Rock Music in Worship: Why not?

[kceaster]

JD...

Not to take the thread too far afield, but I think you're confusing piety with pietism. We aren't making these statements to take away from the freedom each of us has in Christ. We're trying to point out that it is God's worship, not ours. He doesn't come down to us, we go up to Him. Therefore, our worship is to be reverent and in accord with all His divine character and principles.

It would be a whole lot easier if God had recorded the musical notes and outlined the musical forms by which He is to be worshiped. But in the absence of that, we must endeavor, in the light of Christian prudence, to do those things before Him that are not contrary to the light we have.

I think you would agree that Isaiah did not come before the Lord dancing and singing. There is a place for that and a time as Solomon tells us. But Isaiah 6 is a picture of worship. And if you believe God allows anyone to make a joyful noise, and dance, and sing, and not present themselves humbly and contritely before God, then you may have misunderstood the solemn worship God has prescribed.

I would suggest that you not look at 'Puritanical' worship as what you can't do, but that you would see it as what our God graciously allows and is pleased with.

The transcendence of God should tell us that He's not impressed with a good bass rif, or a driving beat; something He can tap His toes to. He's not present in worship so that He can say, "Ah, ain't that cute," or "Man, that guy can sure play the guitar." If you truly believe that God enjoys rock and roll, then I'm not sure you understand the godness of God. I would encourage you to ponder that.

In Christ,

KC

 

[BobVigneault]

Dear brother JD,
Andrew doesn't need me to defend him but my respect for him compells me to do so. Andrew has been an example to me of a reformed believer and a true gentleman since I first started lurking on the board.

His thoroughness in research and study, his devotion to God centered worship and his gentle demeanor have been both encouraging and convicting. Andrew is one of the last people I would associate with the term 'legalism'. I don't always agree with him but his writings and scholarship continue to send me back to the scriptures to measure my own convictions.

So I would ask you JD to calm yourself and keep the discussion on topic.

 

[panta dokimazete]

I don't always agree with him but his writings and scholarship continue to send me back to the scriptures to measure my own convictions.

Another gracious post! Thank you!

Which is exactly why I ask the question and rebut - it's how I learn - iron sharpens iron, unless one removes themselves from the sharpening by dismissing another so bruisingly.

I got the distinct impression that my brother felt he was casting pearls before swine.

Note that I did not question his rationale on the use of written Scripture in worship as it relates to "dead strings" (although I may still...well, I guess I can't now since he won't debate me...)

Pax,

JD

(...and my disillusionment varies by the winsomeness diplayed here by the modern day proponents of Puritanism...)

 

[panta dokimazete]

If you truly believe that God enjoys rock and roll, then I'm not sure you understand the godness of God. I would encourage you to ponder that.

wow - gotta run - meetings and flights to catch - but I can tell you with conviction that God enjoys our love and worship when they are given to Him with love, for Him and for our neighbor - and that when we begin to strain the gnat of music styles and swallow the camel of judgementalism and legalism, God is not pleased.

Ta!

-JD

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by joshua
Now he never said he wouldn't debate you, jd. He said he didn't want to sidetrack Patrick's thread.

Yes. I should have known what 4 hours would do. From EP to special music to Puritan legalism..... Come guys. We can do better. Put your thinking caps on. Perhaps you may have to ask yourselves why you believe what you do before you post. Think through your presuppositions.

I asked a specific question. If you want to debate the legality of instruments at all in worship then start another thread. Technically, you can still have rock with acapella anyway (i.e. Take 6, Bobby McFerrin, etc.), so being EP or acapella won't answer the question. I'm simply looking for OBJECTIVE criteria. If you're answering the question with "I think...." or "I feel..." then please don't respond. Simply provide a logical argument either way. Then we will take the best pro and con answers and pick them apart and see what we can learn. That is where I would like the thread to go. So now, let's rock! Hit me with your best shot!

 

[py3ak]

Thank you for your graceful reply Ruben, but I am really only pointing out that loving the Lord with all our mind, heart, soul and strength includes giving Him the best of our talent in worship, as well...it would be sacreledge for me not to present the fruit of my training, skill and talent as an offering of praise to the Lord - to the edification of the body and His Glory.

To wit: Mallot's - The Lord's Prayer - this song is a prayer and very demanding vocally - should it be excluded from the worship of God? or only sung acapella and congregationally?

