Friday, April 17, 2009

They sold their soul for rock and roll

TIMiAM said...

"This is why we can't use contemporary worship, it was designed by Enthusiasts to carry out the goal of Enthusiasm."

Agreed; yet I'll see your Enthusiasm and raise you Satanism. Anyone who is not capable of identifying the SATANIC roots present in contemporary musical forms is either too engrossed in the culture to notice or is willingly turning a deaf ear.

The former was the case in my personal experience. I always despised my parents for taking away my tapes/CDs for what they saw as inappropriate lyrics and for what I saw as their lameness. I always assured myself (and my parents)that I was capable of listening with a critical ear.

The documentary "They Sold Their Souls for Rock and Roll" changed my perspective entirely. Please search for this "Rockumentary" on Youtube. The full version is 10 HOURS long, which is a testament to the extent that pop/rock has been infected by satan.

I implore anyone with children, anyone who listens to and enjoys pop/rock music, and particularly those individuals who want to see more "contemporary" music in worship to watch this documentary.

If this doesn't challenge the way you think about what forms of music are appropriate for worship, then it will at least (hopefully) challenge what you download onto your ipod and what you are programming into your brain.


Anonymous said...

If this series is an argument against contemporary Christian music, it is totally irrelevant!

I don't disagree with the content but how does it relate to a totally different genre of music?

Oh ye of little faith!


Anonymous said...

Now why don't you start a topic on the inconsistencies of the Book of Concord and get back to Scripture?


Anonymous said...

JK - The Book of Concord is just as "inconsistent" as Scripture. If you are a confirmed Lutheran you have agreed to the Book of Concord as being a correct exposition of Holy Scripture. If you belong to a WELS congregation your congregation agrees that the Book of Concord is a correct exposition of Holy Scripture. Scripture interprets Scripture. When passages are unclear or seem inconsistent other parts of Scripture make things clear.
A correct exposition is a correct exposition...even if it seems there are inconsistencies.

Anonymous said...

How many sacraments does the BOC name?


Anonymous said...

Yep, there are some bad people who play music. We should get rid of music.
I hope people don't take the neo-iconoclasts and their sensationalism seriously.

Anonymous said...

I don't have the BOC right at the computer with me but I believe it names three sacraments. None of my WELS pastors have ever disagreed with this. We have Baptism, Lord's Supper and Confession and Absolution.

Rick said...

"No intelligent person will quibble about the number of sacraments or the terminology, so long as those things are kept which have God’s command and promises."

"It is much more necessary to know how to use the sacraments."

(Book of Concord; Apology to the Augsburg Confession, Article XIII, Paragraph 17-18; Tappert edition).

Anonymous said...


You ask about the number of Sacraments that the Book of Concord names (sic). I assume you find an "inconsistency" there. What perchance is that?

El Gato

Anonymous said...


Save your time trying to find inconsistencies in the Book of Concord, you'll come up empty there, now, inconsistencies in the Book of Concord and WELS doctrine and practice, well...


Anonymous said...

In Article XIII Section VII of the Apology to the Augsburg Confession, it clearly states three sacraments. However in my copy of Luther's Small catechism, there is only the Sacrament of Baptism and the Sacrament of Lord's Supper. There is no Sacrament of Confession/Absolution. There is The Ministry of the Keys.

Look, I'm not knocking the BOC. My point is that it may not say things we think it says.


John said...


Do you subscribe to the BOC as a confessional Lutheran?

Anonymous said...

JK subscribes to Rolling Stone magazine.


Anonymous said...

I subscribe to the pure doctrine of the BOC as it subscribes to the scriptures. I do not subscribe to ancillary points that are neither required or commanded that others make into doctrine.

BTW...Rolling Stone is a rag. It always has been.


Anonymous said...

The BOC clearly teaches that the word "Sacrament" is a church term that can be used in various ways and with various meanings. In particular the Apology addresses this. The confessions state the doctrines of the Lutheran Church. Unlike the scripture they are not meant to be parsed or that all sentences are meant to be confessional (e.g. scripture references, analogies, quotes). The stated doctrine & practice are the purpose of the confessions. It is no substitute for scripture, neither is it something indifferent. ALL doctrine & practice in the Lutheran Church must conform to the BOC. If it does not in any way, it is not Lutheran. The Lutheran Church is a confession, not a church entity in the Roman Catholic sense. It is an outward confession of Word & Sacrament in the Holy Catholic church, the communion of Saints.

Anonymous said...

JK writes,

"I subscribe to the pure doctrine of the BOC as it subscribes to the scriptures."

Sounds suspiciously close to "in so far as."



TIMiAM said...

"If this series is an argument against contemporary Christian music, it is totally irrelevant!"

This video series is an argument against contemporary music being infected by sin and even card-carrying members of the church of satan.

I apologize if my original comment was ambiguous or lacking an argument. I'll spell out my question for you: Given the FACT that popular music promotes sin and sinful themes, is it appropriate to use the same genre/styles in corporate worship?

For your own edification, I also highly recommend another series by the same production team: "Hollywood's War on God," and it is also available on Youtube.

(Disclaimer: pastor Joe Schimmel is not WELS, and frequently introduces millenialist arguments into his material. Given that, he does provide an excellent commentary)

I think it is important for practitioners of contemporary worship to fully comprehend the "contemporary culture" in which they operate and even attempt to mimic. The forms, themes, and styles of popular culture do not develop in a social or spiritual vacuum, rather their success and resonance in the population at large appears to be contingent upon their appeal to that aspect of our common humanity: SIN and SINFULLNESS.

I don't know Pr. Ski personally (I have only heard him preach at St. Marcus a handful of times) and ultimately believe he has good intentions and serves the Lord whole-heartedly. I noticed however that on Twitter he is "Following" Britney Spears. Now I would like to think that he is not so much a "Follower" of Spears but rather is "Following" her to keep tabs on her deception and open promotion of sin. I hope he explains to his flock that her lyrics of "If you seek Amy" really stand for "F-U-C-K me." I hope that he explains to his movie-theater audience the significance of her parading on stage in a thong holding a large serpent around her neck. I hope he explains the perversion of her kiss with Madonna where one was dressed as a bride and the other as the groom (and Christina Aguilara was dressed as a second bride = a polygamous, lesbian marriage). I hope he explains how Madonna forced her 6-yr old daughter to serve as a flower girl during this "ceremony" wearing a crucifix and a belt with the words "Boy Toy" written on it. I hope he explains that the lyrics they sang to the tune of "Like a virgin" were "we are so bored with the concept of right and wrong." Gnostics were also bored with right/wrong and focused instead on matter/spirit, yet I would like to think that Ski explains this to his congregation.

Given that I don't know Ski personally, what type of public image does this project when he is publicly "Following" Spears on Twitter? Praise the Lord that I have been saved by grace through faith, but what about the lost souls out there who see the little Brittney Spears icon on Ski's twitter page? Can they take this as a public endorsement of her music, her sinful message, her sinful life?

