Can We Rock the Gospel?
The thesis of this book is made abundantly clear on the cover. A young man, jamming on an (unplugged) electric guitar, towers over a Bible which lies face-down, trampled and forgotten underfoot. Can We Rock the Gospel? According to the John Blanchard and Dan Lucarini, no, we cannot. “The authors make no secret of the fact that we count ourselves among those who are offended by rock music in God’s service and are truly perplexed that so many other Christians go to such great lengths to defend their use of it in both worship and evangelism. We are also concerned at the way in which some leaders, from their positions of power within the church, have forced it upon the rest of us.” So the authors adopt the position that rock music is always and objectively wrong. Period. While the emphasis of the book is clearly that rock music is wrong for worship and evangelism, they make it clear that it is wrong at any time and in any situation. This is hardly a unique position but one that, in my view, would depend on clearly an unequivocally defining exactly what constitutes rock music. Unfortunately, the authors do not do this. They make a brief attempt in the third chapter, presenting the following three principles as being true of rock music:
- Constant repetition. This repetition is dangerous because of the potential hypnotic effect of repetitive music. “Any medium of presentation that induces any loss of self-control or awareness and makes the listener unusually susceptible to whatever suggestions are made by the lyrics is clearly dangerous, and will almost certainly encourage a response that will be largely psychological instead of that which God requires, which is that we should worship him ‘in spirit and truth.’”
- A driving beat. “The backbeat dominates in most rock music songs, hard, soft or otherwise.” These beats can become hypnotic and lead people to become almost drunk on music. “The element of relentless beat and repetition in rock music increases the danger of a shallow, emotional, unthinking response, made at the wrong level and for the wrong reasons.”
- Volume. “We need not waste time proving that volume is an important element in rock music.” The emphasis on volume makes rock music unsuitable for worship or evangelism where the emphasis must be on the words of the songs. “Any method or medium … which makes the Word of God more difficult ot hear, and therefore to be understood, is not serving the cause of God but actually hindering it.”
Strangely, this is as much of a definition as the authors provide. They do point to a wide variety of forms of music they would associate with the moniker “rock music,” and these range from folk and pop all the way to death metal and gangster rap. They quote lyrics and describe artists who barely brush the keys of pianos alongside those who tear relentlessly at distorted and amplified electric guitars. They discuss the Hymns category of Christian music “where you can find Jars of Clay rocking out on ‘It is Well With My Soul.’” So clearly even this song, which I believe has only acoustic guitar, bass and subtle drums, is categorized as rock music (you can hear a short sample of the song
Comments (87) »
1. Matthew Smith
October 27, 2006
10:30 AM
I thought some of these arguments (i.e. talking about the “backbeat”) died with the Swaggart scandals in the ’80s.
Indelible Grace Music founder Kevin Twit has a helpful article about musical style here and one on criteria for judging rock music here.
2. Tim Challies
October 27, 2006
10:37 AM
“I thought some of these arguments (i.e. talking about the “backbeat”) died with the Swaggart scandals in the ’80s.”
I had thought so too. As I said in the review, I think this book comes to late to really impact the “worship wars.” I believe that the majority of churches accept that guitar, bass and drums, even if only played carefully and “lightly” are no more or less godly or moral than organ or acapella. This is not to say that the book is useless, but the major premises of the book will be rejected by most believers.
3. JoeMama
October 27, 2006
11:25 AM
As a contemporary worship leader, I have to tip my hand right away, but many of the legitimate arguments I have heard on this issue also apply to “traditional” music- a tendancy towards performance being one of them. There will be a temptation to perform for other people instead of for God regardless of what style one is playing. As for the issue of volume, my church’s organ is way louder than our praise band.
It is important to be constantly evaluating motives and the impression we give when leading worship, no matter what the style, so that God is glorified and we do not try to grab any of His Glory for ourselves.
And lastly, I think it is up to those in opposition of “Christian Rock” to make a clear biblical argument against it in favor of “traditional music”. I haven’t heard one yet.
4. Tim Challies
October 27, 2006
11:52 AM
“I think it is up to those in opposition of “Christian Rock” to make a clear biblical argument against it in favor of “traditional music”. I haven’t heard one yet.”
I think you’re right. I think the issue can be approached purely objectively, but is better approached when an alternative is presented. It’s one thing to say that “rock” music and its variants are evil, but without presenting some kind of alternative, this falls flat. I would have liked to see an argument that went like this:
-Rock music is bad and here is why -Therefore we cannot use it for worship -Traditional music is not bad and here is why -Therefore we must use it for worship
That would have been far more satisfying.
Anyways, back to reading about all the Hebrew variants on the word “discernment.”
5. J. Mong
October 27, 2006
11:52 AM
On your point of worship being pleasurable, Jonathan Edwards agrees. The highest end of our affections is to glorify and enjoy God. Worship, and the music used in our worship, should as much as possible affect us. Edwards writes in his Religious Affections, “If it be so that true religion lies much in the affections, hence we may infer that such means are to be desired as have much of a tendency to move the affections. Such books, and such a way of preaching the word, and administering ordinances, and such a way of worshipping God in prayer, and singing praises, is much to be desired, as have a tendency to affect the hearts of those who attend these means… But, undoubtedly, if the things of religion in the means used are treated according to their nature and exhibited truly, so as tends to convey just apprehensions and a right judgment of them, the more they have a tendency to move the affections the better (50-51).”
6. Richard Campeau
October 27, 2006
12:35 PM
Wow! This takes me back (with a bit of nostalgia, I must admit!) to my first few years as a believer when this issue was hot and the “conservative” shots were fired by the likes of the silly Bob Larson. Yikes!
But personal biases are strong. I find it interesting that you have this review on the same page as you tell of Voice’s new cd. I simply can’t stand rap and so I tend to think of it as an inappropriate medium for worship and the gospel. I know I’m wrong about that. God bless Voice and his ministry. But I can’t help myself. I cannot worship using rap. It doesn’t speak “Gospel” to me. I guess that’s where Mr. Blanchard and Mr. Lucarini are coming from with Rock.
Good post, Tim. Thanks.
R.
7. Lindsey @ enjoythejourney
October 27, 2006
12:51 PM
This music “thing” is one of those that will never get completely worked out in the church. Nobody is ever going to come to agreement.
That said…I absolutely love praise & worship music, upbeat as it may. I spent 25 years of my life singing hymns-only and never felt the passion of worship like I do now in my more modern worship church.
But…it isn’t for everyone. That is why I’m thankful there are so many churches with different styles out there.
My comment to folks who do not like the more modern music is usually this: Do you really think the disciples and the early church were singing southern gospel or The Old Rugged Cross? Do you think they only sang hymns? Most of the hymns our church calls the foundation of music are much, much YOUNGER than the early church ever was. I’m no expert, but I imagine the early music in the church was much like the Judaic style.
8. Ingrid
October 27, 2006
12:59 PM
Dr. Paul Jones, organist and choirmaster of Tenth Presbyterian church has a book that took the time to answer the question of what role music plays in worship. His new book is Singing and Making Music: Issues in Church Music Today and it really is a gift to the church. His clear voice is a much better guide to this issue than Lucarini’s book.
9. Katie
October 27, 2006
1:27 PM
I think that God focuses on the heart of the worshiper, not the style of worship. I agree with Joemama in that you can sin in worship singing hymns and you can sin singing contemporary songs; it all depends on where your heart is. I personally find a lot of joy in singing both traditional and contemporary worship songs, and both speak to my heart in different but often equally profound ways. Thanks for a thought-provoking blog; one way or another, it’s something to think about.
10. Tom
October 27, 2006
1:43 PM
While not a big fan of “rock” Christian music (I think I’m getting old), this “it’s all wrong” stuff is so reminiscent of Bill Gothard and his ugh teachings. I’ll take Jars of Clay and Indelible Grace (and Newsboys, or Casting Crowns) over what Mr. Blanchard and Mr. Lucarini are listening to, any day!
Tom Doctrine Matters
11. Tom
October 27, 2006
1:48 PM
I forgot to add -
If I may, I’ve previously posted some resources for theologically rich worship. I hope it helps and is useful.
Blessings!