JD, this is a point where I am aware that I am somewhat at odds with a lot of thinking. I believe that we worship God in spirit and truth, sincerely and to the best of our ability. However, not all talents are to be summoned forth or displayed in the time of worship. I know a man who is uproariously funny. After he makes some crack I will think of it every day for a week or a month and laugh again. But in worship he does not make jokes --even though he is extremely good at it. Why? Because that talent is not called for in the public worship of God. I am a devoted opera fan; but if the great Bryn Terfel himself were to be converted and come to my church I would not ask him to sing a special (and it would be my intention to sing myself just as though he were not present). It is my belief that he could sing to the glory of God as part of the congregation, and that he could sing to the glory of God as his means of providing for his family. I believe he could record hymns and psalms for the edification of the members of the church in private (indeed, his recordings of Abide With Me and Psalm 23 have been very helpful to me). But worship is not performance, it is a corporate activity.
You are correct that it is sacriledge not to use what God has given us for Him --but the context for that use is not always in relation to the public worship of the church.

 

[panta dokimazete]

Sorry - laying down legalistic principles that are largely a matter of preference and isogesis:

Musical instruments in Christian worship are a violation of the regulative principle of worship.

"The organ in the worship is the insignia of Baal"¦ The Roman Catholic borrowed it from the Jews"

Exclusive psalmody -- The psalms alone are commanded by God to be the matter of our praise to Him. There is no command to compose new matter, the canon of God's "hymn-book," the Psalter, is closed.

...musical instruments are part of the ceremonial worship abolished by God's Word.

Then judgementally dismissing my points because of my signature. instead of winsomely pointing me to the source.


How's that?

-JD

edited to add: Dang, Patrick - I am sorry - you have a great thread idea! Will try and come bcak when I land.

[Edited on 3-28-2006 by jdlongmire]

 

[Kaalvenist]

Personally, I think that Patrick's original question is best answered by the rejection of musical instruments in worship. If musical instruments are not allowed in worship, that would automatically disqualify rock being used in worship.

For that matter, the insistence of some on singing over instrumentation (allowing for musical instruments so long as it merely supports the singing, without making the singing dependent on instruments) would also disqualify rock, since every form of rock that I have heard is dependent upon the instrumentation.

I personally believe that (given a strict understanding of the regulative principle) the case against musical instruments is easier to make than the case for exclusive psalmody. It is demonstrable that musical instruments were used in the Old Testament in clearly ceremonial fashion -- to the point of restricting the playing of instruments during the offering of sacrifices.

And he set the Levites in the house of the LORD with cymbals, with psalteries, and with harps, according to the commandment of David, and of Gad the king's seer, and Nathan the prophet: for so was the commandment of the LORD by his prophets. And the Levites stood with the instruments of David, and the priests with the trumpets. And Hezekiah commanded to offer the burnt offering upon the altar. And when the burnt offering began, the song of the LORD began also with the trumpets, and with the instruments ordained by David king of Israel. And all the congregation worshipped, and the singers sang, and the trumpeters sounded: and all this continued until the burnt offering was finished.--2 Chronicles 29:25-28

And lest any should say that singing would be just as ceremonial, since "the singers sang," just as "the trumpeters sounded," the passage continues:

And when they had made an end of offering, the king and all that were present with him bowed themselves, and worshipped. Moreover Hezekiah the king and the princes commanded the Levites to sing praise unto the LORD with the words of David, and of Asaph the seer. And they sang praises with gladness, and they bowed their heads and worshipped.--2 Chronicles 29:29, 30

Here we see that, immediately after the offering of the sacrifice, they sang with "the words of David, and of Asaph the seer" (i.e. the Psalms). The fact that Psalmody continues by express command under the New Testament, whereas the NT is entirely silent on the use of musical instruments in worship, simply confirms this ceremonial usage. And the testimony of church history strongly favors this interpretation -- I challenge anyone to find just one father of the early church who spoke in favor of musical instruments in worship. For over one thousand years, this was THE Christian position; and at the Reformation, this was THE Reformed position -- it took hundreds of years for musical instruments to make their way into Calvinist churches.

 

[py3ak]

Patrick --I apologize. I was typing my last reply as you were typing your post, and so I didn't see it. I will try not to contribute any further to the sidetracking of the thread.

