11 January 2008

Land of 1000 Dances

by Phil Johnson

Throwing both caution and long-established protocol to the winds, I'm going to import part of a debate from Frank Turk's blog (where these intramural squabbles really belong) to PyroManiacs (where we almost never argue amongst ourselves). I'm doing this to try to extract the question of whether it's good to turn the church into a discotheque from the more volatile and not really essential question of teetotalism. So the latter subject is off limits in this thread, and let's be nice in the meta.


Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect (Romans 12:2).



n the topic of church activities, Christian testimony, and our collective influence on the world, I wanted to point out that the message we send with our lifestyle is to a very large degree subject to the interpretation of the observer anyway.

Let's concede (for the sake of argument) that if some quixotically missional church advertises cigars and poker as the centerpiece of their men's ministry, that may very well be all it takes to convince some spiritually-naive, intellectually-stunted biker type that Christians really aren't just stuffy prudes whom he could never relate to. But it seems just as likely (much more likely, really) that relegating "men's ministry" to the smoke-filled room would offend many more than it would "reach." I'll go further: that approach is likely to derail some men for whom a man-sized dose of Jerry Bridges, J. C. Ryle, or the apostle Paul would be a thousand times more edifying than another stogie.

(Yes, I know: Spurgeon smoked. Not during church meetings, though.)

o I grew up in a modernist church where we had dances all the time. It was the default activity for our youth group. And if you think church dances are a novel idea, you've been wading in the shallow-evangelical end of the pool for too long. In fact, the most famous incident regarding a church dance I can think of occurred in 1949.

HT: to James White for what follows. I spent all day Tuesday with him. (That, of course, was before the current flap arose. We were no doubt conspiring to commandeer Technorati for the "TR blogosphere," or something like that.) In the course of our conversation, James reminded me of the following true story.

In 1948, Sayyid Qutb was part of an early wave of privileged middle-eastern Muslims who came to the west to study. He spent a couple of years at the State College of Education in Greeley, Colorado—taking classes toward a master's degree in education. Displaced from his own culture and relatively isolated in middle America, he viewed almost every aspect of American society with a jaded eye. He found American jazz melodramatic and distasteful, American sports crude and primitive, Americans themselves materialistic and shallow. But above all, he was utterly appalled by how self-centered, "distant," worldly, and utterly unspiritual American religion looked from inside a typical place of worship.

Where'd he get that impression? Well, it seems someone invited Qutb to a dance at a Methodist church in Greeley. Here's an excerpt from Qutb's own description of that evening, taken from his book The America I Have Seen:

After the religious service in the church ended, boys and girls from among the members began singing hymns, while others prayed, and we proceeded through a side door onto the dance floor that was connected to the prayer hall by a door. . . Every boy took the hand of a girl, including those who had just been singing hymns!

The dance floor was lit with red and yellow and blue lights, and with a few white lamps. And they danced to the tunes of the gramophone, and the dance floor was replete with tapping feet, enticing legs, arms wrapped around waists, lips pressed to lips, and chests pressed to chests. The atmosphere was full of desire. When the minister descended from his office, he looked intently around the place and at the people, and encouraged those men and women still sitting who had not yet participated in this circus to rise and take part. And as he noticed that the white lamps spoiled the romantic, dreamy atmosphere, he set about, with that typical American elegance and levity, dimming them one by one, all the while being careful not to interfere with the dance, or bump into any couples dancing on the dance floor. And the place really did appear to become more romantic and passionate. Then he advanced to the gramophone to choose a song that would befit this atmosphere and encourage the males and the females who were still seated to participate.

And the minister chose. He chose a famous American song called "But Baby, It's Cold Outside" . . . and the minister waited until he saw people stepping to the rhythm of this moving song, and he seemed satisfied and contented. He left the dance floor for his home, leaving the men and the women to enjoy this night in all its pleasure and innocence!

Sounds pretty tame by comparison to the kind of things that are happening today, doesn't it? But to Sayyid Qutb in 1949, it was a shocking sign of superficiality and an impertinent lack of proper reverence. He saw it as proof that Christianity is not a faith to be taken seriously—because it isn't even taken seriously by "believers." That night was a major turning point in Qutb's thinking, and it was one of the main reasons he later gave for rejecting Western values and the Christian religion altogether.

