertained, when there's a performance. I clap with the cheerleading squad during a sports event, etc. Clapping is a distraction to those who worship in reverence and awe. Clapping is not a distraction to performers and their audience. Extreme clapping may scare the daylights out of senior saints who seriously think about their own worship of the Father in heaven. I am opposed to rhythmic clapping (a.k.a. "programmed joy").
- There are so many more issues, I know.
|October 26 2010, 10:03 PM |
Thank you for sharing your experience and perspective. I gather that your primary issues are praise teams and then clapping. Perhaps I misunderstand, but I deduce from this that the church at Madison indeed worships acappella and not with instruments.
No, pertaining to a weekly experience with a praise team. Have only experienced on a few occasions when visiting elsewhere. I can see pros and cons depending on a given situation, but nothing directly in Scripture forbidding.
I hope you have found a congregation where you can worship in peace.
Again, when I began posting my beef was with you know who (won't rehash though it is still a valid point in my opinion).
I do think that a few on this site have a narrow, legalistic, self-righteous, sectarian, Pharisaical view of God and others/church.
I used to be this way. Brothers in Christ loved me while challenging my perspective, interpretive methods, and inconsistencies. Thanks be to God.
|Dr. Bill Crump|
|October 26 2010, 11:38 PM |
Sonny wrote: "I do think that a few on this site have a narrow, legalistic, self-righteous, sectarian, Pharisaical view of God and others/church."
"Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide [is] the gate, and broad [is] the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait [is] the gate, and narrow [is] the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it" (Matt. 7:13-14 KJV).
Well, Jesus did say that the way to life is narrow, which is irksome to most of the world. He undoubtedly knew that many people would loathe to have a "narrow" belief and would much prefer the wide gate of "acceptance and tolerance." So it's not surprising that, in the eyes of the world, those who follow the "narrow" way of Christ are "legalistic, self-righteous, sectarian, Pharisaical," etc., etc.
While the way is straight and narrow
|October 27 2010, 2:41 AM |
You make the mold tighter and the way narrower than Jesus intended. I am choosing not to take the time to quote the 4 gospels, but would encourage you to read stories about prodigals and prostitutes, tax collectors and sinners, women caught in adulterery and women with 5 husbands, a thief on the cross, etc. entering the kingdom of heaven.
Some in Churches of Christ have ignored the gospels and jumped straight to "proof-texting" from Acts to Revelation.
The good news for the Pharisees and the teachers of the law (Lk. 15:1-2) according the Prodigal Son story in Luke 15:11-32 is that the older, self-righteous brother (vs. 25-32) is also included by the Father, though he wanted to exclude his younger, foolish, wasteful brother.
"...he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful. Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven."
Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you."
Brother Crump, I can't wait to be in heaven with you! And, with moderates, ultra-conservatives, ultra-liberals, baptists and methodists, "change agents" and "worship leaders", acappella and instrumental churches, hand clappers and stoics, adulterers, prostitutes, tax collectors and sinners. ALL who are converted to Christ (not traditions or dogma), whether when younger or older.
Romans 8:1 "Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus."
We need to be getting as many people into the water and raised to walk a new life as we can, because only in Christ, by grace through faith, do any of us "make it". Not by works, theology, nor morality, are ANY of us worthy.
The reason many will not enter ISN'T instruments or clapping or VBS or crayons in a classroom or the NIV, but because they never were "clothed with Christ" (Galatians 3:26-27), which has nothing to do with such trivial doctrinal minutia drivel of a few who have "zeal" but without "knowledge" (Romans 10:2).
You may not see me as making it
and I do not even practice IM, clapping, praise teams, go to Winterfest (it's been several years), etc. BUT YOU WOULD FIND SOME OTHER REASON and that's o.k. because you're not the judge. Praise God.
By the way, I do believe that rigid, exclusive, ultra-conservatives will even make it in spite of their ways because God's grace and mercy is even available for us! (I say "us" because I am a recovered / recovering self-righteous, legalistic, Pharisee.)
"Brother", as I have seen and addressed you respectfully throughout, I am loving you, including challenging you. (Ephesians 4:15 - speak the truth in love)
It's o.k. for you to love me too
and for iron to sharpen iron (Proverbs 27:17).
|Dr. Bill Crump|
The Way Is Still, and Always Will Be, Straight and Narrow
|October 27 2010, 12:02 PM |
If the denominations, ultra-liberals, and others Sonny mentioned are to make it to heaven, they must put away their man-made doctrines and do-as-we-please attitudes and follow the teachings of Christ in the New Testament. That is what the "narrow way" is--the Gospel of Christ, not of man. Clearly, many denominations do NOT follow what is commanded in the New Testament. If they persist, how can they be saved? How can God forgive those who continue to ignore and scoff at what He has commanded in the New Testament? Christ has clearly warned us that such people will not be saved.