Tom Doctrine Matters
12. Bill Brandenstein
October 27, 2006
2:08 PM
Tim, You give ample evidence in this review that this is an unbalanced, not-Biblically-focused presentation, such that I won’t take the time to read this book. It has been recommended. However, I wish the positive claims and warnings you allude to were to find a wider audience, ideally in a Biblically sound presentation that rockers and traditionally trained musicians alike could embrace.
However, I can’t agree with you that the worship wars are over. Perhaps we’re far past the bleeding edge — I’ll grant you that. Yet we still hear from pastors regularly through our various fellowships and the Shepherd’s Conference who are having heart-rending problems with style shifts in general and rock in particular. And there is no shortage of seasoned saints who lived through the invention of rock and still find it worldly and/or crude. Furthermore, for the minority in Evangelicalism who are classically trained or schooled musicians in some manner, there will always be a cultural tension due to the intensely myopic and relatively simplistic musical culture of the contemporary church. I don’t mean to unfairly stereotype the situation, but the typical contemporary church sings little or nothing that was written before 1980 to the detriment of a rich repertiore of the best of the songs and hymnody from the preceeding centuries. Plus the music itself is generally limited to a range of hip style which Donald Hustad notes has, “over a period of 30 years, become increasingly primitive… dominated by individuals who determine our culture by reaction” (Jubilate II, 281). Worse, evangelicalism has wholeheartedly embraced celebrityism and a modernistic “the newest thing is always better than the older” attitude with our music preferences. Until the church stops caving into only what is easy and popular, our worship will not reach its potential in speaking the profound truth of God’s Word in rich psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, and will continue to produce oceans of music that is popular now, passe tomorrow, and puny in substance. Like candy. It’s fun to eat, you usually want more, but it doesn’t edify the body like spinach does. But people probably eat more candy than spinach. (Or broccoli. Or insert your least-favorite green veggie here.)
So, for this book to have been a success, it should have examined rock’s weaknesses in light of its ability to sustain the truths of God’s word in song, calling into question whether anyone is actually seeking an artistic standard of excellence any higher than personal taste. After all, what makes worship music a tool for worship is the truth that accompanies it, and what makes it a success is if it truly edifies.
Oh, by the way, we hear about “backbeat” or other anti-rhythmic arguments from time to time too. Apparently in certain corners of Fundamentalism, they’re still alive and well.
Thanks, Tim, for your review!
13. Michael Garner
October 27, 2006
3:24 PM
They even go so far as to suggest that some music is simply too good for church, as music that is truly brilliant will distract people by its quality. As much as they claim to love music, it almost seems that the authors are intimidated by it and are unnaturally suspicious of it.
Does it prove that I am strange if I read this and I immediately think of Ulrich Zwingli?
In any case, if I was going to complain about the typical singing in church, this would not be my focal point. I think it might be correct to say that some of the more-Rock-type music has substantially less content. That may be a valid criticism. However, I don’t necessarily think a thumping beat constitutes something that is unchristian.
Now, I’m not particularly fond of most rock music. However, I think it is important to point out that this is a personal opinion. To elevate it beyond this is simply to go beyond what Scripture allows.
In Christ alone, mike
14. Jabbok
October 27, 2006
3:35 PM
As I’ve thought about this some more it came to mind that wisdom has little to do with passion and vice-versa. How many churches have split when there is plenty of wisdom but passion rules the day! Relativism springs from a passionate heart even if wisdom would rule otherwise.
!! Hmmmm…..
Didn’t I just write that comment on an article about “Wisdom”?
I think our individual points of view on the subject of Rock Music in church falls under the category of passion and not wisdom.
Some forms of contemporary music, wrongly labeled Christian, are like the foreign women Solomon loved. They eventually turn our hearts so that they are not wholly true to the Lord. When a Christian demands his “rights” to take off his shirt and punk out for an audience and call it worship then certainly we would have to disagree.
The message of a song is in the lyrics and if the instruments distract and distort the lyrics then it should be unacceptable. If the musicians, themselves, distract and distort the lyrics by their actions and antics then it should be unacceptable.
For what it’s worth, that’s my 2 cents.
15. donsands
October 27, 2006
3:41 PM
Thanks for the review.
I remember going to a Dana Key concert at Chapelgate Pres. and he played a song, and sang a secular type country song about drinking and so on. He then asked who thought this was music that offended God. A lot of people rasied their hands.
Then he used the same folk/country music, and he sang words that honored God.
He said a musical note is a note, and a cord is a cord. It’s the words that matter.
Of course melody does matter as well, but not to the extent of what some try to make it; melodies from the devil, or such like.
16. Barnabas
October 27, 2006
4:16 PM
It seems to me that music, like many other “moral’ issues that have tied the curch in knots, is a matter of perspective, or rather association. There was a time when playing card was considered to be evil based solely on association, same with all alchohol consumption. They were guilty because they were tied to immoral places where immorality happens.
Because of this perception it took decades for these things to be “sanctified” in the minds of many believers (and they may never be in minds of others). Music is essentially the same i think. In the minds of many Rock, Rap, Hip Hop, heavy metal, etc. are all associated with sinful things, therefore they are unredeemable for the sake of worship. I still can’t think of heavy metal or rap as worshipful music, but that’s only because of the associations I have surrounding those genres.
It almost comes down to a “to each his own” perspective. If someone can worship the Lord in all holiness by laying down a phat beat or riffing on a guitar than God bless them. To those who worship the Lord by resounding organ music and 4 part choir harmonies, God bless them.
17. dave matre
October 27, 2006
4:36 PM
I’ll go on record as still listening to 70s music. I’ll take Clapton over Christian pop most any day. I do like Keaggy and Michael W Smith, and a few others, who stand on their own as musicians. It seems to me that much of Christian pop is mimicking secular pop and changing “baby” to “Jesus.”
Is it heretical to suggest that listening to Hendrix can glorify God in that it re-affirms common grace? The man had an incredible gift. The fact that he failed to honor the Giver does not change that fact.
18. Rich H
October 27, 2006
4:47 PM
As mentioned above, we are called to worship God “in spirit and in truth.” It seems to me that if we take the passion and pleasure out of worship, we are focusing on “truth” at the expense of “spirit.” If, on the other hand, we only sing songs that are popular and fun without regard to their content, we are focusing on “spirit” and neglecting “truth.”
I believe this is a challenge to all of us, particularly those of us who plan and lead worship, to make sure the songs we sing contain both elements. On the other hand, I don’t think every song has to be a perfect balance of these. Some songs may be very spirit-filled, but theologically fairly simple (basically, just saying “I love You, God”). Others may be less emotional, but more “theologically packed”. Many hymns fall into this category, as do some contemporary worship songs (probably in a lower percentage). I think we need a good mix.
19. Jim
October 27, 2006
5:31 PM
It is true that the church has recently battled through “the worship wars,” but it seems to me this is now a decade or two behind us. Of course there will always be disagreement about styles of worship. There will always be some who prefer one style of music over another and there is nothing wrong with this. But I think this book comes too late…
That is like saying…”well, homosexuality is now legal and same-sex marriages official, so let’s not speak against it any more”. After all, that war is “behind” us. That is exactly how the proponents of sodomy and other abhorent lifestyles would have us believe. They are afraid of scrutiny and examination.
However, when it comes to matters of worship and christian conduct, we should always be willing to examine our methods, practices, and traditions. Nothing is above the Word of God, and yet I find here a rather defensive answer to a probing question.
The Church is not to simply adopt the latest fads and fashions, but must bring everything under the microscope and test of scripture. Rather than having to defend against something, we should prove from scripture that what we do is honouring to God.
“Whatsoever you, whether in word or in dee, do all to the glory of God.”
20. Rodney Olsen
October 27, 2006
5:38 PM
These kinds of books are read by people who simply want to justify their own biases. They don’t care that it’s not researched well or that its evidence is flimsy, they just want someone to tell them what they want to believe. They’ll read the book to reinforce their own dislike of the style.
It would appear that they’ve decided that ‘rock’ music is wrong and then gone out looking for ‘evidence’ to support their stand. Any argument will do. I remember many years ago that a guy preached on the evils of rock in the church I was attending. His basic argument was that rock music used drums - drums are used to ‘keep time’ - time is an earthly concept, ie: God lives outside of time - therefore rock is wrong. I guess we’d better destroy our evil calendars and clocks too.
I’m sure that their definition of rock is purposely vague. It gives them opportunity to apply it to any kind of music that they don’t personally enjoy.