1 John 2:15-17 (NIV):
Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For everything in the world—the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does—comes not from the Father but from the world. The world and its desires pass away, but the man who does the will of God lives forever.

We should be students of the culture only to the extent that we are able to point out the sin which breeds in that cesspool. As followers of Christ, we need to fix our eyes on Jesus and shake the dust of the world off of our shoes when we approach Him in worship.

Anonymous said...

So do you bless yourself with the sign of the cross before your daily prayers as Luther commands in the small catechism anon @ 847 am?

There are those that will say that those that subscribe to the confessions are in fact a church entity.

What I would like to know is what other terms like sacrament can mean other things? A sacrament to me is a pretty black and white term; at least the way I learned it. Earthly element + The Word = Forgiveness of Sins.

You see what I'm getting at?


Brett Meyer said...

First I agree with John's concern with the New Age Church Growth movement in the Lutheran churches using Rock music as the medium to carry a message to churches. The very nature of the practice is at the core of CG doctrine, many fail to realize they are using Satan's worldly tool to manipulate thoughts, emotions and actions and supposedly convey Christian doctrine?!?

It's exactly like feeding little baby with a drug addict's coke spoon.

It's no wonder that most lyrics promoted with this music is unChristian and blatant false doctrine. And even if they get the doctrine right the practice condones that style of music which in the world is Satanic and for the intended demographic (CG terms) is not something that should be reinforced or approved of.

Second JK states, "There is no Sacrament of Confession/Absolution. There is The Ministry of the Keys."

The BOC states, "3] If we call Sacraments rites which have the command of God, and to which the promise of grace has been added, it is easy to decide what are properly Sacraments. For rites instituted by men will not in this way be Sacraments properly so called. For it does not belong to human authority to promise grace. Therefore signs instituted without God's command are not sure signs of grace, even though they perhaps instruct the rude [children or the uncultivated], or admonish as to something [as a painted cross]. 4] Therefore Baptism, the Lord's Supper, and Absolution, which is the Sacrament of Repentance, are truly Sacraments. For these rites have God's command and the promise of grace, which is peculiar to the New Testament. For when we are baptized, when we eat the Lord's body, when we are absolved, our hearts must be firmly assured that God truly forgives us 5] for Christ's sake. And God, at the same time, by the Word and by the rite, moves hearts to believe and conceive faith, just as Paul says, Rom. 10, 17: Faith cometh by hearing. But just as the Word enters the ear in order to strike our heart, so the rite itself strikes the eye, in order to move the heart. The effect of the Word and of the rite is the same, as it has been well said by Augustine that a Sacrament is a visible word, because the rite is received by the eyes, and is, as it were, a picture of the Word, signifying the same thing as the Word. Therefore the effect of both is the same."
It goes on to say, [16]"Prayer...Alms could also be reckoned here,...But let us omit these things. For no prudent man will strive greatly concerning the number or the term, if only those objects still be retained which have God's command and promises."

In the full context of what the BOC delcares concerning the stated Sacraments - what is your specific concern?

What in your opinion is the difference between Absolution and the Ministry of the Keys?

Do you have any other issue(s) with the BOC and are you willing to state what it (they) may be?

In Christ,
Brett Meyer

Susanna said...

My question for Ignacio and others:

How many God-inspired books are there? I say 66 books (canonical book of the Bible.)

Now what if I write a book and it's entitled "The humanity of Christ", an expose on the human side of Christ's duel nature? In this book I quote scripture extensively--so extensively that I myself only write brief sentences tying one bible verse to the next. And let's say, for the argument, that I am 100% correct in everything I say when I myself write.

Is this book God-inspired?

My answer is no, my book is not God-breathed, even though it may be 100% accurate.

It is exactly the same with the Book of Concord. At the end of the day, my book "The humanity of Christ" along with the "Book of Concord" could in good conscience be burnt and quickly forgotten. The reason? Only God-breathed books should be revered. I'm not saying it would be wise to burn that great book, but it's all about perspective.

If you disagree with this statement then for your soul's sake you should burn the book of concord as self discipline. If your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It's better to lose a hand then... It's not that the BOC is bad, but if you believe it to be equal with the Bible you are committing a grave sin--remove your temptation from you.

I agree with the central agrument though. The roots and connotations of rock n roll are enough to make Wise Christians shun it for use in worship.

Anonymous said...


What Lutheran DOESN'T bless himself with the Holy Cross?


Anonymous said...

Oh Susanna,

How did a nice Baptist girl like you find this blog? I assume you are a Baptist because it is Baptists most of all who get their panties all in a bunch whenever someone speaks highly of the Book of Concord. And where, pray tell, do I treat the Book of Concord any more than the norma normata that it is? Here is a question, is the Word of God inspired? (I am guessing as a good Baptist, you would say "yes.") If I say, "Susanna, I hear your confession and by virtue of my office as a called and ordained servant of the Word I forgive you your sins in the name and in the stead of Jesus" did I speak the Word of God to you? Do you believe that that absolution is as from Christ himself?


Anonymous said...

We accept the Book of Concord BECAUSE IT IS A CORRECT EXPOSITION of Holy Scripture (not in so far as it is a correct exposition of Holy Scripture). If you are a confessional Lutheran this is your confession. No where does it say the Book of Concord is inspired.

Anonymous said...

I guess if you can't tell the difference between Rammstein and Chris Tomlin then, well...I can't imagine NOT being able to tell the difference. I mean, come on.


Anonymous said...

I think rock n roll in Church is offensive insofar as the words do not match the tone of the Bible--which is basically always. Most Christian rock songs are so shallow that it's very difficult to make a case against them doctrinally. On the other hand it's very simple to see that the tone (or the attitude) of most Christian Rock is not in agreement with the Bible's tone or attitude.

That's why it's so difficult to nail down.(not impossible, just difficult) You may not like that I say this, but JK's argument are fairly solid--because most posters here are arguing from the wrong premise. That doesn't change who's right and who's wrong--it's just making the Confessionally minded posters ineffective.

If JK can't see the obvious--that most Christian rock is focused on the worshipper rather than God-- he will not be convinced by arguments who's premises start in codified doctrine.

This is 'judgement call' issue. Not able to be proven. Never-the-less a strong stance can be taken. If the lyrics have misplaced focus, or if the Church uses rock in attempt to be popular, we have a clear choice to make.

I think the time has come to leave the WELS and start a Church that is actually confessional. I would suggest kicking out the rock n rollers but I think the infection has spread to deeply.

We Laymen need to encourage our Pastors, reminding them that God will take care of the material things. Beyond that laymen also have to support our pastors so that they have time to properly and lovingly make a clean break with the WELS.