Sonny wrote to me: "You may not see me as making it...BUT YOU WOULD FIND SOME OTHER REASON..." By that, Sonny seems to have concluded that I have as much as condemned him to hell, when I have neither said nor thought anything of the sort. What a profoundly strange and judgmental attitude on his part! Sonny is right in one aspect, however: only God is the judge.
By "tolerance and acceptance," does that mean we embrace and encourage those who practice doctrines alien to the Gospel of Christ? Here's the answer:
"Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into [your] house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds" (2 John 1:9-11 KJV).
Agreed - What Is The Context?
|October 30 2010, 1:51 PM |
I agree that one is to continue in the doctrine of Christ (2 John 9). What is this doctrine, that some there in Ephesus in the 1st Century were not keeping? 2 John 7 tells us (Also 1 John 2:18, 22, and 4:3) - "Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist."
The doctrine of Christ the apostle John is speaking of is that Jesus came in the flesh. The gnostics were saying otherwise. This had serious consequences, including saying one could do whatever they wanted with their body (sexual immorality).
The doctrine of Christ IS NOT speaking of disfellowshipping those who exercise any liberty whatsoever or have any difference.
I DO NOT KNOW OF ANY CHRISTIAN OR CHURCH TODAY THAT DOES NOT AGREE WITH THIS DOCTRINE, THAT JESUS CAME IN THE FLESH. I DO NOT KNOW ANY CHURCH TEACHING DOCETISM OR GNOSTICISM. Praise God.
To say the doctrine of Christ pertains to crayons, clapping and puppets in a classroom, and dozens of other differences in the adult Christian world is to make the way narrower than the actual texts and contexts of Matthew 7:13-14 and 2 John 9-11.
|October 27 2010, 12:34 AM |
I was afraid that you would draw the conclusion that these are Donnie's primary issues. No, Sonny, I'm just telling you the events that occurred in the Madison congregation -- events leading up to the upheaval that had members leaving in droves. How can it be more real than that?
Did you ignore the principle that can be learned from the "Boiling the Frog" story?
The "but nothing directly in Scripture forbidding" is getting old. It doesn't work as a solution AFTER the congregation has already divided. Why can "Change Agents" not leave the church alone or start their own from scratch?
OK, whatever makes you happy: calling those who OPPOSE the devious works of the change agents as "narrow, legalistic, self-righteous, sectarian, Pharisaical." Christ and the apostles, by deduction, would fall in that category as they admonished to mark them that cause division and as they prayed for unity ... that they be of the same mind and the same judgment."
|October 27 2010, 1:10 AM |
This is also what I meant by your primary issues (specifically with Madison, not overall). And I hope you did not take my latter comments as being specifically toward you and disrespecting you based on your history with Madison. And yes, that is "real" and even though I believe in the unity in diversity concept being taught in Scripture (I realize you may not) THIS DOES NOT MEAN I AM SHRUGGING OFF "ANY AND ALL" DECISIONS, CONDUCT, COMMENTS, ETC. FROM THE LEADERSHIP/CHURCH AT MADISON because I was not there, do not know many facts, and more than likely in this whole deal there are several violations of Scripture from people on different sides of the fence and God's heart bleeds and Jesus literally bled for the entire congregation. May God's grace "heal" the church and all involved.
And may God bless you, Brother Cruz, with peace and joy and a resolve to not allow past negative experiences to discourage you or keep you in bondage to the past or hold you back from living for Christ evermore.
I did not ignore the boiling frog story. It is how I became so legalistic. I didn't even realize it.
I think we have much bigger fish to fry than how many singers get microphones, and I mean that toward those promoting praise teams as much as those condemning. Nevertheless, there are pros and cons depending on the situation (I can elaborate if needed). By saying it is not forbidden in Scripture, it is just that, a matter of opinion for which we must use spiritual judgment. Thus, we are not remaining silent where the Bible is silent if we say the Bible clearly and unequivocally teaches that it is sin and unacceptable.
I do not think "change agents" as you and others define them is what Jesus and the Apostles, including Paul in Romans 16:17, had (have) in mind. Paul is speaking of doctrinal divison (not opinion matters for worship and traditions, per Romans 14 and these "differences" being O.K.) and moral division ("evil" Romans 16:19).