We do need to be aware that not everything is helpful in life and that there is music that would fit into that category but to write the kind of book you’ve described is just sloppy work.
21. Lance Roberts
October 27, 2006
6:48 PM
I’m excited that people still have the guts to fight rock music, one of the worldly evils of our time. The reason that the church has worked through it, is because they compromised with the world, just like a lot of churches have worked through ordaining women, and have women preachers.
A note and a chord are neutral in themselves, just like a letter of the alphabet, but once put together, they are communication and can be as pornographic as a novel. The Bible clearly states that communication can be bad, evil or corrupt, and music (w/o lyrics) is communication.
It’s sad that Christians accept worldly music, just like they accept worldly TV shows.
I’m not sure why you don’t like his definition Tim, since ‘driving beat’ certainly covers things well. Classical music may have an occasional drum beat, but it doesn’t drive the music. When a beat is driving the music, then it is driving you, since our flesh responds directly to the beat.
Either the spirit is in control or the beat is.
22. Dan, the Roof Guy
October 27, 2006
6:52 PM
I find this discussion very interesting as the first 20 years of my life where filled with Bill Gothard like convictions against any form of contemporary music.
Today, myself and my parents (who had originally taught me my original music ‘convictions) have found much joy in embracing contemporary christian music.
I still have many discussions with friends who strongly adhere to a view of seeing CCM as sensual, rebellious, and worldly.
This is a disturbing issue. I believe that those who are so passionately against the use of contemporary music need to be reminded of the authority of scripture, and that the holy spirit was not mistaken in not including therein rigid rules and guidelines regarding music, such as whether the heavy beat falls on 2 and 4, or 1 and 3 in a measure. Let us not try to be more Godly than God by seeking to apply universal music standards where scripture does not speak.
23. Robert Talley
October 27, 2006
6:58 PM
“They discuss worship and write “worship is characterized by reverence, modesty and humility, and has nothing that even remotely aims at our pleasure and entertainment.” I would disagree emphatically with an aspect of this statement! I believe that worship should be pleasurable to both ourselves and to God. It may not be entertaining, but surely it should be pleasurable! “
I find it interesting that the word translated “worship” in Philippians 3:3 is used in connection in other places with fasting and praying day and night. Entertaining? No and certainly not pleasurable in the normal sense that we use this word. In fact, I don’t think this aspect of worship is ever even used in connection with music in the NT, although I doubt it would be excluded. Worship, at least in this sense of the word, is not focused on what we feel but on outward service to God, no matter how menial, mundane, or even difficult.
By the way, have you ever noticed that Job worshiped when he got the news of the four servants. I know worship can and is sometimes pleasurable but our pleasure is not essential to it.
Good post. I preached on worship last week and just enjoy sharing what I learn.
24. Jimmie W. Kersh
October 27, 2006
7:52 PM
I wonder what people would say if we marched down the street naked and worshipping God? I am sure that would be influenced by Rock music somehow.
What is going to be the next thing in the “worship wars,” reading poetry written to God by the naked guy marching down the road?
25. Bill Brandenstein
October 27, 2006
8:34 PM
Lance,
With all due respect, would you please define “worldly” as pertains specifically to music style with a definition that applies God’s word to all cultures and ages? The answer is that this cannot be done because it requires going beyond scripture, which is precisely what the legalists have done in spiritualizing the no-drums philosophy. What one person perceives as worldly is not going to be the same as another. That’s why Paul wrote Romans 14.
We use drums and the music that I lead on Sunday nights has a beat. I am in control of the beat and (I pray) the Spirit is in control of me. Your assertion that either the beat or the Spirit is in control is false both in reality and in logic.
One of my greater concerns from the worship wars is that all music is art, and all art is not equal in value regardless of “style.” But those who are able are admonished in scriptures like Ps. 33:3 and 47:7 to be skillful in their music-making. I pray that the contemporary church’s discernment improves in the area of skillful music-making. (I don’t mean finesse — we generally have plenty of polish. I mean in substance.)
26. Silly Old Mom
October 27, 2006
8:51 PM
Bill,
Good to see you here! This is Brenda M. from CBC. I’m so glad to see you chime in (no pun intended) on this topic.
Lord bless you in your ministry.
27. Warren
October 27, 2006
8:55 PM
I hate to break it to the authors of the book, but Organ music tends to be extremely loud - and can drown-out the congregation if they’re not singing with their hearts. Your review of the DVD about Charles Wesley several months back encouraged be to buy a copy. And one point made in the play/presentation by ‘Wesley’ was that to worship God in song you have to be putting all of yourself into singing. We are worshipping the God who made the universe, and who saved us from eternal destruction! If we aren’t worshipping with our full selves (‘heart, soul, mind, and strength’), we are robbing God of glory due Him.
May I also point out that all music written for hymns was, at one time, contemporary! And have they read the psalms recently? Harps, drums, cymbals, lyres… sounds like God expected some pretty enjoyable (and raucus) worship to me.
Whether someone can intelligently worship God while singing to ‘rock’ music I don’t believe is even the right question to ask. The right question would be are we setting known tunes (which have an associated set of lyrics) to lyrics for which they were not designed? For example, I would have a very hard time singing It Is Well With My Soul to any tune by Eminem. Not because I necessarily dislike rap and hip-hop (I actually like some of it), but because the tunes have lyrics associated with them that are decidedly non-‘Christian’.
This book also seems to ignore the issue that what we consider ‘appropriate’ music for worship is totally unsingable in other cultures. In China, India, the Mideast, African tribes, etc they use a different scale than do we in our western cultures. The tune most known to be associated with Amazing Grace can’t be played on instruments from New Guinea - they’re built to a different base harmonic than we understand.
I don’t believe any form of music is inherently evil. I do believe that certain forms of music are culturally associated with good and bad things, and that should play a role in determining what tunes and styles should be selected for worship in a given cultural context - but it doesn’t mean that a style inappropriate for some churches is inappropriate for all of them.
For example, I would expect to hear more hip-hop- and rap-like music in a church dominated by young black Americans who have grown-up with that musical style all through their formative years. I would think it pretty unusual for a dominantly urban church to be using dulcimers or banjos or bagpipes in their services - they’re not instruments (or accompanying styles) that fit the culture with which the population is accustomed. That being said, I would probably expect dulcimers or folksy music to appear in churches in the Appalachia-rural regions of the US because it is a style associated with that culture.
I’m always suspicious of authors, however well-intentioned, who make it their mission to attack something that in and of itself is not wrong. Music was provided by God for us to enjoy and to use to glorify Him. And like all of God’s gifts, we can use it either to glorify Him, or to use for our own selfish ends.
28. Lance Roberts
October 27, 2006
9:48 PM
Warren,
Some music in and of itself IS WRONG. Just like all forms of art. Nude paintings violate God’s commands to modesty. Pornographic novels, magazines and films violate his standards of sexual purity. Art communicates.
We just have to study, and pray for the discernment to know which types/styles/methods are wrong and which aren’t.
29. Beth Young
October 27, 2006
9:59 PM
This is a good post. I really think it boils down to legalism. When are we going to worry about what matters? Whatever draws us to the Cross and leads us to the feet of Jesus should be our focus. I think that it is important and thought provoking (and fun!) to discuss issues that come up in our Christian walk. Could we see Jesus in heaven pleased with us on Sunday’s while we “rock” to praise music with our hands lifted high and our faces to the floor? Yes. Does Jesus look down on the 65 year old man in the church pugh singing “it is well with my soul” with pure joy as he belts out from his belly the hymn over and over again? Yes. It’s all a matter of personal preference.
30. DLE
October 27, 2006
10:19 PM
We should not despise our gifts.
As the great Scottish missionary, Eric Liddell, said, “God made me fast, and when I run I feel His pleasure.”
I play drums. I’m good. God clearly gave me a gift to play. I hear rhythm constantly. I even feel it in the beat that separates cars when I’m trying to merge onto a busy highway.
Yet I’ve encountered more than my share of venom spewed my way by mean-faced, joyless “Christians” who want to embrace any musician who wants to play music for the Lord, EXCEPT a drummer.
This whole argument—on both sides—is puerile. A person who chooses to give back to God by using the very gift God gave him or her is the one in His will. End of story. How that plays out musically doesn’t matter all that much as long as one’s heart is right with God and is in line with the Holy Spirit.