Let JK have his Churchopalooza. Let jeske have his sunday morning variety show. I don't want to be in fellowship with people who don't excersize cultural discernment.

Angry Andy

Anonymous said...

Angry Andy,

Thanks for your underhanded compliment, I guess as well as your anonymity. You've come into the game a bit late.

For those of you who may have missed posts I've made going back a few months or missed my blog, I have NEVER condoned all contemporary Christian music! I have defended the STYLE. Certainly there are contemporary songs with solid lyrics. And who says every song has to have the whole story of redemption in it? Certainly the Psalms don't. Your bland generalizations are getting quite tired.

I suppose I could stoop and use your argument and use the example of Hitler listening to classical music (what was it, Wagner?)before stomping on Jews. But I won't.


Anonymous said...

Joe, I only ask out of boredom, not thinking it will effect anything, but if someone took a Rammstein tune and used "solid" gospel lyrics with it, would that be acceptable in church?

What about the beats and instrumentation associated with Madonna, Britney Spears, Lady Ga Ga or Elton John? OK for church as long as the lyrical content is "solid"?

Do you see any difference between "Indescribable" and "Salvation Unto Us Has Come"?

Is it just a false conception that rock and roll has been historically associated with rebellion? Is it only the lyrics that make something "solid"?

And do you think there is something that defines historic and/or confessional Lutheran worship?


Freddy Finkelstein said...

Angry Andy uses the phrase “Cultural Discernment.” This is important. This entire discussion was opened by TIMiAM's post regarding the satanic nature of popular music, and I have made the point on this blog, rather recently in fact, that the pagan signature on popular Western culture is now unmistakable, and ought to be recognized as such and regarded with all seriousness. Modern entertainment forms, being distinctly pagan, should not be invited into the Church. The forms and expression of the Church ought to remain as distinct from Society as our true citizenship. We are not of the World, only in it, and we are only in it temporarily.

There was a time when Western culture was overtly Christian. Western cultural forms and Christian forms were similar enough that the Church could adopt cultural forms with little incongruity. Such is no longer the case. While Christian apologists will point to the fundamentals of Western society as Christian, referring to “borrowed capital” from 2000 years of Christian influence, today such capital is only thematic and abstract, institutional in a broad but non-specific and virtually indiscernable sense. Even in an apologetic application, Christian influence in Western society needs to be drawn out and obviated. Today, we are principally a pagan society with Christian overtones.

So how is it that the Church on earth, laymen and pastors alike, can exercise “Cultural Discernment?” How can we equip ourselves to judge cultural forms, given that we are all a product of modern culture, and that aspects of it permeate our thinking and reasoning? Some will say that we need to immerse ourselves in the Bible, and only the Bible, and that nothing else matters. While I appreciate, and don't entirely disagree with this, we have to admit that given this approach, even Scripture will be, and is, twisted by our cultural bias to permit what has become for us culturally acceptable and desirable. Only those things directly prohibited in Scripture will be grudgingly avoided, while everything else will be uncritically embraced, or at most regarded with the ambivalence of “personal choice.”

In my opinion, the answer lies in historical contrast. Supposedly, our pastors have a broad Liberal Arts education, an education of the Great Tradition (a good thing for pastors, especially, to have). Yet, most (that I have met) are culturally illiterate, unable to discuss literature, art, or music in any objective sense, and instead are captive only to the popular forms of their youth – which even by modern standards are no longer relevant. Without the Latin once required for pastoral studies, it seems that most are unable to comprehend the vast history of Western culture from the context its native idiom. The laity, for lack of any such education, suffers all the more. In my opinion, for us to become effective judges of modern culture, we must understand it from the standpoint of its foundation and development through history. We must become students of Western Civilization. The application of Biblical norms does not skip 2000 years to become applicable only today; rather, today is a product of 2000 years of applying Biblical norms. Let's understand that first.

Freddy Finkelstein

Freddy Finkelstein said...

Another theme that has been sounded on this blog entry is that of Confessionalism. Why do we have Confessions and what is their purpose? What authority do they have?

I have often heard, and offered in this forum, the following explanation: "To establish Fellowship and enjoy Unity, it is not enough to say, 'I believe everything the Bible says,' for the very next question is, 'What do you say the Bible says?' Confessions, not the Bible, answer this second question." An appeal to the Confessions of a Church Body distinguishes those who commonly subscribe to them from the heterodox, and confirm their unity under those Confessions. They are definitive in every sense. Klemet Preus, in his The Fire and the Staff: Lutheran Theology in Practice makes this point rather directly.

Charles Porterfield Krauth, in his definitive Conservative Reformation has much to say about this Confessional Principal, as well. Therefore, in the interest of providing a "historical" commentary on the role of our Confessions -- that is, our Creed -- I offer the following excerpt from Ch. V this work. It is rather lengthy, and I apologize for that. Nevertheless, it is important to understand the independently normative nature of our Confessions, and C.P. Krauth does a better job of explaining it than anyone I have read thus far. Pay attention, especially, to the last sentence.

"The thetical statements of the [General] Council and the declaration which follows, exhibit, as we believe, the relation of the Rule of Faith and the Confessions, in accordance with the principles of the Conservative Reformation. Accepting those principles, we stand upon the everlasting foundation – the Word of God: believing that the Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament are in their original tongues, and in a pure text, the perfect and only rule of faith. All these books are in harmony, each with itself, and all with each other, and yield to the honest searcher, under the ordinary guidance of the Holy Spirit, a clear statement of doctrine, and produce a firm assurance of faith. Not any word of man, no creed, commentary, theological system, nor decision of Fathers or of councils, no doctrine of Churches, or of the whole Church, no results or judgments of reason, however strong, matured, and well informed, no one of these, and not all of these together, but God's word alone is the rule of faith. No apocryphal books, but the canonical books alone, are the rule of faith. No translations, as such, but the original Hebrew and Chaldee of the Old Testament, and the Greek of the New, are the letter of the rule of faith. No vitiation of the designing, nor error of the careless, but the incorrupt text as it came from the hands of the men of God, who wrote under the motions of the Holy Spirit, is the rule of faith. To this rule of faith we are to bring our minds; by this rule we are humbly to try to form our faith, and in accordance with it, God helping us, to teach others – teaching them the evidences of its inspiration, the true mode of its interpretation, the ground of its authority, the mode of settling its text. The student of theology is to be taught the Biblical languages, to make him an independent investigator of the Word of the Holy Spirit, as the organ through which the Spirit reveals His mind. First of all, as the greatest of all, as the groundwork of all, as the end of all else, we are to teach God's pure Word, its faith for faith, its life for life; in its integrity, in its marvelous adaptation, in its divine, its justifying, its sanctifying, and glorifying power. We are to lay, as that without which all else would be laid in vain, the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets – Jesus Christ being the chief corner-stone.