I realize full well you will disagree with that, but at least you know my perspective and that I do not believe I am disregarding Romans 16:17, etc.
Grace and Peace Brother.
If it weren't for the change agents...
|October 27 2010, 2:01 AM |
... some of our congregations wouldn't be so ashamed of or confused about associating with the name of Christ:
-- Oak Hills Church [dropped the name "of Christ"]
-- Woodmont Hills Family of God [embarrassed by "church of Christ"]
-- Bridgeway Church [formerly "of Christ"]
-- The Hills Church of Christ [why no longer "Richland Hills"?]
-- ____________________ Community Church
Interestingly, these are congregations whose leaders [at no fault of their members] decided on their own to implement mechanical music in the assembly.
So, the question for you, Sonny -- knowing that instrumental music and "Praise Teams" are unnecessary, distractive and divisive -- what are you going to do now?
|October 27 2010, 3:00 AM |
they are not always distractive and divisive, per look at much of Christianity where they are used and everyone is unified about it.
I still love my C of C heritage and will personally continue in the acappella tradition, but will not bind this preference on every believer in Christ for fellowship / unity.
What am I going to do now?
1. Continue trying to lift up Christ to both acappella and instrumental churches and Christians, and lift up Christ pertaining to any other differences that should not divide us.
2. Go to bed, because it is getting late. (We can chat more another day bro.) I have actually posted more tonight than ever before. Will probably take it easy the next few days as I am busy Wed. - Fri. evenings of this week anyway, and will check back in this weekend for updates and possible responses.
While you and I obviously have some theological and interpretation differences, we are closer than we are distant in terms of lifestyle (ethically speaking) and worship (acappella, no praise teams, or hand clapping, etc.). Perhaps this is a good and positive fact and note to end on. What do you think?
|October 31 2010, 12:05 PM |
I didn't say singing was a sin, I was and am saying that no one "SANG" any of the Bible in the modern "gay Troubadour" or ACappella fella style. A Cappella identifies the Pope's castrated opra "worship team" the Pope used in the Sistine because they were so much more true to the faith than the precenters singing FALSETTO like the Levites.
It is true that "one cannot ride a horse if one has no horse." Lucian of Samosata.
Modern exegetes do not agree in this matter. For a time many would admit no metre at all in the Psalms. Davison (Hast., "Dict. of the Bible", s. v.) writes: "though metre is not discernible in the Psalms, it does not follow that rhythm is excluded". This rhythm, however, "defies analysis and systematization". Driver ("Introd. to Lit. of O. T.", New York, 1892, 339) admits in Hebrew poetry "no metre in the strict sense of the term". Exegetes who find metre in the Psalms are of four schools, according as they
....explain Hebrew metre by quantity,
....by the number of syllables,
....or by both quantity and accent.
(from The Catholic Encyclopedia)
Up to the Edict of Milan (AD 313), the psalms were interspersed with lessons.
By the time of Gregory I (circa 600), the Mass and Office had assumed a fixed shape and antiphonal psalmody (the chanting of a psalm alternately by two choirs) and responsorial psalmody (when the congregation responded to a psalm sung by a cantor) were institutionalized.The distinction between these types later faded.
There was no "congregational singing with or without instrumental accompaniment until after the Reformation."
I like the PATTERNISM of Jesus: Meet once a year, no preaching, no collection plates, eat the Lord's Supper (feast of unleavened bread), CHANT one Hymn (one of the Biblical hallel's) and then GO OUT. "Next appointed hour" will be next year, same time.
The word Humneo "descant upon in song or speech II. tell over and over again, harp upon, repeat, recite. recite the form of the law.
I am sure that no one will read (or comprehend) this so I intend to drown my sorrows in another POT of coffee and take a nap in the recliner when Kitty (that's her name: she was catnapped from a parking lot) says it is time.
A Snake is Still a Snake
|October 31 2010, 2:06 PM |
Ken Sublett said...."I didn't say singing was a sin, I was and am saying that no one "SANG" any of the Bible in the modern "gay Troubadour" or ACappella fella style. A Cappella identifies the Pope's castrated opra "worship team" the Pope used in the Sistine because they were so much more true to the faith than the precenters singing FALSETTO like the Levites."
ummmm Donnie???....the singing that you dearly behold to IS a capella. Therefore Ken is saying that the a capella manner of singing that the conservative base is singing to today is sinful. YES KEN, you are saying that the SANGING that goes on today is sinful. ALso, the praise team only leads in the a capella manner. Neither the praise team or the congregational use your FALSETTO type......that is just your hopeful doomsday message.