Since I don't believe that music is neutral, in that it does have an impact on the human personality, I think that tunes need to be evaluated according to at least these criteria if not more:
Suitableness to the words
Suitableness of its impact to the context of public worship
Suitableness for didactic purposes
Suitableness for congregational singing
Suitableness to the character of God

I don't think that is subjective, as I can't see any way to legitimately ignore any of them given what the Bible says.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Originally posted by Kaalvenist
I personally believe that (given a strict understanding of the regulative principle) the case against musical instruments is easier to make than the case for exclusive psalmody.

I think this is true; and it is somewhat demonstrated in that the standard American work against musical instrumentaiton in worship is by John L. Girardeau, a Southern Presbyterian (hymn singer). His work is online here.

 

[Kaalvenist]

Originally posted by puritansailor
I asked a specific question. If you want to debate the legality of instruments at all in worship then start another thread. Technically, you can still have rock with acapella anyway (i.e. Take 6, Bobby McFerrin, etc.), so being EP or acapella won't answer the question.

Wasn't aware that it was possible, Patrick. I'd be interested in hearing that.

I don't have a problem with the idea of rock having good, Christian lyrics... I've just never heard of "rocking" to the Psalms, or acappella rock. Those are the primary criteria that I have for songs being sung in church. If one can introduce rock into church that (1) restricts the lyrics to the Psalms, (2) does not use musical instruments, (3) is adapted for congregational singing (without being dependent on a "worship team" or "choir" up front), and (4) is reverent; then go for it.

But I think that this sort of question is very hypothetical. I've never heard of rock that would meet those requirements, nor have I heard of anyone willing to write rock songs with the purpose of meeting those requirements.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Originally posted by puritansailor
Yes. I should have known what 4 hours would do. From EP to special music to Puritan legalism..... Come guys. We can do better.

suprise suprise. but

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Originally posted by jdlongmire
edited to add: Dang, Patrick - I am sorry - you have a great thread idea! Will try and come bcak when I land.

Do folks use "dang" on PB because PB censors "damn."

 

[BobVigneault]

"I challenge anyone to find just one father of the early church who spoke in favor of musical instruments in worship."

The church fathers didn't promote unaccompanied music because of the RWP, they were against instruments because of the association with the cultic services in the Greco/Roman world.

 

[Kaalvenist]

Originally posted by jdlongmire
Sorry - laying down legalistic principles that are largely a matter of preference and isogesis:

If this is what God requires in His law, then that is what we should do. It is not "legalism" to obey His law; it is antinomianism to disregard it.

And it's "eisogesis," not "isogesis." If you're going to insult us, do it right.

Originally posted by jdlongmire
Then judgementally dismissing my points because of my signature. instead of winsomely pointing me to the source.

I've come to detest words like "winsome" and "irenic." You have been pointed to "the source," as you say. See also the page on musical instruments on my website, with all the links your heart could desire.

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by kceaster
The argument I would give is that this genre of music is taken from the world. Yeah, I know people say that rock music comes from gospel roots, but one has to ask where these gospel roots came from and how they were influenced.

Music for worship starts in the church, it is not borrowed from the world. If God didn't borrow anything else in His worship, why would He borrow music?

In Christ,

KC

Martin Luther borrowed tunes from bawdy tavern songs. He replaced the crude words but kept the "catchy" tunes. I don't think the source of the music is a relevant factor - it's all human - we don't have the benefit of getting angles to play us God's top ten tunes.

And I don't think the redundancy of the typical rock lyrics is really important. As long as it's a biblical message, why should I care if it's repeated. Redundancy is a question of personal preference.

I think there are two main factors to consider. Does it make some church members uncomfortable to worship to certain music styles. There's no need to upset people just because we know it's okay for us to eat the meat sacrificed to idols. Second, is the message glorifying to God. It doesn't matter if it's redundant or if it never repeats a single phrase twice. If the message doesn't honor God or if it teaches bad doctrine, then it should not be sung - regardless of the music style.

A final factor is the effect it has on us as we sing it. My church sings those beautiful old hymns from the red hymnal. But I can not sing soprano, and I don't read music very well. I try to sing the base, so I don't screech, but that also distracts me from the message. Basically, I'm trying to do three things at once: listen to the low notes on the piano (the base line), read and sing the base notes in the hymn, and follow the read the text of the hymn. Unfortunately, the result is I'm trying so hard to sing that I'm often unable to notice what the words actually mean. If I have the base line down by the third verse, I'm happy. Now if we can sing that hymn every Sunday for the next 2 month, I'll actually be able to really think about what I'm singing.