Qutb went back to Egypt seething with outrage and contempt against the West's unbridled materialistic selfism, and he began to produce a body of writings that became the manifestos and chief handbooks for today's Islamofascism. Qutb was chief mentor to Ayman al-Zawahiri, who in turn mentored Osama bin Laden. One of bin Laden's closest friends reported that bin Laden read Qutb's works intently and considered him the most important influence in the rise of radical Islamism in the current generation. (See Dinesh D'Souza on Sayyid Qutb.)

Anyway, before someone accuses me of being sympathetic with Qutb's values, let me just say I'm advocating no such thing. I'm not suggesting his perspective of Americans or Christians in general was fair and accurate. It clearly wasn't, and Qutb belongs in a hall of shame alongside Hitler, Stalin, Idi Amin, and Pol Pot as some of the twentieth century's most demented megalomaniacs.

Also, I'm not suggesting (as some of our more zealous fundamentalist brethren might want to) that the club atmosphere in that one Colorado church is directly to blame for the fall of the World Trade Center towers.

But the Greeley church dance episode certainly does illustrate that not all the world is charmed by worldly religion, and the apologetic value of "Disco Night in the Sanctuary" is by no means a given. In short, taking pains to demonstrate how hip and liberated we can be in our places of worship might not always be the finest "missional" strategy.

That's one reason I personally don't find such arguments persuasive. Those who want to turn the church into a dance hall really ought to try to find more legitimate biblical support for what they are advocating. And if they can't (which, BTW, they won't,) they should reexamine the strategy.

So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God (1 Corinthians 10:31-32).

Therefore, preparing your minds for action, and being sober-minded, set your hope fully on the grace that will be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ. As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance, but as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, since it is written, "You shall be holy, for I am holy" (1 Peter 1:13-16).

You adulterous people! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God (James 4:4).


by Phil Johnson

242 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 242 of 242
Kent Brandenburg said...

Garet, what are gracious tones? I thought language was morally neutral.

Anonymous said...

Got me!

Or not.

Tones, speak to the manner and heart in which things are expressed.

One can be saying the same exact words but in different tones communicating different motives, can they not?

A gracious tone being one in which there is disagreement in the ideas we are expressing, maliciousness appears absent in tone.

It is a question of how not what.

Remember, in Desiring God, the difference between, "I have to kiss you!" (out of duty) and "I have to kiss you!" (out of desire).

Kent Brandenburg said...

Garet,

First, it's not communication at all, and now it's the tone of words that we can judge. It sounds like we can judge the words and the tone of the words, in your opinion. And you say that we can read someone's motive by their tone. Guess what? Any composer is communicating ideas with his tone as well. Unbelieving composers and musicians talk about this all the time and they know exactly what they are doing with the notes, the rhythm, the dynamics. Christians agreed until recently when they started bringing the world's "tone" into the church. They found the world loved it. In his Purpose-Driven Church, Rick Warren says that choosing pop rock was the most important decision he made for church growth. It attracted unbelievers to the church.

Just like the Words of God themselves, the graphe, the writings, are holy, words can also be corrupt and filthy. All communication should be judged, including music and art in addition to literature. So it isn't morally neutral.

greglong said...

Garet, great post. Thanks.

Garet wrote:

Btw, I would like to commend everyone for the gracious tones that have been demonstrated throughout the course of this thread.

I agree, except for 4given's.

greglong said...

Chuck Anderson:

"All the empty bottles"?

What are you talking about?

Sled Dog said...

Okay, so I went through the photos of the MH bash, and personally I just didn't see anything that struck me as highly immodest. Sure, everyone has different standards, but that just didn't strike me as a "Oh No!" type of thing.

I've got a gal at my church who is a recent MH transfer (And our church is quite different than MH). I'm totally impressed with the depth of her walk in the Lord. She cares about the stuff that really matters. She's been equipped and "well poured into".

Anonymous said...