"Standing really upon the everlasting foundation of this Rule of Faith, we stand of necessity on the faith, of which it is the rule. It is not the truth as it lies, silent and unread, in the Word, but the truth as it enters from that Word into the human heart, with the applying presence of the Holy Ghost, which makes men believers. Faith makes men Christians; but the Confession alone marks them as Christians. The Rule of Faith is God's voice to us; faith is the hearing of that voice, and the Confession, our reply of assent to it. By our faith we are known to the Lord as his; by our Confession, we are known to each other as his children. Confession of faith in some form is imperative. To confess Christ, is to confess what is our faith in him. As the Creed is not, and cannot be the Rule of Faith, but is its Confession merely, so the Bible, because it is the Rule of Faith, is of necessity not its Confession. The Bible can no more be any man's Creed, than the stars can be any man's astronomy. The stars furnish the rule of the astronomer's faith: the Principia of Newton may be the Confession of his faith. If a man were examined as a candidate for the chair of astronomy in a university, and were asked, 'What is your astronomical system?' and were to answer, 'I accept the teaching of the stars,' the reply would be, 'You may think you do – so does the man who is sure that the stars move round the world, and that they are not orbs, but gimlet-holes to let the glory through. We wish to know what you hold the teachings of the stars to be? Do you receive, as in harmony with them, the results reached by Copernicus, by Galileo, by Kepler, by Newton, La Place, and Herchel, or do you think the world one great flat, and the sun and moon mere pendants to it?' 'Gentlemen,' replies the independent investigator, 'the theories of those astronomers are human systems – man made theories. I go out every night on the hills, and look at the stars as God made them, through a hole in my blanket, with my own good eyes, not with a man-made telescope, or fettered by a man-made theory; and I believe in the stars and in what they teach me; but if I were to say or write what they teach, that would be a human creed – and I am opposed to all creeds.' 'Very well,' reply the examiners, 'we wish you joy in the possession of a good pair of eyes, and feel it unnecessary to go any further. If you are unwilling to confess your faith, we will not tax your conscience with the inconsistency of teaching that faith, nor tax our own with the hazard of authorizing you to set forth in the name of stars your own ignorant assumptions about them.'

"What is more clear than that, as the Rule of Faith is first, it must, by necessity of its being, when rightly used, generate a true faith? But the man who has true faith desires to have it known, and is bound to confess his faith. The Rule cannot really generate two conflicting beliefs; yet men who alike profess to accept the Rule, do have conflicting beliefs, and when beliefs conflict, if the one is formed by the Rule, the other must be formed in the face of it. Fidelity to the Rule of Faith, therefore, fidelity to the faith it teaches, demands that there shall be a Confession of the faith. The firmest friend of the Word is the firmest friend of the Creed, first the Rule of Faith, and then the Confession of Faith.

"What shall be our Confession? Are we originating a Church, and must we utter our testimony to a world, in which our faith is a novelty? The reply is easy. As we are not the first who have used with honest hearts and fervent prayers, the Rule, so we are not the first who have been guided by the Holy Ghost in it to its faith. As men long ago reached its faith, so long ago they confessed it. They confessed it from the beginning. The first adult baptism was based upon a 'human creed,' that is, upon a confession of faith, which was the utterance of a belief which was based upon a human interpretation of divine words. The faith has been confessed from the beginning. It has been embodied in a creed, the origin of whose present shape no man knows, which indeed cannot be fixed; for it rose from the words of our Saviour's Baptismal Commission, and was not manufactured, but grew. Of the Apostles' Creed, as of Him to whom its heart is given, it may be affirmed that it was 'begotten, not made.' The Confession has been renewed and enlarged to meet new and widening error. The ripest, and purest, and most widely used of the old Confessions have been adopted by our Church as her own, not because they are old and widely received, but because they are true. She has added her testimony as it was needed. Here is the body of her Confession. Is her Confession ours? If it be, we are of her in heart; if it be not, we are only of her in name. It is ours – ours in our deepest conviction, reached through conflicts outward and inward, reached upon our knees, and traced with our tears – ours in our inmost hearts. Therefore, we consecrate ourselves to living, teaching, and defending the faith of God's word, which is the confessed faith of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Fidelity to the whole truth of God's word requires this. We dare not be satisfied simply with recognition as Christians over against the Jew, because we confess the Rule of Faith, of which the New Testament is a part, has taught us faith in Jesus Christ; we dare not be satisfied simply with recognition as holding the Catholic Faith as embodied in the three General Creeds, over against heresies of various forms and shades. Christian believers holding the faith Catholic we are – but we are, besides, Protestant, rejecting the authority of the Papacy; Evangelical, glorying in the grace of the Gospel; and Lutheran, holding the doctrines of that Church, of which the Reformation is the child – not only those in which all Christendom or a large part of it coincides with her, but the most distinctive doctrines, though in the maintenance of them she stood alone. As the acceptance of the Word of God as a Rule of Faith separates us from the Mohammedan, as the reception of the New Testament sunders us from the Jew, as the hearty acquiescence in the Apostles', Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds shows us, in the face of all errorists of the earlier ages to be in the faith of the Church Catholic, so does our unreserved acceptance of the Augsburg Confession mark us as Lutherans; and the acceptances of the Apology, the Catechisms of Luther, the Schmalcald Articles, and the Formula of Concord, continues the work of marking our separation from all errorists of every shade whose doctrines are in conflict with the true sense of the Rule of Faith – that Rule whose teachings are rightly interpreted and faithfully embodied in the Confessions afore-mentioned. Therefore, God helping us, we will teach the whole faith of His word, which faith our Church sets forth, explains, and defends in her Symbols. We do not interpret God's word by the Creed, neither do we interpret the Creed by God's word, but interpreting both independently, by the laws of language, and finding that they teach one and the same truth, we heartily acknowledge the Confession as a true exhibition of the faith of the Rule – a true witness to the one, pure, and unchanging faith of the Christian Church, and freely make it our own Confession, as truly as if it had been now first uttered by our lips, or had now first gone forth from our hands.

From The Conservative Reformation and Its Theology: as Represented In the Augsburg Confession, and In the History and Literature of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, by Charles P. Krauth, D. D. J. B. Lippincott & Co., Philadelphia, 1871 (pages 165-169)

Freddy Finkelstein

Angry Andy said...

Freddy said " we must become students of Western Civilization"

...interesting that The Core says essentially the same thing: "We must become students of our culture" but for the opposite reasons that Freddy suggests. Go Freddy!

But if you want to be fastidious about the supposed Satanic roots in rock n roll, what about this Blog's reader "TimiAm"?

I see his moniker as a misuse of Gods name. Same with Popeye and several other popular songs who's lyrics use 'I am" as the central theme.

That happens to be God's name for himself. I don't think it proper to go bandying that about.

Anonymous said...