This is not to say that singing rock music is the solution, it's certainly easier to sing songs that are less complicated and have a limited vocal range. But I love the old hymns too - maybe because some are so intricate woven together. I especially love the ones I learned when I sang in choir, where I practiced with other base singers and really learned the tune. It's an awesome feeling to worship God and really think about what you are singing. Which is also why I think rock music can be honorably sung for God.

As an example of what I consider to be beautiful rock music, here's a link to a video of a young guy playing Johann Pachelbel's Cannon - on an electric guitar! http://jerryc.just-nn.com/JerryC_CanonRock.wmv

Some of you will love it, some may hate it. I think it's awesome and I wish I could sing with the apparent passion that this tune envokes in me. Is it appropriate for church music? I think it is if the Handel's Messiah is appropriate.

Listen to this: "And He Shall Purify" from the Messiah http://www.printeryhouse.org/mall/Gifts/Music/Audio/G522-2.wma

Both I find very inspiring. Both could be used to glorify God. But neither seems to be beneficial to everyone. Some people only feel good about singing psalms with minimal orchestration and using melodies that are at least 400 years old. I wouldn't force anyone to sing contemporary music if it makes them feel bad. But personal preference should not be the major factor when we judge what style of music may be used for worship. All music we listen too should glorify God.

 

[kceaster]

Originally posted by puritansailor
Yes. I should have known what 4 hours would do. From EP to special music to Puritan legalism..... Come guys. We can do better. Put your thinking caps on. Perhaps you may have to ask yourselves why you believe what you do before you post. Think through your presuppositions.

I asked a specific question. If you want to debate the legality of instruments at all in worship then start another thread. Technically, you can still have rock with acapella anyway (i.e. Take 6, Bobby McFerrin, etc.), so being EP or acapella won't answer the question. I'm simply looking for OBJECTIVE criteria. If you're answering the question with "I think...." or "I feel..." then please don't respond. Simply provide a logical argument either way. Then we will take the best pro and con answers and pick them apart and see what we can learn. That is where I would like the thread to go. So now, let's rock! Hit me with your best shot!

Premise 1: God is not well pleased with the means by which natural man worships Him. (De 12:1-4)

Premise 2: The fallenness of man precludes him from worshipping aright. (Jer 13:10)

Premise 3: If God did not tell us how to worship Him, our worship would be in vain and would be a way of death. (Pr 14:12)

Conclusion: Using fallen means and ceremonies, and even following the dictates of our own heartfelt desires does not produce acceptable worship before a holy God.

Now along with this, we must ask where the music comes from. Would God have have been pleased to use the music of surrounding nations in the worship of Himself by His people? If we can answer that question, then we are closer to determining what kind of music is acceptable to God in our own time. If it comes from the world, how can it be pleasing to God?

In Christ,

KC

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Originally posted by Kaalvenist
See also the page on musical instruments on my website, with all the links your heart could desire.

Sean, FYI, the first link on your page to historical quotes is dead.

 

[panta dokimazete]

sigh*** - so much for not derailing, but when a brother offends...

Originally posted by Kaalvenist

And it's "eisogesis," not "isogesis." If you're going to insult us, do it right.

check your own spellcheck plank, brother...

at least google will define mine:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2006-13,GGLG:en&q=define:+isogesis

the actual correct spelling - eisegesis
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2006-13,GGLG:en&q=define:+eisegesis

...and gosh - do you think I could go get you a bunch of links Biblically supporting instruments in worship?

oy...

[Edited on 3-28-2006 by jdlongmire]

 

[kceaster]

Originally posted by Civbert

Originally posted by kceaster
The argument I would give is that this genre of music is taken from the world. Yeah, I know people say that rock music comes from gospel roots, but one has to ask where these gospel roots came from and how they were influenced.

Music for worship starts in the church, it is not borrowed from the world. If God didn't borrow anything else in His worship, why would He borrow music?

In Christ,

KC

Martin Luther borrowed tunes from bawdy tavern songs. He replaced the crude words but kept the "catchy" tunes. I don't think the source of the music is a relevant factor - it's all human - we don't have the benefit of getting angles to play us God's top ten tunes.