Kent,

I'll concede to the degree that I need to clarify that what I mean communication as a medium. As I said, it is the how and not the what. Words aren't be evil in and of themselves; but the spirit in how they are used (tone) certainly can be.

I would love to engage the music idea later. Perhaps I'll comeback tomorrow.

Lance Roberts said...

Two things that should be mentioned:

1) If you think anything is neutral, then that means that you get to make the decisions about it, you are YOUR OWN GOD when it comes to the 'neutral' activity.

Should abortion be neutral, we're only doing a physical thing?

2) Kent makes a good point that it's only in the last generation or so that this belief has come about. The Church Fathers, Reformation Fathers, and Puritans were not very excited about licentious activities.

Anonymous said...

Lance, you either didn't read my comment, or did not understand it. I did not say that material things don't matter. I said that material things are not inherently evil.

Abortion is an action that proceeds from sin rooted in the heart. The point that I am making is that there is nothing inherently evil in sex, babies or the concept of medical science.

This is what I wrote:

The point being that all things are good when held in their proper relation to God (including wine, dancing, sex, music, the internet, television, etc) and all things are unrighteous when out of their proper relation to God (including prayer, fasting, abstaining, singing, etc.).

Abortion is the result of an idea that is comes from an evil heart. It is murder. And a person doesn't have to actually commit murder to be a murderer in their heart. This is my point. The instruments the bring an abortion to pass are neutral. They are tools. Tools that can both be used to take life and give it.

The Church Fathers, Reformation Fathers, and Puritans were not very excited about licentious activities.

I am not very excited about licentious activities either. But if you are going to include beer and wine drinking in your definition of licentious activities, you will need to remove the Church Father, the Reformation Fathers and the Puritans from you list. I recommend researching this topic a little more broadly than you have.

Lori said...

Thank you Garet. Its interesting how few posters are commenting after the pictures were posted. Why do so many people want to assume the worst about MHC and Mark Driscoll? Especially when most people here "concede" that he faithfully preaches the gospel. Why not encourage and pray for him?

Lance Roberts said...

Garet:

You've confused the results of Gnosticism/Pietism with the cause. Gnosticism results in calling all material things evil, which eventually resulted in the rejection of the Incarnation. Gnosticism starts with the dualistic philosophy that separates the spiritual and the physical completely. In our generation this came about because of the rationalistic modernist philosphies, and their emphasis on the physical only. This has led the church in our day to emphasize the spiritual only, leading to Christian saying silly stuff like "God doesn't care what I wear". Of course he does, he cares about everything, he is sovereign over every area of life, and there are hundreds of verses where God explicitly talks about what should be worn (for example).

The most important point is that when sin entered into the world it corrupted (and brought death to) both the physical world and the spiritual world, and Christ redeemed both aspects, and when glorified our bodies will be glorified with our spirits. Until then we are in the process of progressive sanctification which involves both our bodies and our spirits, both physical activity and spiritual activity.


I'm not claiming the great godly men of time past were in agreement with me on the details, but they certainly believe there were Godly standards to be upheld, and such a thing as Christlike behavior (in the physical world).

Bottom Line:

You're philosophy isn't Biblical, it's modernistic. (note: I'm not saying that you really live your life with this philosophy, no one does, we all draw lines at some point, even if we don't believe there are any lines).

candy said...

Taking off on my previous comment. I wonder if any of you have churches that allow wedding receptions, and if they resemble this particular party in question?

Someone asked what world music is. It is music that incorporates ethnic elements from other cultures. Good examples of people who were forerunners years ago with contemporary world music are David Byrne of the Talking Heads, Peter Gabriel, and Paul Simon with his album Graceland.

I think other than the immodest outfits, I would have been offended if the band had played wedding reception standards such as "YMCA" or "I Will Survive".

David A. Carlson said...

Lance said:

...but they certainly believe there were Godly standards to be upheld, and such a thing as Christlike behavior (in the physical world).

As does everyone who has posted here.

The disagreement is in the details.

Anonymous said...

Lance, you are characterizing my position far beyond what I have said. I believe what I am saying is Biblical, based passages like Colossians 2, for example:

20Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: 21"Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!"? 22These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. 23Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.

