[The views expressed below are the contributors and do not reflect any particular view of withChrist.org. We appreciate the level of serious thought and hard work which is evidence in each post.]

Contributors: Matthew F, Trey Hicks, Al Garcia, Hans M., Bob Nyberg, John McKay, Nick

THREAD INDEX

Initial comments by Matthew F < Removed 4/12/2011 by request of himself.

    response by Trey Hicks

        response by Al Garcia

            response by Hans M.

                response by Bob Nyberg

                    response by John McKay

Comment by Dan S

                        response by Trey Hicks

                            response by Al Garcia

Comment by Nick

Dear Dr. P:

Initial comment removed at the request of Matthew F @ 4/12/2011

I am not sure when Matthew F wrote his piece on music, but I really wanted to make a comment or two. Now, I must warn you first off that I am a super-Jesus freak with a background in anthropology (BA).

It is obvious that Matthew F does not care for what he calls "rock" music (which I assume he covers everything from alternative to electronica to punk). I mean, when he closes his piece with such heated comments as, "no special skill is required to make [rock music], it is fast, light in nature, but has little nutritional value," you know that his taste in music is rooted anywhere else but in "rock" music.

My first comment is that Mr. F started out with a great point, but then I don't know what happened because he then did a 180--philosophically speaking. He started out with "you touched on the social context of style, and it is this with which rhythm is so intertwined," which is obviously in reference to a conversation he had in an earlier discussion. The excellent point and fact that he disregarded with the rest of his comments was that of social context. Any sort of cultural significata (music, symbols, dance, words, etc.) can have completely different and sometimes opposite meaning in various cultural contexts. For example, in many parts of Africa, various colors take on tremendous symbolic value. Within some cultural contexts, red is a symbol of fertility and all that is feminine--while in others, it is a symbol of death and disease. The point is that music is obviously highly symbolic in its use, but, like the color red, the meaning does not come from the thing itself but by the culture or subculture that uses it.

Another example of this would be if I had been the discoverer of the Dead Sea Scrolls and that I did not know a lick of Hebrew (I am not a Jewish historian nor scholar, so for arguments sake, let's assume that they were written in Hebrew). Well, not knowing how to read Hebrew, I could stare at those Dead Sea Scrolls till the cows came home, but to me, all I would see was a bunch of cool looking squiggly lines on some old paper. Now, a Hebrew scholar would look at those same squiggly lines and find such depth of treasures and knowledge that it would make my head spin.

The same is with music. The meaning behind the style, the beats, the rhythms, the instruments, etc. is not in the music itself, but in the ears of the listeners. Matthew F. wrote, "Style carries with it connotations, indeed, one might say metaphor." And then, he goes on to say how various styles of music conjure up various meanings within the listener. For example, Matthew F. says that marching music makes people think of soldiers in stride. What if I played the same marching band music to my friends in Zambia (where I lived doing missions work for a bit). They have never heard marching music in their entire lives. I don't think any intellectually honest person would try to argue that their first emotional response would be to think of soldiers in stride. The mistake that Matthew F. makes is assuming that what he believes to be true and what he has experienced with various styles of music is universally true for everyone else. The truth is that humans are way too diverse to package up in such nice and neat assumptions.

What I don't understand is how Matthew F. tried to integrate the next statement he made with the rest of his argument. He wrote: "memory and associations also play a large part in our perceptions." Memory and associations (which are highly individual) ARE our perceptions when it comes to cultural significata. We have an encounter with something, we react to it, we then associate that encounter and anything similar to it with the reaction we had. By acknowledging this, it seems paradoxical to the rest of his argument which is highly universal in his approach.

Another point Matthew F. tries to make is "the beat of rock music is at its core metaphorical of physical lust." I just want to know who Mr. F. says makes all these decisions for everyone else--as if there is a secret board of people who make cultural decisions and somehow diffuse them into society. And what is it about the beat that makes it a icon for lust? Is it a particular key signature? A particular speed? Perhaps it is a particular drum or strumming style? Now, I must admit I am being a bit sarcastic, but I am trying to use my tone to drive home my point. My assessment of this statement is that Mr. F is making a value judgment on a particular subculture--if you will--within this genre of music that does use their musical abilities in order to convey a very sensual message. . .but then he takes those value judgements and applies them to every subculture within this genre of music. This is what anthropologists call prejudice or prejudging something/someone before you even know what the real facts are.

Now, my writing this is no to try to get Matthew F. to enjoy the music of the Millennium Generation, nor is it to slam his taste in music (I happen to enjoy classical music as much as I enjoy what Mr. F. calls "rock"). But he makes a mistake that many seasoned citizens make when it comes to ministry and music, he wrote off a whole subculture of people because of nothing more than style. Matthew F. wrote, "the cry is that we must give the young people what they want in the way of music, or we will lose them, caring nothing for the way we are running roughshod over the older Christians in our congregation. The truth is we are losing the young people because of their music, not in spite of it." The point I want to make here is that when we communicate the Gospel in whichever form (preaching, singing, art, etc.), if it is not culturally significant to the audience, then we are almost wasting our time (although, I must admit that the power of the Holy Spirit despite the obvious flaws in our approach can easily make up for any of such blunders). A good example of this is when a Teen Mania group toured Africa with an allegorical, Gospel presentation about pirates. And they did it for people groups living in a dessert that have never even seen an ocean nor a body of water larger than a small watering hole. Sure there were some salvations, but the skit did very little to bring this about. . .it was the message that was spoken after the skit that gave the Holy Spirit something more to work through.