This is untrue and has been debunked. He used bar tunes. The bar in this case is not a tavern, but a form of music. This has been discussed several times on this board and I would encourage you to investigate it further.

I think there are two main factors to consider. Does it make some church members uncomfortable to worship to certain music styles. There's no need to upset people just because we know it's okay for us to eat the meat sacrificed to idols. Second, is the message glorifying to God. It doesn't matter if it's redundant or if it never repeats a single phrase twice. If the message doesn't honor God or if it teaches bad doctrine, then it should not be sung - regardless of the music style.

A final factor is the effect it has on us as we sing it. My church sings those beautiful old hymns from the red hymnal. But I can not sing soprano, and I don't read music very well. I try to sing the base, so I don't screech, but that also distracts me from the message. Basically, I'm trying to do three things at once: listen to the low notes on the piano (the base line), read and sing the base notes in the hymn, and follow the read the text of the hymn. Unfortunately, the result is I'm trying so hard to sing that I'm often unable to notice what the words actually mean. If I have the base line down by the third verse, I'm happy. Now if we can sing that hymn every Sunday for the next 2 month, I'll actually be able to really think about what I'm singing.

I would humbly suggest that you've missed the point of worship altogether. It is not about us, it is about God. It is not what is pleasing or uncomfortable to us, it is what is pleasing to God. He is the audience and we the performers. We are not there to cater to anyone other than Him.

In Christ,

KC

 

[kceaster]

Originally posted by jdlongmire

If you truly believe that God enjoys rock and roll, then I'm not sure you understand the godness of God. I would encourage you to ponder that.

wow - gotta run - meetings and flights to catch - but I can tell you with conviction that God enjoys our love and worship when they are given to Him with love, for Him and for our neighbor - and that when we begin to strain the gnat of music styles and swallow the camel of judgementalism and legalism, God is not pleased.

Ta!

-JD

Brother, you couldn't be more wrong. And I'm saying this in love because I used to think as you do. God is not pleased at our attempts to worship Him, love Him, and love our neighbor apart from the ways He's laid down in His Word. I'm sorry if you think it is legalism that I'm coming from. I didn't make the rules. God did. If you have a problem with how He wants to be worshiped, I suggest you take it up with Him.

In any case, we come to Him through the veil which is Christ. You must always remember that worship comes through spirit and truth. Both of these are other-worldly. In other words,, we cannot worship God without Christ. He is the only one who pleases His Father. And if we think, as adopted sons, that we're allowed to come before God any old way and believe that He will accept it, we do not understand the godness of God. He is not pleased with us. He is pleased with Himself, which is why He told us how to worship Him.

In Christ,

KC

 

[Kaalvenist]

Originally posted by NaphtaliPress

Originally posted by Kaalvenist
See also the page on musical instruments on my website, with all the links your heart could desire.

Sean, FYI, the first link on your page to historical quotes is dead.

Thanks Chris... The last time I did any substantial work on my site was over two years ago. I'm sure that, by now, there are plenty of dead links, as well as other links I'll want to add (including new sections on Amillennialism, Headcoverings, Textual/Translational Issues, etc.). I keep putting off making changes, because it's going to take a lot of time and energy that I don't find I have at the moment.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

This may be a helpful link on the subject of historical quotes on musical instruments in worship, some of which I have already cited.

 

[VictorBravo]

Originally posted by puritansailor

I asked a specific question. If you want to debate the legality of instruments at all in worship then start another thread. Technically, you can still have rock with acapella anyway (i.e. Take 6, Bobby McFerrin, etc.), so being EP or acapella won't answer the question. I'm simply looking for OBJECTIVE criteria.

Actually, I think it does address, if not answer, the question. I don't have any problem with new tunes for old words, as long as the tune doesn't set people's minds to wandering off of worship. Examples of a bad idea might be setting a Psalm to the tune of "A hundred bottles of beer on the wall" or "Inna Godda Davida".

So I think the regulative principle is at work. But if you try to solve your question with that answer, I'm afraid the whole EP and no-instrument debate is bound to come up again and again.

And around and around we will go.

Vic

 

[BobVigneault]

It's a shame this thread is missing a good ol' charasmatic DELIVERANCE minister. We are missing out on the arguments that 'drums' are used to 'drum up demons'.

Or how grocery stores and restaurants use music to sell you things you don't need like drug addicts needing a rock music fix.