I strongly disagree that I hold to a modernistic philosophy. Modernism creates the categories you are extolling, such as "dancing is sinful" and "alcohol is sinful". How can something scripture repeatedly teaches that God has given us as a blessing for our enjoyment to the praise of his Glory, is inherently sinful?

4given said...

I sincerely apologize for my sarcasm. No excuses. It comes too naturally when I get frustrated and fail to look to my Lord for discerning words to communicate my frustration in a manner that is fruitful and edifying.

Here's the deal... and please, take this from a heart of genuinely trying to figure this out. I am troubled but what appears to be a double standard that makes what is set forth clearly in Scripture, culturally relative truth loopholes truth.

What do the Scriptures teach us about reverence?
What do the Scriptures teach us about modesty?
What do the Scriptures teach us about our words and language?

In other words, what do the Scriptures, God's Word of knowable and applicable Truth teach us... period?

Not, what does the culture teach us?... though I can understand that being knowledgeable about our culture is important... but that should not be our yardstick for our actions. Otherwise it just seems we would look too much like the world and not be a church (not the building, but the universal church) set apart for His glory. Where is the line of being separate from the world and being available to proclaim His truth in our life and actions to all, not just the world-defined pretty people, but to all? Really. Where do we draw the line? Because I really thought it was with Scripture and not with cultural relativity as we proclaim Christ wearing immodest clothing and cuss.

Anonymous said...

Sorry about the bad grammar- watching Chargers/Colts game. Go Chargers.


Lance, I would like for you to consider the point someone raised earlier in this thread regarding our shared enjoyment of Lord of the Rings.

The facts
The genre of fantasy is not uniquely "Christian" or "good", and as a whole does little to directly glorify God.

Tolkien was a Papist.

The primary archetypes are derived from pagan, Norse mythology.

The particular races (elves, giants, ents, orcs, etc.) are derived from pagan European mythology and literature (specifically Beowulf).

The epic structure, histories of middle-earth and plot line are all derived from the pagan German ring cycles and the pagan Norse eddas.

The lyric poetry (like Tom Bombadil's song) is dependent on structuring and imagery unique to the medieval pagan epics.

Primary thematic elements make as much sense within the construct of Norse mythology as it does within Christian mythology.


My point is, Lance, based on all that you have written thus far, how can you justify your enjoyment of Tolkien's LoTR?

I know how I can.

Lance Roberts said...

Garet:

The Tolkien question is probably too involved and certainly too straying for me to engage in now, but something that would be worth talking about in a different time and place. I'm certainly not interested in Ouija Boards or The Golden Compass.

Here's a verse that covers a lot:

Romans 8:22 (KJV)
22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.


All of creation was affected by the fall, sin is everywhere, not just in human beings. If every human being was removed from the face of the earth, sin would still be here. This will be true until God creates the New Earth, and glorifies it and us.

Solameanie said...

4-given..

I didn't think what you said was all that bad. ;)

DJP said...

Me, at the risk of being misrepresented — I honestly wonder what pictures some of you are referring to as being so burstingly immodest. I only saw ones that featured dresses with hemlines that go pretty far in both directions. Did I miss something? (Which, if I did, believe me, that's really really okay with me... I'm just concerned that we offer criticism about real things, or nothing at all. I had looked at the pictures, shrugged, and then read all the vitriol in a few comments about immodesty, and wondered whether we'd seen the same pictures.)

candy said...

"Burstingly immodest" :) Sometimes your language is colorful Dan. I also liked the Mr. Buy-a-vowel comment in a previous comment.

When I saw the pics I thought the church surely did not deserve the label, "whore church". Like I said previously, I have been to conferences where young ladies dress just as immodestly. I think people are just trying so hard to find something, anything to criticize.

Jeremy Felden said...

Can I just throw a flag on the "corruupt communication" argument?

I think music sways our emotions, etc., but the "corrupt communication" argument is truly bad exegesis that results from not knowing the difference between 17th and 21st century English.

Of the verses in the KJV that mention communication, I can find none that do not refer to speech. That is why most modern translations use "unwholesome language" in Ephesians 4:29 rather than the KJV's "corrupt communication." This is not to say that the KJV is wrong. Communication meant speech in the 17th century.