About your hopeful always gloom and doom message......as the saying goes Ken.....be careful of what you ask for......YOU may get it. Prophetic for the person himself.
NO: The Pope's CHOIR BOYS = the Progressive's PRAISE TEAM
|October 31 2010, 8:22 PM |
Even With Ken's considerable explanation of the HISTORY of a cappella, you still do not understand it. You don't even acknowledge anything regarding the Pope [you know, the POPE -- I think you've heard of the papacy of the Roman Catholic Church] and his "worship team"--his CHOIR BOYS, those falsetto singers, those high-pitched boys singing "in the manner of a chapel" -- "a cappella."
Instrumental music is one issue -- we've discussed that issue countless times already.
The "Praise Team" is another issue -- that's what Ken is trying to explain to you specifically. The problem with your misunderstanding is due to you fallacious logic:
-- "a cappella" is non-instrumental
-- the "Praise Team" sings "a cappella"
-- therefore, God needs the "Praise Team." Does He?
Based on that logic, why not just use the Pope's CHOIR BOYS [his castrated "worship team" to "help" the saints gathered "worship" the Father?
How much plainer does it have to be to help you understand anything related to singing?
Ummmmm, too. I already told you: Nobody says singing is a sin. But for you to assert that God needs the services of a GROUP of professional, elite musicians in worship to Him is yours and of postmodern man's creative thinking. Tell me, how would you like for the Pope's CHOIR BOYS lead your worship to the Father? They, too, sing "a cappella" [your narrow definition without regard for history], do they not?
The New Titanic
|October 31 2010, 9:03 PM |
Let's try this again, for the learned impaired. Ken says "I didn't say singing was a sin, I was and am saying that no one "SANG" any of the Bible in the modern "gay Troubadour" or ACappella fella style. A Cappella identifies the Pope's castrated opra "worship team" the Pope used in the Sistine because they were so much more true to the faith than the precenters singing FALSETTO like the Levites."
Donnnie, I do understand....and you do too. Playing dumb doesn't look good on you. Ken's comment that no no one in the Bible sang in the modern a capella style is not misunderstood by anyone. He is saying that our a capella of today is close to that of that of the catholic choir (Hence....Ken says "A Cappella identifies the Pope's castrated opra "worship team" the Pope used...."). Donnie, you also know that Ken is actually putting down your traditional service. Just go down with the ship and quit acting like you and Ken know what you are saying. Ken is not only putting down the praise team but ANY singing in the a capella style. Just take your lumps and hush man! To make sure that everyone understands what you are trying here......I want to show how you tried to pull the attention away from this discussion again (because it is a no win situation)by trying to make this an instrumental issue. It never has been.
So keep up your circus Donnie. You've got all three rings going on right now.
Again: The Pope's CHOIR BOYS = the Progressive's PRAISE TEAM
|October 31 2010, 11:11 PM |
After all, the RE-explaining of the TRUE HISTORY of "a cappella," unfortunately, you STILL do not understand. The Pope's a cappella "CHOIR BOYS" team is just way ahead of the progressive neo-church of Christ's a cappella "PRAISE BOYS AND GIRLS" team of the 21st century.
The quote from Ken in your first paragraph is that history that you still do NOT comprehend. I agree with Ken. Ken and I disagree with you and the change agents you are emulating.
The Pope's idea was that God needed the CHOIR BOYS during the Mass.
The Change Agents' idea is that God needs the PRAISE TEAM to assist the "Worship Leader" with performing to/for the congregation.
Next time, why don't you ask God if He really needs the Pope's CHOIR BOYS or your Worship Leader's PRAISE TEAM.
Then, let me know His response to your question.
The Song (non-instrumental) Remains the Same
|November 1 2010, 12:45 AM |
Donnie, when you say...."Next time, why don't you ask God if He really needs the Pope's CHOIR BOYS or your Worship Leader's PRAISE TEAM," then I know that you aren't into this for a discussion, but only to act out, and act immature as your partner in crime William Crump continues to do.
That, in essence, is the THEME of this site.
Donnie wants meaningful dialogue, or so he claims until he is on the short end of the Truth.....so what does he/they (including William Crump) resort to?
Name calling, slander, reviling and statements that do not have anything to do with the discussion.
That is why you two were banned multiple times from Faithsite. Your 'behavior was unbecoming of a Christian.'
It still is!