Time changes much of this. We do mellow in our old age. The 20-yr old speed metal guy will some day be 50, and I highly doubt his musical expression will be the same at that later age, especially if he’s a Christian.
We think far too narrowly and in the moment. God doesn’t work that way, though. He knows the entirety of one’s life. No one is perfect right now. No one will be perfect this side of heaven. Let’s learn to bear with each other a bit more and leave the judgmentalism to people who haven’t grown up yet.
31. Kenny Archbold
October 27, 2006
10:25 PM
It seems that with music there is a line somewhere that must not be crossed. Surely no Christian could sing Amazing Grace to the noise of Metallica , Beck , Green Day, Rob Zombie, “gangsta rap” or any other music that seems to be a rebellion against beauty and order :anti-music. I have never heard a good irrefutable argument for where that line might be. I think maybe it could be any time that the music fails to only accent the words and starts to dominate the song where it begins to hinder your ability to concentrate on worshiping God with the words of the song. I would sure like to have a good Biblical definition of where this line might be. Perhaps a good chapter for your book might be “Discerning Music in Worship”. It would be a difficult one to write but one that I believe in spite of all that was said in the “Worship Wars” still needs an answer I really get tired of people dismissing the subject with ” It really is just a matter of preference” or the other extreme “You’re going to get hypnotized!” There is a line somewhere. Who knows ,maybe the next generation will play Amazing Grace with their armpits - that could be ………..interesting ;-)
32. Nan
October 27, 2006
10:35 PM
AHHHH!! Run away!!! RUN AWAY!!
Sorry… having Bill Gothard flashbacks. (and no I was never one of “them” Gothardites.)
(breathing in paper bag ~~ calming down)
Seriously though. I love music. I love a great variety of music from the “secular” music of the 1800’s to modern Christian hymns, from psalms to blue grass to some pretty hard rock. I don’t pretend that all of it is worship music and I certainly don’t think anything and everything is befitting for a worship service but some music I listen to because it is just musically superior no matter what kind of heathen wrote it. They still have gifts of common grace and talent. For people to not recognize it for what it is and call it “evil” or “dangerous” (especially if we are just talking about the sound) just makes some Christians appear to be fundamentalist weirdos who obviously wouldn’t recognize good music if a 40 ton iPod fell out of the sky and landed on their heads.
I think I will definitely agree with you that, thankfully, this book will largely fall on deaf ears in the Christian community. (probably because most of us have enjoyed too much ROCK!)
Nan
p.s. How much you wanna bet that they would classify their own book as a “Christian book” and have it sold in a “Christian bookstore” even though last time I checked books and bookstores can’t become Christians! :^D
33. Nan
October 27, 2006
10:54 PM
“Either the spirit is in control or the beat is.”
ROFL!! wiping tears from eyes…
When making statements like that you are speaking for yourself alone.
Check the psalms Mr. Roberts. Many of them are extremely rhythmic and written specifically for worship. I daresay they even had what we might today call a “beat.” Some of them were even gasp repetative (far more repetative than my personal taste as a matter of fact.)
Nan
34. Brendt
October 28, 2006
1:15 AM
And some of them double gasp command us to use percussive instruments in the worship of God.
35. Brendt
October 28, 2006
1:18 AM
To me, one of the biggest falacies of the argument of this book is that the authors admit that there is no music that is truly Christian, but have decided somehow that there is music that is evil.
Isn’t that essentially saying that evil is more powerful than good?
36. Silly Old Mom
October 28, 2006
5:06 AM
Some music in and of itself IS WRONG. Just like all forms of art. Nude paintings violate God’s commands to modesty. Pornographic novels, magazines and films violate his standards of sexual purity. Art communicates.
Lance,
This is where your analogy fails: music is analogous to the medium of art, not to the content. IOW, you really ought to compare music to acrylic paints, or to empty books.
A painter can either honor God or malign Him with the paints, brushes, and canvas. There’s no moral content in a tube of cadmium red. (Trust me, I’ve looked. :-D ) Likewise, a book is just bound paper — what’s communicated on those pages makes all the difference. We don’t dare condemn the Bible because it’s printed using the same process as that used to produce a porno mag. That would be insane.
I propose that it’s the same thing with radio, TV, film, and music. Media are tools, and whether they are used for good or ill depends on the user of the tool. That’s where music lyrics — the message — come into play. Messages can be good or evil, because they don’t come out of nowhere. They flow out of the heart of the messenger.
37. csheidler
October 28, 2006
8:43 AM
Robert,
When you say that “I know worship can and is sometimes pleasurable but our pleasure is not essential to it,” you come dangerously close to suggesting that God does not desire us to take pleasure in worshiping Him. Is that REALLY what you mean?
I also think you miss the boat, my brother, when you assert that because “worship” in Phil. 3:3 is tied to prayer and fasting, it is therefore not ‘pleasurable’. The reason, Paul says, that he engages in this kind of prayer and fasting, is because
“…whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For His sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in Him…” (Phil. 3:7-9ff, emphasis added)
In other words, fasting and prayer ARE pleasurable to Paul, because through them he receives Grace to know Christ more.
Further, my brother, I encourage you to take a closer look at the implications of statements like, “Worship, at least in this sense of the word, is not focused on what we feel but on outward service to God, no matter how menial, mundane, or even difficult.” What you’ve said here, in effect, is that worship for the Christian is a duty that we have to pay, rather than an overflowing of our joy in knowing God. Do you really think that God is honored when we consider worshipping Him something that we’re bound or obligated to do, rather than something that naturally flows forth from our pleasure in Him? Because that actually sounds closer to the Pharisaical notion of worship: “These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.”
Christians worship, but genuine, God-honoring worship proceeds from a Christian rejoicing in the pleasure of knowing God and yearning to exalt Him because He is worthy of our exaltation and praise.
38. Kathy
October 28, 2006
9:30 AM
A great discussion on a complex issue. While we’re at it, let’s be clear that worship is a response to God, and music is an expression of it. Throughout the history of the institutionalized church, its music has reflected the contemporary culture. My concern with the pop/rock music we perform in churches is that it’s a mono-culture—one slice of Western culture.
I love to rock out, but that’s not usually how I express my heart to God.
This monoculture is not inherently evil, but it has three drawbacks, in my opinion.
It’s exclusive economically—forcing churches to consume huge financial resources. It’s exclusive within the body—allowing only persons with those particular skill sets to serve in music ministry. It’s exclusive in the corporate worship experience because the performers drown out the effect of voices joined together and the congregants sometimes can’t even hear their own voices. And those who might prefer other types of music are excluded as well.
Rock music evil? No. Pop music evil? No. But there’s more to music than that and more to worship than that.
39. donsands
October 28, 2006
12:10 PM
Great discussion to glean from. Once again Tim’s ministry of book reviewing helps the hearts of the Lord’s children to grow in His grace and knowledge.
“And the children of Israel that were present at Jerusalem kept the feast of unleavened bread seven days with great gladness: and the Levites and the priests praised the LORD day by day singing with loud instruments unto the LORD.” 2 Chron. 30:21
This should be the Church even more so when we gather, for we are celebrating the Bread of life, and He is here in His temple, the body of Christ.
40. Dave
October 28, 2006
12:14 PM
“Whatever draws us to the Cross and leads us to the feet of Jesus should be our focus.”
Interesting quote…so whatever works, do it, is that right? Sounds like pragmatism to me. Why is no one asking, “What does God say about how we should worship?” Should we not be concerned about the Regulative Principle of Worship, or are we too modern for that? Also, someone asked, “Do you think the disciples were singing ‘The Old Rugged Cross’?” No, we know what they sang…they sang the Psalms. Now some might say, “Well, there are contemporary worship services that sing the Psalms today.” True…but they only seem to sing the portion that talks about God’s love…ignoring His wrath and the “hard” parts of the Psalms. If you want to read a good boook on worship, pick up D.G. Hart’s book, “Recovering Mother Kirk.” It will rock your world.
41. Blake
October 28, 2006
1:53 PM
Rock is NOT a kind of music!! Rock is an attitude! sheesh!