4given said...

Dan,
I come from a background where everything was relative and the lines were always blurred. I have a grandma that was a prostitute, a mother that drinks and a childhood that hurt... when the Lord literally took me off guard and made me realize my sinfulness and deceit, I found the Bible to be a place where I could go to learn truth and necessary boundaries so that I could live for the glory of God. Not legalistic, man-made boundaries.
With that said, what I have come across so often in the proclaiming Christian community, are more blurred lines and the truth that seems so clear in Scripture becoming relative. I have found in the blog world commenters that sit on the fence in which I cannot tell where they stand because they just want to agree with who is on top.
This thread is not particularly about the women's dresses in the photo. NOR is it about just trying to find something wrong with anything. No. It seems to be about the line of reverence and where to draw it. Maybe I am wrong. But that is what I am getting out of this.
Regarding the photos, most of the women's dresses are very nice... and I apologize for getting concerned about the few whose dresses were very low. (think leaven) Would I show up to church in those low dresses? No.
But what gets me about this seeming double-standard in the Christian community is that my life as a Christian woman would be a whole lot easier if I was fat, flat and homely.
...and there is no sarcasm in that statement.

Kent Brandenburg said...

Jeremy,

Your friend Garet said: "Language is morally neutral." We were on the same page on "communication." The music argument was a separate issue.

Have you considered Ephesians 5:19 as you think about this:

"Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord."

The word "speaking" here is laleo, used 295 times in the NT. It is "speech." And yet in the verse, "singing and making melody" are restating or describing "speaking," showing that "making melody" (psallo--to pluck on a string) is actually considered a kind of "speaking."

DJP said...

That makes sense, Lisa. And similarly, I wasn't being sarcastic; I honestly wondered (and still wonder) if I was looking at the wrong pix, or looking at them wrong. I'm on-record here as being pretty critical of revealing, "unhelpful" dress; but the ones I saw looked to me to be closer to burqas than bikinis.

4given said...

Maybe the problem is that you live in California and I live in Arkansas...

I did not see bikinis. Perhaps what I saw were a few low cut California-style burqas. Perhaps my frustration with this world of double-standard Christians blinded me and all I saw was leaven.

Lance Roberts said...

Cleavage is certainly over any line of Christian modesty. I think the problem is that we've been too acclimated (by the surrounding culture) to women showing off what they have. The only one who needs to see their exposure is their husband. Only a husband should be ravishing the breasts of his wife, and when women show them off to other men, they enter a state the Bible calls 'defrauding', since for any other man to even think about it would be sinful.

Lance Roberts said...

Please note that the above comment is not excusing the men from their responsibilities to capture their thoughts to the obedience of Jesus Christ.

But there is a reason the Bible condemns immodesty.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jeremy Felden said...

Kent,

I found it funny that your lifted a verse about speaking and applied it to instrumental honky tonk music.

I don't really see how a mournful Celtic tune about an fornicating highwayman is more corrupt than a mournful Celtic tune about the atonement *if the hearer does't know the words*.

I know little Latin and less Greek, but I don't see how having "making melodies" in a list of commands with "speaking" means that the two are equivalent. By that logic, being filled with Spirit (v. 18) and submitting to one another (v. 21) are forms of speech as well.

I don't think that music does absolutely nothing, though. It doesn't communicate thought, but it does a great job of communicating emotion.

Lance Roberts said...

So why would something that communicates emotion not be communication?

Daryl said...

Lance,

You've just over-extended yourself and lost the music argument.

The verse says..."Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth..."

Last time I check, instrumental music doesn't proceed out of your mouth. The issue is words used, never music style played.
(Otherwise, why does Scripture not explain what music style David used and tell us to stick to that?)

Daryl said...

Besides, Lance, just what kind of emotion would qualify as corrupt? Has not God created our emotions?

Lance Roberts said...

Emotions aren't corrupt, they're like individual letters, than when put together form a communication that can be corrupt. So while anger in and of itself isn't a sin, how you communicate it can be. I like the dashboard light analogy for emotions.

Jeremy Felden said...