I remember a couple of guys that did a similar expose' of Rock and Roll back in the early 1980's. They were the Peter's Brothers from Minneapolis. Dispite their pentecostalism and strains of pietism they made some good points about rock and roll worth considering. I pretty much then stayed away from buying it, but certainly listened to it, borrowed it etc. after I had burned what I used to own based on their talk.

I got heavily into Christian Rock at that time as a good alternative for a Christian. Or so I thought. I believe that music is primarily an emotion driving tool that has been not only used in the secular realm, but also in the "Christian" realm to drive emotion and get reacition. (here's a difference between Lutherans and Enthusiats) Given the poor doctrine in much of CCM, I think the fruit it bears is self evident. Period.

During my Christian rock years, roughly 1981 to 1990, I listened to a lot of groups. Rssurection Band (Rez Band), White Cross, Phil Keagy and Petra. Petra had a song called "God Gave Rock and Roll To You." I thought it was great. I thought it was true. It had a beautiful hook in it. I liked it. I knew KISS did a song by the same name, but didn't know it was the same song albeit with a slightly changes lyric. The Chorus is the same. (It was originally written by Argent and done by them in the early 1970's). I JUST found the KISS version and gave it a listen on youtube a week ago. Guess what? I got the exact same lofty "feeling" and emotion as I did when I heard it 25 years ago by Petra! It brought me right back to that feeling I remember.

So what's the real difference? I'm not sure. KISS's version basically says when your feeling down, the guitar makes you feel good and makes for a good release. Petra's version talks more about looking up to God for being down. You can google the lyrics by both bands on your own.

To bring it to the 21st century, we have "Christian" bands like Mortification - a "Christian Death Metal" band. Really? Yes! Someone talked about if Ramstien did a song with sound doctrine and would it be o.k. You tell me. With Mortification, I can't tell what they are saying. Look up "Lamb of God" they are a death metal band that is definitely NOT Christian. Both sound the same. Demonic sounding voice, low and distorted, angry and shouting. I think there are so many who are being deceived entirely and think that you can take anything and Christianize it. I don't think there is anything that would be able to show a clear distinction to either a believer or unbeliever. If there is no distinction, then it does go against God's Word of being seperate from the world.

I'll give one more example. Back a few hundred years ago there was thing called the "Devil's Interval." It's called a tri-tone. Play a C on the piano and then play F#. That's a tri-tone. This interval was said to be demonic sounding and was stayed away from by many composers because of what it seemed to conjure. Was the interval that was used actually demonic? I don't think so, but I don't really know. But because it conjures thoughts of what Satan is like, and it sounds "scary" it should maybe be avoided in the music that is set apart for God and Worship.

Is a drum beat specifically demonic or evil? No. Is a guitar an evil instrument? No. But is it apporpriate for worship? Maybe not. Another parallel: Is it wrong to have a Scotch? Not in and of itself, but do you have one at church during a potluck? Do you serve it as a refreshment? It would open all kinds of problems for both the believer and unbeliever.

It seems to me that what is apporpriate at home and in private is one thing and at church and in worship it is quite another. I think caution and discernment is quite lacking today.

Anonymous said...

Anon 832, I also think there are alot of folks that are taking offense when none is intended. Such a PC world we live in full of so many double standards.

Yes, discernment is the key. And I agree with you; there are certain styles that just should not be allowed in church. Your tritone example is a good one. The flatted 5th or augmented fourth is the 'blue note'. I did not know the history of it before the blues/spirituals era of the 19th century. But it coincides going forward in history. The note in modern culture signifies oppression. One can understand why it would have been used in the spirituals that came out of slavery and continued in the blues which belongs to African-American heritage. One cannot deny the oppression in their culture. Rock music was born out of the blues and takes from other genres. The theme of rock has always been about rebellion directed at the establishment's oppression. Is that evil? Certainly the way the establishment has carried on over time isn't always God pleasing, but that is another discussion.

There is music that obviously would be classified in a rock category, but has been watered down/softened by other genres and I find can be quite appropriate for worship. Are you familiar with Michael Schroeder? He is WELS and has written in a pop/rock format with lyrics that are quite rich with Lutheran theology.

Did you know the organ was once considered a pagan instrument?


ted said...

I visited Germany a few years ago. I visited a Lutheran church there. After the service they had a potluck...with Beer. Alright!

I asked my Pastor if we could do that. I was joking, because of I knew that our American culture would attached connotations to a beer potluck that wouldn't be desirous. He said "maybe" haha

What's fine in one time or place may not be fine in another time or place--based on the cultural conditions applying.

Rock is damn near a religion itself. Why infuse it into the True Faith?

Tim Niedfeldt said...

Hello all, I fell silly for not visiting in awhile and coming back to see good discussions going on again.

I'm mostly addressing what Rob asked earlier about is music only about having solid content or therebouts. Freddy re-addressed this issue and for the most part I actually agree with him to a degree. I agree that our church music should be different from the world. Where I probably diverge is in the degree to which I believe that separation needs to occur.

However I suffer from being a music sociopath. It might be an extreme case but I probably could set something to a Rammstein "tune" and be completely uneffected by the style (yet of course I'm not sure I would understand the lyrics very well). However that is a result of a lifetime of music appreciation and participation. It might be the affect of accumulating 26,000 songs in my collection from Mozart to My Chemical Romance and Pachabel to P Diddy.

That is not to say that I think other people can separate content from style as easily. I tend to run a little lean on emotionalism so of course I think all those who are so concerned about getting an emotional buzz off of it or are controlled by it are sort of lame but that is just a personal thing.

In actuality though I'm a bit more conservative than endorsing full out rock n roll shows in church. I know its trendy but I and our church band use Koine as a standard. They have a more musical, folk sound. It is not this envisioned crushing rock sound that everyone seems to think is what is desired and performed in WELS contemporary church services. I like and prefer our existing hymns to be played in an updated style. Pretty much for me if the general tone of the music is on the lite side, then the real issue is only the lyrics and the message and that they be solid.

Of course people can argue where that acceptable line is of "lite" or sacred etc... Fine whatever...go to a different service if it doesn't suit you. That just goes back to that one discussion we had here where someone asked where is the "line". What instrumentation can be used and how much liberty can be taken with tempo etc... It really is just a personal thing as to where an individual's line can be regarding when does music of the church become music of the world.

I'll accept that modernizing hymns to new settings indeed maybe pushing the line from solidly in the world of church music to a place that fosters more debate as to whether it is or not. Some will say...well why do it then? Because it can actually be just as edifying or even more edifying musically. It is pretty arrogant to say that because your box is only this big and its all you can handle you don't think anyone else should be allowed to make the box bigger.