42. Beth
October 28, 2006
2:49 PM
Dave, to your response: “so whatever works, do it, is that right” does not mean the same thing as I said above: “Whatever draws us to the Cross and leads us to the feet of Jesus should be our focus.” There are many obvious things that won’t bring us to Jesus. My point was that when we worry about silly things like the beat of music and trick or treating we lose all focus on the importance and that is drawing near to the Lord.
43. Dave
October 28, 2006
5:15 PM
Again…my question is, “Why in this debate do we very seldom ask the question, ‘What does God say about how we should worship?’” Would drama in worship bring us closer to Jesus? Many would say, “Yes.” But that hardly gives us the license to have drama in worship, particularly if we hold to the Regulative Principle of Worship (advocated by Calvin, the Puritans, and others) that says, “We may only do in worship what God commands in His Word.” Now please don’t think I’m arguing for only the singing of old hymns…many of those are revivalistic, sentimental garbage.
44. janelle
October 28, 2006
5:51 PM
Great post. Very helpful.
If I remember correctly, some old hymns were written by taking a popular song, usually one sung in the pubs that was catchy, and putting Christian lyrics to them. “A Mighty Fortress Is Our God” by Martin Luther is an example. Does this malign the words being sung in the song? Absolutely not. It’s not the music, it’s the words being sung! I wonder if this would make the authors think that this hymn is evil? :-)
45. dan miller
October 28, 2006
5:59 PM
Tim, thanks for the thoughtful review. “…We count ourselves among those who are offended by rock music in God’s service and are truly perplexed that so many other Christians go to such great lengths to defend their use of it…” - The Authors
There are two interesting things in that. The word “offended” is certainly used in a way foreign to it’s Biblical usage. The phrase “go to such great lengths to defend” is very interesting. I would think that this book will do nothing to decrease the lengths to which they must go.
“And lastly, I think it is up to those in opposition of “Christian Rock” to make a clear biblical argument against it in favor of “traditional music”. I haven’t heard one yet.” - JoeMama JoeMama, I would differ slightly. I believe that each person must make their argument for themselves and follow it. We need to get away from the idea of pushing “right” arguments on each other.
46. JoeBruin88
October 28, 2006
6:12 PM
Janelle, I had learned that same thing at the Desiring God conference this past September.
Apologies in advance for my oversimplification and lack of anything encouraging but this book sounds retarded.
47. Randy Brandt
October 28, 2006
7:12 PM
I lived through the anti-rock crusades of the 70s, such as Bob Larson’s “Rock and Roll: The Devil’s Diversion.” Hard to believe there are still new books taking the same tired approach three decades later: there are rock bands who have evil messages, therefore all rock is evil. The lack of logic from otherwise intelligent men is truly pathetic.
48. Dave
October 28, 2006
9:12 PM
Janelle…
That whole idea that Luther’s songs and others were well-known “bar tunes” has been proven to be a myth by men like Paul Jones (music minister in the PCA) and other scholars. I think that we should stop using that argument.
“JoeMama, I would differ slightly. I believe that each person must make their argument for themselves and follow it. We need to get away from the idea of pushing “right” arguments on each other.” This is just another example of the spirit of the age. “Whatever you like is fine…and whatever I like is fine.” I like rock music…but while I’m driving down the road listening to my iPod…not while I’m trying to worship a God who is holy, holy, holy.
49. Dave
October 28, 2006
9:17 PM
Here’s some info from Justin Taylor’s blog on Luther and supposed “bar tunes”…he is quoting Gene Veith in “World Magazine”:
“For the record, Luther did not take ‘bar tunes’ and put biblical words to them. That legend comes from a comical misunderstanding. Someone apparently heard a music historian referring to Luther’s use of the ‘bar form,’ which refers to a stanza structure, not to what drunks sing in a tavern. Luther did borrow and adapt tunes from earlier hymns, medieval chants, and contemporary composers, but a good number of his melodies were his own original compositions.”
50. MH
October 28, 2006
9:34 PM
Is this the same John Blanchard that wrote “Ultimate Questions”? If so, I am shocked!
Yes, the thing about Luther and bar tunes is, in fact, a myth. Thanks for pointing that out. When we use myths to back up our arguments we shoot ourselves in the foot.
51. MH
October 28, 2006
9:34 PM
Is this the same John Blanchard that wrote “Ultimate Questions”? If so, I am shocked!
Yes, the thing about Luther and bar tunes is, in fact, a myth. Thanks for pointing that out. When we use myths to back up our arguments we shoot ourselves in the foot.
52. Malana
October 29, 2006
12:53 AM
One must remember Dan Lucarini’s rock background (recounted in his first book) and why he no longer uses rock music, obviously something he feels convicted about.
To put things in a perspective, I remember attending a youth rally as a teen and hearing the song “Pass It On” sung and accompanied by guitar! At first we were shocked and then we felt it was daring and as typical rebellious youth who knew much more than our parents, we performed it at the next youth night along with Amazing Grace sung to “House of the Rising Sun.” We were so innocent, I don’t think we knew the real words to that song. These were the days when Ed Sullivan was banning some of the bands which we now consider tame.
As Christians, I think far too many people have been hurt in these worship wars and far too many weak arguments put up to cover personal preferences on both sides. When you listen to the most vehement, a selfishness comes out. No matter what the style, ask these questions…does honor God, does it put people’s mind on God or will they focus on a memory of a party or a concert, is it theologically sound, and why did you chose it….because you like it or are you being rebellious as we were. (It’s in our nature you know) When our old church was teaching about love and the “best” song they thought would work was the theme from the pro-gay musical “Rent”, many people left.
And funnily enough, you know, I don’t really care for “Pass it On.” 8)
53. Jabbok
October 29, 2006
5:34 AM
Let’s Do A Poll!
I played in a band with some friends of mine, once upon a time. I no longer play with them because of time restraints but they are still going strong.
This past summer they played in an outdoor venue and this is one of the songs. It is an old Rock classic that has been re-written with Christian lyrics. It was recorded outside so the sound quality isn’t excellent but it’s similar to how they sound in a church auditorium.
Pay attention to the lyrics.
“When I’m tired and thinking cold, I hide in my music.”
“I finally see Jesus walking my way.”
Poll Question #1: Is this song honoring to the Lord? Poll Question #2: Does this song lead to worship? Poll Question #3: Is this song appropriate to play on a Sunday morning before the preaching service?
Here is the Song.
Prayer Request: I e-mailed Tim yesterday morning about posting this poll and I intended to post it then but I received a call from my mother. My step father fell yesterday morning and hit his head on the bed post. He has a massive hemorrhage on the brain. It is inoperable and he won’t be coming home from the hospital. He is 89 years old and professes to be a Christian so that is a comfort but please remember my mom in your prayers. Thanks.
P.S.: I hope they don’t play this song at the funeral.
54. Veritas
October 29, 2006
6:14 AM
Good grief, (sigh.) Thanks for the warning about the book however I think I would have got the same warnings as soon as I read the cover. Are these guys serious? What dark age are they living in. We heard rock and roll was of the devil 30-40 years ago and these guys still don’t make a cogent enough defence to their point of view. It stills remains a point of view - subjective. These sort of deluded arguments are coming back into vogue yet again. Seems we go through a cycle each generation. Beethoven was initially disliked and look how high up we hold his music. Ira Sankey was ridiculed because he wrote Christian lyrics to heathen songs. Then his songs went out of fashion and hardly played today. The same with Moody and many of the hymns. Some the hymns that people laud are atrocious (personal taste of course) and some are theologically unbalanced and incorrect. Music and the instruments that produce music are just machines and have no intrinsic morality of their own. It is the human interpretation of the product that classifies it as either good or bad according to our tastes. Who are we to tell God what sort of music He likes. He doesn’t want our music or money or sacrifices - He wants our hearts. Full stop. Period. I thought Blanchard was a bit higher than this - and am now proven wrong. We are told to make a joyful noise unto the Lord. If we are playing any sort of music and the joy of God is in our hearts then the music produced from that joy is praise for God not for man. Get over it.
55. Dan Miller
October 29, 2006
8:56 AM
Since Dave interpreted by remarks in post 45 as “Whatever you like is fine…and whatever I like is fine,” I should clarify.
I didn’t say that each should figure out what he likes.
I said that each should make argument. This must be a Biblical argument.
Expecting differences is the spirit of Paul more than the spirit of this age.
56. Dave
October 29, 2006
11:20 AM
To answer the questions on that “worship song”…
Poll Question #1: Is this song honoring to the Lord?