Or how God created our bodies with a natural rhythm but rock music right out of the demonic jungles of Africa possesses us and makes us twice as fit for hell as the rock musician himself.

Oh those were the days of listening to DELIVERANCE preachers trying to get us to burn our records.

These reformed arguments just lack the color and excitement of the DELIVERANCE ministers. Oh well, carry on.

 

[Civbert]

I didn't notice the posts about using instruments until after I posted, but if that correct, then that pretty much cuts out rock style music. I can't imagine singing rock music without instruments.

Another interesting point someone made was that the tune should not be too complicated for the average person to sing. That seem to support the simple contemporary style of worship. Those tunes are not composed with sopranos and bases in mind, but with a mid range that the average person can follow. (That's why they only need to project the words on a screen, the melody is simple enough that reading music is not required).

I suppose either the complexity of the tune, or the instrumentation can be a distraction for the worshiper. And in that light, both JerryC's Cannon Rock, and Handel's Messiah, are not good worship service music. I think both can be glorying to God, but maybe not be useful for congregational worship.

A new thread on instruments in worship might be beneficial. I'd be interested in seeing more biblical support for either side of the issue. Most of the churches I've attended considered "musical offerings" to be biblical. And these were small reformed churches, not the big mega-churches with guitars and overhead projectors. On occasion, a musical offering was usually one of the members kids playing the violin or piano, with no lyrics, while the offering was being collected.

In fact, there's always a piano being played during the offering. What do churches do when they don't allow instruments? Do they sing a hymn during the offering, or does the minister read scripture? Or do they just sit and wait?

[Edited on 3-28-2006 by Civbert]

 

[VictorBravo]

On offerings: Some either silently pass the plate, others leave a box in back. I've been in both settings and do not find it strange at all. But that goes in a whole new direction.

 

[VictorBravo]

Originally posted by joshua
@Bob

I also appreciate that he is in the subjunctive mood.

Vic

 

[NaphtaliPress]

No problem. BTW, when you do get to changing the page, you might link to FPCR's version of Girardeau while you are at it; or at least give equal time. A PDF that preserves the original pagination of the first edition is in our ebooks section.

Originally posted by Kaalvenist

Originally posted by NaphtaliPress

Originally posted by Kaalvenist
See also the page on musical instruments on my website, with all the links your heart could desire.

Sean, FYI, the first link on your page to historical quotes is dead.

Thanks Chris... The last time I did any substantial work on my site was over two years ago. I'm sure that, by now, there are plenty of dead links, as well as other links I'll want to add (including new sections on Amillennialism, Headcoverings, Textual/Translational Issues, etc.). I keep putting off making changes, because it's going to take a lot of time and energy that I don't find I have at the moment.

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by kceaster

Originally posted by Civbert

Martin Luther borrowed tunes from bawdy tavern songs. He replaced the crude words but kept the "catchy" tunes. I don't think the source of the music is a relevant factor - it's all human - we don't have the benefit of getting angles to play us God's top ten tunes.

This is untrue and has been debunked. He used bar tunes. The bar in this case is not a tavern, but a form of music. This has been discussed several times on this board and I would encourage you to investigate it further.

I stand corrected. I was just repeating something I heard. I think he still worked with "contemporary" music - that is, he used the popular music style - even if he recomposed the tunes.

Originally posted by kceaster

I would humbly suggest that you've missed the point of worship altogether. It is not about us, it is about God. It is not what is pleasing or uncomfortable to us, it is what is pleasing to God. He is the audience and we the performers. We are not there to cater to anyone other than Him.

In Christ,

KC

I agree, see my follow-up post. But the question is, what exactly is "pleasing to God" in worship. I don't think He gave us a music style guide. So I don't think we can simply say that God would not be pleased with rock or bluegrass or classic music styles. It's more important that the words we are singing be acceptable.

Do you think the worshiper's attitude/mental state is a factor? I feel like I am not worshipping correctly when I am distracted or irritated, but that doesn't mean the person next to me is having that problem.

I don't buy the "worldly" source argument against some worship music styles. I think there is something to be said about the mental association some people might make to worldly or decadent cultures - and that can be a distraction. But I don't think that makes the music itself inappropriate - just inappropriate for some people. I don't make the mental association to the decadent "rock" culture when I here rock music.


An aside: If someone does not think the electric guitar is pleasing the the ear, what about the bagpipes?