I visited our WELS church in Mobile, AL for Easter. This is a congregation that just built a nice new building and would be considered pretty traditional. It was very nice, friendly, and Pastor Lewis gave an outstanding Sermon. However the most unnerving and disheartening thing was their investment in music. Two underpowered speakers provided very poor sound for the organ. It did not lead the congregation well because it did not have enough volume and the sound was bland and uninspiring compared to the message and mood of the hymns being sung. I'm not criticizing the organist at all. I'm not sure there was much more she could do. It was just a let down on what I consider one of the 3 most glorious services of the year (Reformation, Christmas, and Easter) I think there are several ways that music could have been improved. Either an upgrade to the sound system, add some more colorful instrumentation whether it was just on the organ, adding brass, piano,or strings... I did get to have Grits and Biscuits with gravy though at the Easter Brunch after church. They were truly inspirational.

So in short. For some the line between sacred and secular style is all over the map. You can't really judge that because it is a personal thing. You can be offended perhaps based on your preference but of course isn't that always the card that is played?

For those who are not stuck in the small box. Content and message are everything. Style is totally secondary and separate. We can listen to the same hymn produced several different ways and rank them in order of preference but ultimately the message is the same and what is important. Obviously that is what we are arguing here. Is it separate or not? I vote it is.


Anonymous said...

A few thoughts for you based on your comments below.

>>Fine whatever...go to a different service if it doesn't suit you.>>

>>Content and message are everything. Style is totally secondary and separate. We can listen to the same hymn produced several different ways and rank them in order of preference but ultimately the message is the same and what is important. Obviously that is what we are arguing here. Is it separate or not? I vote it is.>>

I was told back in 1992 by a congregation president, when I voiced conerns of using a "Praise Band" and the generic (non Lutheran) sound and content of the songs, that "I should perhaps find another church that suits my needs better." So finally I left. That is a sad commentary. But ultimately I left not because of just the praise band, but because the pastor started going to Willow Creek for instruction on how to do outreach etc. It was a slow, but certain slide to a place that is extremely different and even less Lutheran seeimng than before. Many of us are feeling like we are getting pushed around and forced to accept what is to us, for several reasons, offensive.

I have had many, many encounters with praise music churches in WELS and I still can't explain the creepy feeling that I get. It's not that I am not familiar with this music or only listen to "Hymns of Praise." I have a wide pallet for music not unlike yourself. Perhaps I am creeped out because I have been in the circles of Reformed Enthusiasts before becoming a WELS person. So I know the routine. I know the message. I thought WLES was different and for a while it was. It seems to be copying the world and churches that are heterodox in substance. So yes, why do it? (referencing your comment above)

A parallel: why do we not fully immerse when we baptize? It's the water and the Word. Why not? Why not go to the river? Because we know that the water and the word are what's important and we also want to mark a difference in what we teach and why we teach it. That is a good way to represent what we do believe. So yes, I see that content is NEARLY everything, but NOT everything. I really can't see putting hymn lyrics to a heavy metal song. Of course I think that would be an extreme example, but it follows the logic your setting out. Hymns do provide a meter that can be followed easily by the masses and are realatively easy to sing as opposed to modern song that has a lot of held notes and syncopations that are not suited for the masses. I know there are several classic hmns including the version of A Mighty Fortress that is metrically complex. But that's not the rule.

Also, I can name several pastors and laymen, which I will not do at this time, who have compromised Fellowship principals to put into practice the Praise Service type thing and in an "outreach" effort. That is offensive whether intended or not.

And to your thoughts of emotions and people being controlled or shall I clarify, "influenced", is a little faulty. Music history can show you many examples of riots being caused by content or presentation. Sorry, I can't remember the Russian composer or the specific incident who was banned because of the impact he made on the masses and the insuing riots.

Content is not everything. David Letterman once put an entire Thanksgiving turkey dinner in a blender and made it into a smoothy. It looked bad and the people on the street really were repulsed by the taste. But it still had everthing that a nice, sit down, well presented Thanksgiving dinner had. But not so good and tasty in the end.

Seperate enough or not, you vote yes, I vote no. Not seperate enough, that is if you have doctrine that is worthy to believe and be proclaimed in all you say and do in all of its fine and pthy detail. I think Freed Finkelstein wrote about Catholicity and music a few weeks back that made much sense. That is a huge thing that also needs to be considered.

Scotch in the home, not at church.

Tim Niedfeldt said...

Well to be clear, when I talk about hymns....I do mean our hymns. CW hymns. Lutheran hymns. Everyone here is very obsessed with the notion that contemporary means using CCM top 40 etc. and rocking out each Sunday. I believe that comes from not really knowing the breadth of Christian music.

No, what I'm talking about is the WELS contemporary that is developing. I believe our church has done nearly 125 CW hymns in a contemporary fashion. Our instruments are guitar lead, piano, bass, and drums. On occasion, we add a saxophone.

There is also a brand of contemporary music such as Pastor Chad Walta's music. He only does piano and his hymns are basically scripture set to music. I mean he barely changes the words unless it is really necessary. When he played for our church he did the songs playing the piano in his white geneva.

There are othe good contemporary songs out there..but I think for the most part you can use the following rule. If you hear it on Christian radio...You shouldn't use it in church. Like that awful song I hear the other day about singing my life song nearly 100 times...wth is a lifesong anyway?

I just put this out there so that when I speak of music it is clear what I mean. I am a moderate in my contemporary music I can handle at church. So although I argue the right to self-determine these personal taste would not appreciate a rockin' out stage show at church. Even my current congregation which is a daughter congregation of one of the synod's largest churches has gone a more conservative route on contemporary music than Big Mama does. I will also be there to curb any musician enthusiasm for more rambunctious variations than is wise. This suits our congregation well.

In this narrow context of contemporary that I work in then, I can't say that our music's style is really all that different than listening to Leon Couch playing pachabel the way an organ should be played. (I do play some grand pipe organ music interspersed here and there in the service as well as pre-service or post-service)

My ideas, although dismissed here merely out of hand, are just about expanding the musical bredth of what we offer in the church. Not about pushing the edge. That's why each implementation really has to be looked at individually to see how it fits in context. The extremes and dangers as are oft repeated here are for the most part not even present in most instances in the reality of things. They are just hypothetical situations of how things either are in the Evangelical world or how they could become if we lost control. The WELS has spent 100 years trying to excercise control and by and large we do it better than most. I think we can excercise that discernmnet and control with new things too.


Freddy Finkelstein said...

Anon @9:27AM,

The Russian composer you're thinking of is Igor Stravinsky, and the piece you are thinking of is the pagan-themed, 20th Century work, Rite of Spring.

Freddy Finkelstein

Anonymous said...

I started to post more on this thread the other day and decided to delete it. I thought maybe it was a little too touchy feely. But I think in the WELS and among more conservative Lutherans there is this philosophy that being a Christian; the way we worship and many other aspects is all a intellectual thing. In other words a head thing and not a heart thing. And I agree to a point. We are Spocks when we could be more like Little Richards. OK, weird extreme analogy I admit, but it works.