No…because it is not Scriptural. If a song has false theology, then it cannot be honoring to the Lord.
Poll Question #2: Does this song lead to worship?
No…because you cannot offer acceptable worship to the Lord if your music is poor theologically. God commands that we worship Him “in Spirit and IN TRUTH.”
Poll Question #3: Is this song appropriate to play on a Sunday morning before the preaching service?
Since it’s not theologically sound, I would say it’s not appropriate to play any time of the week, let alone on the Lord’s Day. I get better theology out of the secular song “Bad to the Bone.” At least that teaches something biblical—namely, that I’m totally depraved.
Why is it that we feel we have to “ape” or copy everything the world does…all in the name of reaching more people? Why don’t we present Christianity as something “other-worldly”…something completely different than every other type of hope that this world is looking for? I fear that we’ve tried to “reach out” to the culture so much that we’ve lost what distinguishes us from the world. This “worship song” is just one more example of very, very poor Christian artistry. And this is what happens when you divorce sound theology from music.
57. Fred
October 29, 2006
3:51 PM
I agree that worship should be enjoyable . But enjoyable to what? Our base natures, or our new nature that is God directed? In the OT worship all aspects and things of worship were set aside as sacred and consecrated for the purpose of worship. They became holy. or set apart just for the purpose of worship. Are we doing the same today or are we just uncritically using whatever our culture likes best and just incorporating it into our worship? The older hymns or “church music” was set apart as such. If you heard it from a half a mile away , you would know it as church music whether or not you heard the words or not.
I assert that the reason we have the wars on worship music styles is that most people want to please their flesh more than they wish to please other people and God. The fact that we fight over it proves it. I still believe that if Christians would just form their music style as an alternative or in opposition to secular styles, {as was done in the past} we would not be argueing this all of the time . Make the music wholly different. I for one will not fight over this issue as long as the words are theologically sound and point to God. If not then I just shut a deaf ear to it and ignor it the best I can. It is sad when I see many older peolpe leave a church or come after the worship music because the hectic beat , bass tones, and amplified music , let alone the melody that only one that knows the song well can sing. Where is the obedience to the command of honor thy father and mother. As far as I know , elders , still command respect and are to be esteemed. Of course, we live in a culture that idolises youth. One thing I can say is this. The older songs were and are not offensive to anyone. We may not prefer it , but it is nonoffensive to the ear. The same can not be said about todays music.
We could create modern hymns and spirituals songs that would please most everyone and be non intrusive to all; music that was created , both in form and content , precisely for the purpose of worship. Where are the true creative musicians and artists today? That would honor God much more than the incorporating the styles and forms of a culture in rebellion to God.Who knows,it may also end much of this bickering.
58. csheidler
October 29, 2006
4:34 PM
Fred:
The older songs were and are not offensive to anyone. We may not prefer it , but it is nonoffensive to the ear. The same can not be said about todays music.
An entirely subjective statement. I happen to know at least one person who DOES, in fact, find traditional worship music (i.e., hymns on the order of “The Old Rugged Cross” and “How Great Thou Art”) offensive to his ears, conjuring up connotations of deadness, legalism, and hypocrisy.
The individual in question has no problems with the lyrics at all, and is a very doctrinally sound Christian—he thoroughly enjoyed recent contemporary versions of “How Great Thou Art” and “Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing”.
Also, you make a sweeping generalization when you categorize today’s music as offensive to the ear—I’m not offended by it at all, and indeed find it much more expressive in most cases than traditional music.
Nor can this be so facilely categorized as an appeal to sinful nature: I was more convicted by a contemporary performance (drums and all!) of “How Great Thou Art” than I’d ever been hearing it sung traditionally. So your rash generalization that “the reason we have the wars on worship music styles is that most people want to please their flesh more than they wish to please other people and God.” is simply false….But more than that, it’s self-refuting: you say that “The fact that we fight over it proves it.” Well, unfortunately, that’s a double-edged sword—it could very well be that many people fight for trasditional hymn forms simply because those forms are “non-threatening” and do not instill in them a desire to take the lyrics seriously, whereas the defamiliarization of those lyrics (by means of incorporating them into a faster, more contemporary style) makes them more difficult to avoid. This, too, would be a desire to please the flesh rather than to please God.
You further make an appeal to the 5th Commandment, and an appeal to “respect our elders”…do you really propose to twist the 5th Commandment to support tradition simply for the sake of tradition? Should not worshiping God “in spirit and truth” be more important than traditions of elders? Your only response to this (from what you’ve argued so far) seems to be, “traditional music is godly; modern music isn’t.” Would you mind actually providing some evidence or warrant for this, or must we simply rely on your fiat?
Further, your analogy from Old Testament worship is a false one…specific items were consecrated for worship, not specific mediums. For example, the Ark of the Covenant was set aside for worship, not the medium of carpentry or the medium of sculpture out of which the creation of the Ark, by God’s design, was produced—carpentry and sculpture as forms could be used for anything. So a specific style of music need not be set apart for worship in order for it to be acceptable; it’s what’s formed out of those specific musical styles (i.e., the content of a song) that determines its acceptability for worship.
59. Rick Warren
October 29, 2006
8:17 PM
Tim,
Great review of this book. I really enjoy reading your blog. Keep up the good work.
Rick.
ps I hope you have a Happy Reformation Day!
60. Michael O'Fallon
October 29, 2006
8:44 PM
Greetings Tim,
I completely agree with your assessment of “Can We Rock the Gospel”. Sadly, the book follows the same faulty logic that Lucarini’s previous work, “Why I Left Contemporary Christian Music”. Lucarini’s line of argumentation is comparable to that of the hardened KJV Onlyist: devoid of Biblical precedent, historical understanding and assigning motives to fellow believers. The arguments also exist only within an Anglo cultural void that seems to view “traditional hymnody” as something that only existed between 1630-1850 and completely ignores previous “worship” controversies that existed througout church history. Maybe I’ll have the time to develop these thoughts later…
I agree with Rick ( :o) ), love your blog…
Michael O’Fallon Sovereign Cruises LLC www.sovereigncruises.org
61. donsands
October 29, 2006
9:08 PM
“Where are the true creative musicians and artist today?”
They’re out there. Perhpas not a lot, but there are some.
I went to a Chris Tomlin worship concert, and it was a genuine time of worshipping God, and the preaching was something that I will always remember. The subject was how great God is, and how small we are. Totally Christ-centered, and it was held at a secular college.
Sovereign Grace has good music. And there are others. You just have to look around.
I will say this; there is also a lot, a lot, of lame music out there in the Christian world. For me that is. There’s seems to be no substance. Much of the Chrstian music is such a bore. For every 20 songs I hear on my Christian radio station, there is perhaps 2 that are thought provoking, and well done.
62. Dan
October 29, 2006
9:33 PM
The core of this entire debate is bound up in cultural understandings. What is intelligible to one person with one cultural condition is unintelligible to another person in another condition. An example: even though I have no trouble hearing lyrics on most rock songs, the first few times I heard Handel’s Messiah I was utterly convinced that it was NOT in English. The style of singing (which I have since grown to better understand and appreciate) was unintelligible to me at first. The way that rock may be unintelligible to someone not brought up around rock culture.
I don’t know how anyone could make an objective claim about backbeats either. Rhythm, if anything, can often be a device to enhance memory.
63. Rich H
October 29, 2006
10:45 PM
In 2 Samuel 6, David was celebrating the return of the ark to Jerusalem. “5 David and the whole house of Israel were celebrating with all their might before the LORD, with songs and with harps, lyres, tambourines, sistrums and cymbals….14 David, wearing a linen ephod, danced before the LORD with all his might, 15 while he and the entire house of Israel brought up the ark of the LORD with shouts and the sound of trumpets.” When his wfe ridiculed him for dancing in his underwear, he replied, “I will celebrate before the LORD. 22 I will become even more undignified than this…”
Sounds like David really knew how to rock! Of course, he could have been dancing to a nice solemn hymn, but it doesn’t sound like it.
64. Steve Camp
October 30, 2006
10:34 AM
Tim:
A very good and balanced review of this book. Though I appreciate these brothers effort in trying to correct the abuses that obviously go on in the CCM music industry and its effect on the local church involving contemporary worship, their silence in offering biblical, concrete solutions is strangely missing.