Lance,

Now you're getting it. Words change meaning in 400 years. I looked it up in my one volume OED. Because I had to peer at it with through the palantir that they supply, I can't give you the exact definitions.

The biblical example you give (from 1611) uses communication as the thing being communicated. That is why it "comes out of your mouth." If it were referring to music, it would say "out of your trumpet" or some such.

The modern definition of communication as the act of communicating is first attributed to John Locke in 1690. Some linguist could gas on about the Enlightenment producing more abstract categories, but hey, this is a blog. Suffice it to say, at the time the KJV was written "communication" was not used in the way you are trying to use it.

Now, can we please let Christian prudence order these areas of our lives?

David A. Carlson said...

4Given - when you said:

I did not see bikinis. Perhaps what I saw were a few low cut California-style burqas.

that is a great line. I disagree with you, but that was funny.

And is this the first time in Pyro history that both Dan and Frank had posts deleted?

Anonymous said...

I recommend this.

Lance Roberts said...

If you restrict communication to the mouth, then can mute people not have corrupt communication? How about deaf people with ASL? Does not using the mouth to speak give you a free ticket? Can you flip someone off and be ok?

Anonymous said...

That's the point Lance. (at least mine anyway) Words are just tools. Take them away, and you still have the sinfulness of peoples hearts. Interestingly, flipping someone off has no meaning anywhere else in the world, but in Britain, a reversed peace sign presents the same concept. So yes, you can flip someone off on a crowded city street in Bangladesh, and they will be clueless, and it'll be "okay", but of course you will still have sinned because your heart was motivated out of unrighteous anger, just like calling your brother stupid is tanamount to murder. From the heart the mouth speaks. Like I said in many comments ago:

Language is morally neutral. Communication is "filthy" as the result of "the defiled and unbelieving" to whom "nothing is pure." From the root of their heart comes the wickedness. It manifests in their speech, not in morphemes arranged in a particular sequence, but in the God diminishing and self-aggrandizing ideas and attitudes in which they signify.

4given said...

I know nothing of the deleted comments. I probably do not want to know. I do respect TeamPyro and how they can disagree amongst themselves and just take it as sharpening each other.
As far as my concerns, they are genuine and heartfelt. I actually was not trying to be funny about the burqu thing. I obviously have a problem with how to communicate.
I have gotten a few e-mails because of this thread. One that was gracious about their experience with legalism. I appreciated knowing that. It is good to get the background on people to help comprehend their perspective. A few others that were rather rude and accusatory. And BTW, I haven't read Campi's blog for awhile and have no clue what he has said about this issue. I am just expressing my own heart.
Dan's article is excellent and well written on women needing to be a little more helpful in their dress. And please know I was not accusing him of having a double standard. I was accusing the Christian community as a whole. We are sinners. We all have a degree of double standards.
I am really just a Pilgrim on a journey trying to understand... trying to learn how to be a Christian that glorifies God in every corner... especially the dark ones. Along the way, I sometimes trip over obstacles I put there or others unintentionally put there or maybe even purposefully. I don't know.
I just want to know Christ and live for Him. And it seems to me that in this gray and relative world, it is too easy to get caught up in the world even as a Christian. I have a lot of questions. I have a lot to learn. But I see in Scripture so many clear and defined lines being muddied by proclaiming Christians. If it is confusing to me as a Christian, how confusing must it be to those we are called to be a light?

Anonymous said...

The deleted comments were mine.

The first comment I made a joke off of Lance's "ravishing" comment, that I regretted soon after. The second comment was me asking Phil to delete the first. Then I realized I wasn't on Frank's blog, and that I could delete my own comments.

Sorry for any confusion.

Jeremy Felden said...

Lance,

I'm pretty sure mute people can't have corrupt communication come out of their mouths. The Bible has plenty to say about the thoughts and intents of the heart, and whatever we do in word or deed glorifying the Lord.

Even though there are plenty of verses that condemn vulgarity of the sort you describe, you continue to insist on using a verse about speech to condemn music. You don't seem to eager to answer my questions about music, so I'll leave you with this:

Am Em G D
Dsus C :-)

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 242 of 242   Newer› Newest»