God created us as total beings in his image. We have a body, soul and mind. This includes the entire spectrum of emotions. Where would we all be had God remained as a logical Spock? The wages of sin is death! But He showed us Grace and Mercy! This is not a head thing. This is a heart thing! His grace and mercy to us is not a logical reaction to our condition and what we have done. We deserve nothing!

Music is a spiritual thing. It proceeds from the soul. Many times I've been to concerts and can't deny the emotional connection the audience has with the performers. I have always thought, "Why can't people be more like this towards their Lord?" We should be like that towards God instead of the idol worship that goes on. I understand that fine line. But then I look to the example of King David freaking out in front of the Ark of the Covenant parade - IN IS UNDERWEAR!!!; to the point his wife was embarrassed for him. Was this a bad thing? I always got the impression from scripture that the Lord delighted in David's 'foolish' behavior.

I just don't see a problem with rocking out a little bit in church as long as it is kept in perspective; that it is out of pure joy and that we are not trying evoke a response as to manipulate a decision. But then again, doesn't the heart usually come in to play?


Anonymous said...

Tim, but your church has also uses some very weak contemporary songs, including some that are doctrinally-questionable. Such as: Shout to the North, Lord Reign in Me, Here I Am to Worship, and Heart of Worship.

Tim Niedfeldt said...

They HAVE. I believe each one of those songs have only debuted once from the early days when we took the song list from "Big Mama". I do not believe any of them will be played again. We now have a semi formal review with the worship team each week and have removed a good deal of some of those (in my opinion) regrettable songs. They are not aweful but they are not rich in message.

It is true that some will "fight" for some somewhat cheesy praise songs. I know at one time I fought for "Above All" for worship. I still love the song but I am now on board for not singing it at church after a long email debate with pastor the length of which even BW has not seen from me.

Yes it is true we started out with a little to much new and trendy and after grounding ourself have made a pointed direction to shy away from those meatless songs.

I have been tempted to remove those songs from the web as I had in the past. However our band plays for things like a college night or Hallepalooza so some of those recordings are of our "upbeat" reportoire for those kinds of events. So some people wanted to have them out there to represent more than the worship music. At a minimun I should separate the two so people get an accurate reflection of what is in our current worship.

When we move to the theater we will also start putting our entire service on the web. I'm thinking it will be right in the spot where the current showtime banner is each week. Just spent $7000 yesterday to upgrade our technology. Then everybody can check it out each week and offer their input. I welcome it.


TIMiAM (a sinner, not God) said...


"But He showed us Grace and Mercy! This is not a head thing. This is a heart thing! His grace and mercy to us is not a logical reaction to our condition and what we have done. We deserve nothing!"

You are wrong. Yes of course we deserve nothing and are saved by grace through faith. But we know this (in our heads) which then will move us emotionally (in our hearts). By your (il)logic, if you don't feel grace and mercy in your heart you don't have grace and mercy. The only thing you're right about is being too "touchy-feely."

You write "I've been to concerts and can't deny the emotional connection the audience has with the performers." That's called a trance. Perhaps you'd "feel" more comfortable "worshiping" in an Assemblies of God congregation.

Angry Andy,

I in no way intended to assume God's name in my handle. This is what I intended to do:

Tim=Timothy=Honoring God
TIMiAM=I am honoring God

I can see your concern, as Eckhert Tolle urges his followers to recite the mantra "I am."

Not coincidently, a quick search for "I am" on wikipedia turns up many instances of that term being used in pop music including by Godsmack, Kid Rock, and an album by Static X called Wisconsin Death Trip.

I will consider revising.

Anonymous said...

Anon 1155 I have to admit those are weak songs. And the more we add to our repertoire at Christ the Rock, the more these songs are getting left behind. I am coming to the conclusion that we need more songs with a bit of edge in a contemporary setting with solid Lutheran theology. I like to call them Man Songs. The kind that don't make men feel like sissies. And maybe that's where the problem is. It's been well documented that the post modern church has been feminized.


Anon 1155 said...

Tim, JK,

Good to hear you both agree that they are weak songs and are leaving them behind.

What about some of these songs (those named) that at best have confusing doctrinal content and at worst simply have false theology in them? Why merely say they are weak?

I'm also curious about your distinction between a "worship" song and one that is appropriate for college night or your outreach picnic. Why water down the message for these groups? "Upbeat" is not the same as lacking solid content.

Anonymous said...

"Perhaps you'd "feel" more comfortable "worshiping" in an Assemblies of God congregation."

I laughed. I cried. I arrived at a similar conclusion. JK's enthusiasm is noted.

Many of us have experienced world-class contemporary worship and found it to be vacuous. This so-called heart/mind dichotomy seems erroneous to me as well. If one doesn't believe what they're singing, setting it to an edgier tune won't seem to remedy that situation.

I can't help but think of the plethora of Scriptures that indicate the condition of the heart is most certainly not God-pleasing:

'Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.' Gen. 6:5

"From their callous hearts comes iniquity ; the evil conceits of their minds know no limits." Ps. 73:7

"The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?" Jer. 17:9

"But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man 'unclean.' For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander." - Matt. 15:18-19

Now maybe these Scriptures only apply to someone with a heart like mine. I have nothing good to offer God from my heart. It is perverse.

But that is what has drawn me to Lutheranism, the benefits and comfort not available in other denominations. Confession and Absolution (albeit only having experienced the public form), true body and blood of Christ, saving baptism, the Living Word and everything else that preaches Christ crucified for the remission of sins. I find no comfort in the repetitive contemporary songs.

But maybe that's just me, an old curmudgeon battling the Old Adam and finding nothing righteous in my flesh. Thanks be to God for Jesus Christ and Him crucified for a confessional crusader such as myself.


Tim Niedfeldt said...

Honestly those venues were not billed as worship or evangelism per se. They were famliy friendly entertainment and an outreach into the community. Its a way that says. "we are here in your community and we want to entertain you, feed you," and if thats all that happens so be it. But some people wanted to know more and have gotten to know Christ because of it.

Indeed many connections were met at the venues and we have gained members because of them. There were members there who turned a community outreach event into an evangelism opportunity.

So the focus was not really on the content of the music it was more on the kids events and the fellowship, the food and at the end there was a short law and gospel devotion.

Is this okay to do? I think so. We don't do seeker stuff. We're not trying to convert someone in a park. Our music can be less worshipful. We are simply emphasizing our family friendliness to have a wholesome concert. We are refining our attempts to outreach to the community but then use these opportunities and connections for evangelism.

The college nights are just live music playing in the background While the college kids ate pizza. There was a short devotion but basically was an open pizza night for UWM/MSOE students who happened to see the signs at Grace Lutheran downtown. We played "Oh taste and See" at that event in addition to a wide range of music.

If we were running events as seeker "community events" I could see where we might have a different focus. I'm just not sure that everything we do has to be arranged the same.


Anon 1155 said...