Music has always been and continues to be a hot potato within the church. We must remember that music is not amoral, but the incarnation of the message. Sound doctrine, music that skillfully represents the message and directs people in worship to the One Triune God of the bible is so necessary today. And both are important: the craft of excellent music and the importance of sound doctrine.
Great theology, contained in excellent hymnology, produces rich doxology to the Lord and for His glory. Sadly most reformed churches don’t have excellent music, but great theology. Many non-reformed churches have excellently executed musicianship, but may be shy on sound doctrine. We need both don’t we…
On this issue it is vital that we do our very best to not be legalistic, and remain biblical. I am certain that both John and Dan have pure motives in their writings; and at the same time I think unfortunately slip into a more personal taste criteria or legalistic standard for arriving at some of their conclusions.
Can we rock the gospel—yes! To quote my old friend Larry Norman, “why should the devil have all the good music?” BUT we need to guard the truth in any style of music used; as well as the character of those representing the Lord Jesus Christ in song and the content of the message.
Amos 5:21-24 may prove beneficial in this area.
Lastly, as we approach Reformation Day tomorrow, may we pray that the Lord would send through His Spirit another reformation in our day; another Great Awakening in our generation for repentance and revival.
Luther considered the hymnbook his second favorite book only to Scripture for it was a vital way in communicating the great truths of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit to others. It was a source of teaching, discipleship, evangelism, and worship.
May today’s music be used again to that end.
Sola Deo Gloria! Grace and peace to you, Campi 2 Cor. 4:5-7
65. LJ
October 30, 2006
11:04 AM
Steve…
I’d be interested to know why it is that you say “most reformed churches don’t have excellent music.”
66. MH
October 30, 2006
1:17 PM
I’m curious to know how many serious musicians or aesthetes are posting on this thread. Judging by the quality of many of the arguments on both sides, I’d say probably very few. How sad. But of course, evangelicals today are known for having personal “tastes” but not for having “taste” in the classical sense of the term.
LJ, you asked why Steve says “most reformed churches don’t have excellent music.” This may be a tendency that’s on the way out, or you may not have personally been exposed to such sub-excellent music, but try singing through the CRC’s Psalter Hymnal, for example. Not only do you find an occasional 19th-20th century cheesy “gospel song” tune, but of the more “traditional” tunes, many are just plain crap for congregational singability, not to mention they often don’t follow any rules for good melody composition. Even the fabulous Trinity Hymnal has some real doozies!
67. wfseube
October 30, 2006
4:17 PM
LJ wrote: Steve…I’d be interested to know why it is that you say “most reformed churches don’t have excellent music.”
Ho boy, now you’ve done it. I’m sure Campi won’t have anything to say on THAT topic! ;-)
Probably should go over to his blog and do some back-research. That’s something that he’s written on extensively (and has much practical experience in).
bill
68. Joshua Steele
October 30, 2006
6:35 PM
Thier is nothing wrong with Christian music. As long as it praises Jesus. Jesus Christ is God Almighty, it was God that died on that cross. The most serious prayer that you will ever pray is…Lord Jesus Christ, what ever it takes for you to get me into the Kingdom of Heaven, DO IT!!!
69. LJ
October 30, 2006
9:16 PM
WFSEUBE…
I know that Steve Camp has done a lot of writing on contemporary Christian music, rightly pointing out its deplorable state. But I’m not sure I’ve ever read of anything he’s written on music in reformed churches. Now I also know that a lot of what passes for worship in reformed churches is nothing more than man-centered, “God is my girlfriend” stuff. But when I think about reformed worship, I’m thinking of worship that is faithful to what Calvin, Knox, and others were doing during the actual time of the Reformation…not what passes for “reformed” worship today. And there are some denominations, such as the RPCNA, that exclusively sing psalms. And not just one verse that talks about God’s love…but the entire psalm. I think Calvin would be quite surprised by what we call “reformed worship” today.
70. Jennifer
October 31, 2006
11:22 AM
Hey Tim,
I know that I’m getting into this debate a bit late……and I have to say that it seems that there are few bands (even in popular Christian music) that are faithful to the Gospel. They are ambiguous and light and frothy about sin and wrath and what God has commanded of us. Well, with the exception being a handful of bands that are unashamed of Christ…..and their lyrics are mainly scripture.
Disciple www.disciplerocks.com is one that I must say holds fast to truth. Tis true, I weep my eyes out to heavy metal! And get this….at Bethlehem Baptist service just this last Sunday (downtown campus) we had a dear brother in Christ RAP for us!! His doctrine was solid, his heart for Jesus was evident and the passion for sharing with unbelievers welled up inside me once again.
“By all means, that we might save some.” ALL means…..ALL. Let’s not debate about the beats or the volume…..but the LYRICS, For who can call on Him whom they have never heard?
Hats off to the faithful, unashamed, God fearing, Jesus loving, gospel spreading bands that go out ONLY for the sake of making the Name known among the lost in our culture.
To: Disciple and Cross Movement - I thank God for you brothers!
71. Warren
October 31, 2006
8:20 PM
Replying to Lance Roberts:
I never said there weren’t things which were wrong - merely that music can’t be - it’s a collection of physical waves pounding against our ears. The lyrics may be evil, but the music is not - unless perhaps it were directly written by the Devil.
And you agree with me that as with all gifts - art, film, etc - any one of them may be used for evil. I wholeheartedly agree that pornography is wrong. Sex was intended to exist only between a man and his wife in wedlock. And, therefore, all depictions of it outside of that sacred arena are wrong.
I would challenge you to find any piece of music that is inherently evil. Certainly you can point to myriad songs which are not morally good. But the music a distinctly different component from the song.
I also stand by my statement that music appropriate in a church in America most definitely would not be appropriate in Nepal. Rock music is very much a part of American music culture… as are hip-hop, pop, swing, jazz, and blues.
I Cor 9:19-23 “For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings.”
While never forgetting that sinners need to be saved from sin, we must still be ready to meet those sinners wherever they are, whether in their houses, their hedges, or their hang-outs and “compel them to come to the feast”.
72. Jack Brooks
November 2, 2006
9:38 AM
I don’t see how anyone can write an evaluation of rock music without defining it first, in such a way that the definitions don’t apply to nearly everything. If everything is rock music, then nothing is rock music, right?
I think it’s fair to measure how a piece of music emotionally affects the average listener. Does it make them want to dance in a sexy way? March? Sway back and forth? Laugh? Feel sad? Creepy? It’s not true that music is emotionally neutral. “Mood creation” is a fair criteria, but it can also be applied to any piece of music. I don’t think you’d want to use Bolero for a worship piece.
The cultural symbolism of music needs to be considered as well. Not all contemporary music in the 1960’s and 70’s symbolized sex, drugs, and libertinism. Anyone who thinks that the early Jackson 5 and the Doors were saying the same things doesn’t know anything about either of them.
We shouldn’t confuse musical complexity and sophistication with moral excellence. Most classical music is complex, and demands mastery of certain instruments that are much harder to play than are guitars or drums. Even bluegrass fiddlin’ is much harder to do than the average acoustic guitar playing. So I can understand some people’s tired-ness with pop worship music.
If someone really knows and appreciates music, they get tired of musically simple and childishly repetitive contemporary worship music is (ever listen to Amy Grant’s Songs From the Loft?) But there can be a built-in snobbishness factor hidden in that reality. The reason pop music is so popular is because that’s where most of the population is , musically.
73. wfseube
November 2, 2006
9:54 PM
Jack Brooks wrote: We shouldn’t confuse musical complexity and sophistication with moral excellence. Most classical music is complex, and demands mastery of certain instruments that are much harder to play than are guitars or drums. Even bluegrass fiddlin’ is much harder to do than the average acoustic guitar playing. So I can understand some people’s tired-ness with pop worship music. Sounds like classical music snobbishness to me. My guess is you’ve not spent much time listening to skilled guitarists. Do you play guitar? If not, I suspect your generalizations are based on watching Aunt Nelly play Kumbaya with 3 chords on an old beatup Silvertone from Sears. Phil Keaggy has more musical skill in one of his fingernails than many classical musicians can ever hope to possess. Non-Christian music rock musicians like the late Stevie Ray Vaughn, Steve Vai, David Gilmour, Joe Satriani, etc. are/were brilliant musicians, despite their “rock and roll” style.