I never said they were worship or evangelism events.

Just trying to get a handle on why you would ever choose empty or especially false doctrinal content over Gospel-filled proclamation when using "Christian" music, corporate worship or otherwise.

Anonymous said...

Sorry I wasn't more clear...

The head/heart thing was in reference to God, not us. I thought I was clear that I understood the human perspective.

What I was saying is that God had an emotional response to our condition. It was a heart decision to save us. Grace and mercy are not a head thing.


Anonymous said...

You said:
"Music is a spiritual thing. It proceeds from the soul."

Being an active jazz musician I am very familiar with this type of speak. I am familiar with statements and philosophies coming from musical greats as John Coltrane, Miles Davis, Dizzy Gillespie and almost every other musician out there that would also claim what you say.

I don't agree that it is Spiritual. It's fun, it's emotional. It's communicative in the jazz/improvising sense, where using an entirely different language you can communicate musical ideas and have "conversations", but they are not Spiritual conversations. That is a Pagan idea. Unless I have really missed something in the WORD, I am pretty sure that music is not as you claim.

I know many/most who play music that would disagree with me, but I find absolutely NO Biblical support that music is Spritual. It may be soothing to the "soul" or better stated; to ones emotional state, but I can't find how it comes from the "soul." Just because Coltrane and others (as amazing as they were and worthy to listen to) have said such things, I don't know that their words are accurate on Spritual matters. To repeat them as authoritative is dangerous to your fellow Christians.

Those who would assign a "Spritual" nature to music are setting it up to be an idol to worship. And some do. God alone is Spiritual and deserves our praise and adoration.

These kinds of statements that you say are born out of misinformation and copying what someone else says. They tend to give a sort of etherial and hard to pin down meaning to a word that has infested the thoughts and ideas of most people in the world and in the Church. I find this talk very prevalent with my friends in the heterodox and Enthusiast churches circles as well as among my un-Christian friends.


Anonymous said...

By saying God alone is Spiritual, I did not mean that we do not have a Spiritual component or soul that God has given to each of us.

The greater point of my previous statement is to say that humans tend to move toward worshipping things that God has created rather than worshipping Him. And we need to be on guard when assigning things with a Spiritual tag.

The tendency then is to worship those "spiritual" things as done in Pagan and "natural" religions.

Also, my apologies to any and all people who are offended by spelling errors. I call you folks "sic-ers". I just love to see all the "sic" placements everytime there is a spelling error. What is that about? To show how stupid someone is that they can"t spll a wurd?

Humor people!

Anonymous said...

Read the post, watched the vid, 2 reactions:

1. What were you hoping to accomplish by posting that absurd video? You can only hurt your credibility with this broad-brush sensationalism.

2. If you want to avoid everything that has ever been tainted with sin, you should probably join a monstic community. (Oh that's right, the reformers weren't too keen on monasticism. Next topic please.)

Anonymous said...

Thank you so much for this eye-opening website!

I am shocked that any churches (especially the churches of our dear Wisconsin Synod) would let these musicians play their heathenistic music in their worship services! (Especially that musician who was in the car with that girl!!!!) I know that our church only has an organ and a piano, so it would be pretty hard for them to play those kinds of songs! Maybe all the churches should make a law that no guitars or drums or any of the bad instrrumnts should ever be used. Do you think that would fix the problem?!?!?

Thank you so much for all the hard work you people are doing with this website, and keep on bailing the water!

Anonymous said...

Scotch, you find the term spiritual songs in the Bible.

Chi Chi said...

People who write (sic) behind another's mispeelled words to point out that they, the one quoting did not mispell. It's very useeful especially when quoting very old documents, before specific spelings was codified. Or it may be used to suggest "The persin I'm quoting is a not only a moron for spelling ridiculous "rediculus" but also to point out that the mispeller has so little repect for the reader and the discussoin at hand that the didn't even run spell-Czech.

Some body sic this up fore me:

Anonymous said...

That it is good and pleasing to God to sing spiritual songs is, I think, not hidden to any Christian. Everyone is acquainted not only with the example of the kings and prophets of the Old Testament (who praised God with poetry and all kinds of string music) but also with the common use of music, especially the singing of the psalms, in Christendom from the very beginning.

St. Paul, too, instituted this in 1 Cor. 14:15 and bids the Colossians (3:16) heartily to sing spiritual songs and psalms unto the Lord in order that thereby God's Word and Christian doctrine might be used and practiced in diverse ways... I greatly desire that youth, which, after all, should be trained in music and other proper arts, might have something whereby it might be weaned from the love ballads and sex songs, and instead of these, learn something beneficial and take up the good with relish, as befits youth.

Nor am I at all of the opinion that all the arts are to be overthrown and cast aside by the Gospel, as some superspiritual people protest; but I would gladly see all the arts, especially music, in the service of Him who has given and created them.

Luther ... Introduction to Hymnbook of Johann Walther, 1525

Where is word of the only proper music being played on an organ or songs written in Luther's day (or before)? Where does Luther say music is improper if it moves the spirit to respond heartily? Luther even praises the stringed music of the past. And, he has harsh words for the "super-spiritual" that would bind others to their point of view. Luther recognized the gift of music (and musicians) as a blessing of God to be enjoyed and cultivated. Where in any of our churches are sex songs being played? Where in any of our churches are ballads lauding human love being played for worship? God continues to give the gift of music and musicians to his church today, even when they sing his praise with a different voice/sound than in the past. Condemn what is sinful, but don't make up new sins.

My two cents ... and the coinage of someone far more astute than me.

Anonymous said...

Scotch, you find the term spiritual songs in the Bible.

April 27, 2009 2:48 PM

Thanks for pointing that out. Certainly I do believe that a song can be a Spiritual song, ie: that it has a Spiritual meaning or is set aside for the reason of being used to convey a Spiritual truth or have an ecclesiastial intent. To me, that is wholly different than to say music is Spiritual as often thought and expressed by JK as well as others.


Anonymous said...

The one tune that Luther borrowed from "popular culture" so to speak, for Vom Himmel Hoch, he rescinded and ended up writing a new tune for because he felt it had too strong worldly associations.

Chi Chi said...

Has anyone else noticed the similarity between the gay community and the Evengelical (rock n roll church) community?

Broad and fake smiles; smiles that are self assurances that they are confident that what they are doing is right. The smiles and attitudes of Homos and Evangelicals is so manufactured because they want to intimidate their own consciences into submission via a trumped up emotion of happiness.

Anonymous said...

Now don't get so distressed.
Did I happen happen to mention that I'm impressed?

Anonymous said...

Chi Chi wrote:

"The smiles and attitudes of Homos and Evangelicals is so manufactured because they want to intimidate their own consciences into submission via a trumped up emotion of happiness."

Chi Chi would do well to learn, grammar and logic. Being brought to faith in Christ would benefit him as well. Pray for him.