There are as many lousy violinists and oboeists out there as there are lousy guitar players. To claim that a classical musician is is superior in musicianship simply because he/she plays an instrument employed in classical music instead of a guitar is simply ludicrous. To your assertion, I say “provide me objective proof”. Your statements (like mine) are patently subjective and nothing but your own opinion.
74. MH
November 3, 2006
1:45 AM
Wow! Has this discussion digressed to facile, tangential arguments! Even with the recent discussion between some apparently musically appreciative and sensitive fellows, I must return to my initial query: “How many serious musicians or aesthetes are posting on this thread? Judging by the quality of many of the arguments on both sides, I’d say probably very few. How sad. But of course, evangelicals today are known for having personal ‘tastes’ but not for having ‘taste’ in the classical sense of the term.”
75. Jack Brooks
November 3, 2006
9:36 AM
Wfseube, I didn’t say that guitars are easy to play, I said that many instruments are harder to play (well) than a guitar. And that’s a true statement. Really good bluegrass fiddling, a la Alison Krauss, is very hard to do at all, let alone do well. It is harder to play an oboe or a flute well than it is for the average person to play a guitar. Banjos are harder to learn to play than guitars. And you can tell from the context that I’m not talking about Spanish guitar.
Your Phil Keaggy illustration is silly — no one gains a seat in a professional or university orchestra having less talent than whatever resides inside Mr. keaggy’s fingernails. Although the comment was cuticle — I mean cute.
Anyway, you should recognize that I was criticizing these “all contemporary music is wicked” books, not agreeing with them. I’m a 47-year-old dad who pastors a conservative church, and I’m the one who caught flak (and had people leave the church) because I supported the creation of a praise music team.
I have an earlier book written by Dan Lucarini on the same subject, given to me by someone from a Church of Christ background who thought it was great. I thought Lucarini made a few legitimate comments, but he was mostly subjective, had no Biblical foundations to his opinions, and the book was poorly reasoned. I had an almost identical reaction to that book that TC had to this book, which is what I found interesting.
But your reaction was just as knee-jerk as any Gothardite I’ve had to have to deal with.
A lot of CCM is conceptually shallow, lyrically cliched, and features the same redundant musical structures as top-40 radio. That’s why I listen to Derek Webb, even when I disagree with his politics (and I also really wish Jennifer Knapp would come back).
Oh, well, time will weed it all out. The good material — good musically, good spiritually, good in effect on people’s souls — from any of the decades survives. That why Keith Green’s albums are still in circulation, and you never hear about Silverwind.
76. Fred
November 3, 2006
2:16 PM
csheidler;
I agree that my comments may have been subjective, but so are yours. This leads me to think that you look at music as something subjective. This is where I disagree. Is the Grand Canyon’s beauty subjective? It may be in the sense of an individuals personal preference, but its beauty is not determined by that criteria. Most everyone would agree that the Canyon is breath takingly beautiful. It is beautiful not because we say it is beautiful , but because it is . You may personally like or dislike it , but you are not the judge. It has already been judged, so you as the viewer become the one who is judged. Now some people view that a person urinating on a cross is beautiful also. But does that make it so? Of course not , unless you wish to say that God’s attributes such as beauty , goodness and truth are subjective. This is exactly the route that pro-pop music proponettes wish to use. We do not define beauty. God does. Rock music was not initially consecrated for worship. Old hymns for the most part were. They did not borrow from the world a form of music but made their own style that concentrated the mind on what was being said and not on the beat/rhythm of the music. It has been judged by time and not by the whims and fancies of the present generations. As A Christian in the early 70’s , I remember new Pop Christian music being produced that now is never or hardly ever played. Why? We are in the top 40 times and it has been replaced. It is old.
This is a hard topic to address because it exemplifies what our sinful nature are all about. It is about our likes and dislikes , our preferences. I am of the opinion that corporate worship music should take the path of being the least offending to all , especially the older people for they are the one that we are commanded to honor. This is what we do not do, because as a youthful culture , we want our own way and we want it now. It tells me alot also about the thinking of people when they will not worship in a church unless the music fits their preferences, which of course came from the world.
Eveything can be labeled subjective when it comes to man’s reasoning and preferences. However , wisdom understands that these ideals are not subjective to a follower of Christ , but are the attributes of Himself. Everything may be beautiful in its own way, and there is a time and season for everything and that includes corporate worship. Who decides what is appropriate? God does. Did God create rock and roll? Did God create abortion clinics? I am not trying to compare the two but to show one that just because something exists does not make it right. God created music, we developed the forms. God created the clinics , we developed the uses. What are the forms and uses representative of in their develpoment? Is that the best we can do to offer up to a Holy God?
77. Allan
November 5, 2006
3:06 PM
I totally agree with the authors. It is scandalous and totally mystifying that otherwise sound Christians would even bother to defend Rock Music. It’s whole provenance and history makes it a bizarre thing to defend, even if only for the reason of the benefit of the conscience of a weak brother. Some of you Rock music defenders will no doubt go on about the sins of a brother having a smoke, and drinking a wine!!!!
One with an ounce of discernment, but not captured by its spirit would discern its spirit and provenance and the incalculable harm it has done to the purity of our young. Wake up you who call yourself teachers of others.
Music is created, in every event, by a moral agent. The way it is put together displays the character of its creator. The one who enjoys it entertains that spirit.
So is it important? As a destructive force in our youth, tremendously. As a possible revealer of inward proclivities we might need to reject, greatly.
A
78. MH
November 5, 2006
5:47 PM
Allen,
As it seems clear that you have thoroughly studied and thought through all the aesthetic, musical, and theological issues of not only rock music but all types of music, could you please walk us through the logic that brought you to this conclusion. I am especially…ahem…intrigued by this statement: “Music is created, in every event, by a moral agent. The way it is put together displays the character of its creator.” Is this always the case? You seem rather sure, and to make such a bold and omniscient claim you must be very, very intelligent, so am I correct then in assuming that we should not listen to Mozart because he had a rather questionable character? Please enlighten me.
79. matthew lipscomb
November 5, 2006
9:53 PM
I think that when considering different music styles - because there is such a cultural component involved - that there is wisdom in considering what the scripture speaks to us regarding cultural issues, or more specifically those that might be considered “eat meat/don’t eat meat” ones. I told someone recently, jokingly of course, that I don’t have the lack of faith to be a prohibitionist in terms of alcohol abstention in light of Romans 14:22-23
Hast thou faith? have [it] to thyself before God. Happy [is] he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because [he eateth] not of faith: for whatsoever [is] not of faith is sin.
I think that if you enjoy Contemporary Worship, then you should, but you should be very careful to not force those who are offended by it into it, because you might be causing those same people to condemn themselves in the process. Liberty is a precious thing that came at a great cost to us and is to be practiced with great responsiblity in all it’s aspects within the church; whether it is how you eat or what you do or how you worship and how you do - it’s the same premise. (just some musings)
Matthew Lipscomb myspace.com/winebibber .
80. Jane
November 6, 2006
9:27 AM
I am SO late on this. When I read the review, I was horrified. This kind of legalistic garbage scares me to death. We all know that true worship begins in the heart. Whatever music brings my heart to worship is good. I can tell you that it is seldom draggy hymns featuring bad composition and even worse poetry. C.S. Lewis said something similar to this. Can’t remember where. This argument just goes around with every new generation it seems. It’s a tired argument. SO happy I don’t have to read this book, Thanks, Tim
Jane
81. LJ
November 6, 2006
11:08 AM
Jane…
Once again, another appeal to pragmatism—whatever works (“whatever music brings my heart to worship is good”). Wonder if that’s what Nadab and Abihu said?
82. Jack Brooks
November 6, 2006
12:54 PM
LJ: Nadab and Abihu transgressed God’s laws. The reason so few Christians buy the ultra-traditionalist rhetoric is because it’s not based on Scriptural laws, no matter how hard it strains to build a case.
83. Libbie
November 6, 2006
2:48 PM
Worship in the Melting Pot by Dr Peter Masters is much the better book by the sounds of it. He doesn’t waste time delving into what he feels is ungodly trying to make a whimsy case against it - he simply opens up scripture to point out the clear things that it sets out as the principles of our worship. He is not a fan of modern worship, to say the least, but his criteria is emphatically not this strange