When we are culturally significant to our audience, our message is so much more powerful. Take Paul, for example, when he was preaching on Mars Hill. He did not delve into Jewish history and customs to get his audience into his message (which, by the way, transcends all culture and styles); however, Paul used a particular bit of the cultural context he found himself in when he referred to the unnamed god. Obviously, Mr. F., like many seasoned citizens, cannot find any significant value in the styles of music from this generation, which I have no problem with whatsoever. But, the exact same thing is true in reverse: most people from my generation do not find any value whatsoever in the old style.

It sounds like to me that Mr. F. is a bit too much of a purist in his approach to music. Purist not in the moral sense of the word but in the sense of getting back to roots. First of all, the music of yesteryear had its debut in the church, and I am sure that there were many of the old school of that day who resented it. If Matthew F. wants to be a purist, he needs to go farther back in time than the old hymnals. Maybe as far back to the "father of psalmtry," King David himself.

The last few points I want to make is about the comment Mr. F. made saying that the church is "losing the young people because of their music, not in spite of it." On this point, I am not too sure who the "their" is whose music he is referring to. I assume he means the music of the pagans, and I would agree. Any music from any style that glorifies the flesh and self carries people away from the presence of God. That point is almost a given.

Then Mr. F. states that in our society, (and in our churches), the cry is that we must give the young people what they want in the way of music, or we will lose them, caring nothing for the way we are running roughshod over the older Christians in our congregation. The truth is we are not losing people from the church to the world because of pagan music. The more truthful statement would be that we are losing people from our churches because there are a significant number of people (and not all of them are seasoned citizens) who desire to hang on to the old wine skins for the sake of tradition and for the sake of taste in styles, and they want to make sure that everyone else stays in the same camp as them. People are leaving because church is not culturally significant to their lives and their experiences. I am sorry, but a song from yesteryear does not metaphorically bring the people of this generation into some state of rapture with God. That is the old wine skin, and if you really care about losing people from the church because of music, why not try the new wine skin? If it was the music that is going to keep people in the church, there are enough churches out there who play golden oldies to catch every such person and we would have a zero turn-over rate. But that is not the case.

In closing, Jesus spoke in parables, he did not speak in old school religious talk. Jesus hung out with the lost on their terms. He did not make them come up to him; rather, he came down to them. He was real to them, he was organic. They could relate to him and hang out with him without having to go through this outrageous change of appearance and style. If we really care about the next generation of the Body of Christ, who have yet to be saved, then we must be as organic and relative as Jesus was. I ask you Mr. F. not to like our music but to at least reconsider some of the flaws in your prejudices against it. What is more important to you? Preserving the old traditions and old school and reaching out only to those who are already on their way to our original destiny or reaching out to those who have not heard or have been turned off by our closed mindedness?

Anyhow, that was my two cents worth,

Trey Hicks shicks@ghg.net

I read with incredulity the response of Trey Hicks to Mr. F's comments on music in the church. The intolerance he "observed" in Mr. F's comments was evident in his own response ("seasoned citizens", "music of yesteryear", "old wine skins", "golden oldies").

Mr. Hicks assumes that the Bible is not significant in itself unless it is first culturally conditioned. That is an inane comment. True, Jesus ministered to the publicans and sinners where they were, but He didn't become like them. His love was manifested by His life and death, not by how much He could imitate them. He didn't attempt to water down the Gospel, to make it culturally inoffensive in order to save some. It wasn't how He said what He said, it was what He said and how He lived.

Mr. Hicks maintains: "if it is not culturally significant to the audience, then we are almost wasting our time" Isn't that like a pragmatist nowadays? The message of the Bible cannot stand on its own? Does the Bible need the help of a culturally astute observer to make it relevant to a needy world?

This is the result of an materialistic, entertainment-driven world. We have to amuse the listeners in order to get them to listen to the Word of God. We have to sate their appetite before the Holy Spirit can effectively work on their hearts. Some just don't really believe in the sufficiency of the Word of God or of Christ.

Lets call this what it is, the inability to relinquish that which the world has to offer. The lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life (1John 2:16) Another excuse to delve further into the worlds' values "in God's name".

I laughed out loud when I read "They could relate to him and hang out with him without having to go through this outrageous change of appearance and style" Who is going through outrageous changes of appearance and style? When I browse the cd section in the Christian bookstores, I pull out cds indiscriminately to see the pictures. I do the same at Barnes and Nobles and Borders for the secular artists. I do not see the difference in looks between the gangster rappers or hard rockers and some of the Christian groups. The hair styles, the clothes, the body piercings, tattoos - all are geared to look like the world because that is what the kids don't want to give up, It isn't just to appeal to the masses out there. Can you imagine one of these Christian artists saying - "I hate to pierce my ears, and wear these clothes, but I'll do it in order that some might be saved. Tattooing the temple of the Holy Spirit ought to do the trick."

Isn't it ironic that the church will usually follow what the world is doing with a lag time of about 5 years? Is that because what is offensive 5 years ago is less offense today to Christians? Then what does this mean - "And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may PROVE what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God." Romans 12:2 (emphasis mine)

I would ask Mr. Hicks (or anyone else) this - would you give up your rock music if it was offensive to "weaker" brothers? What if God asked you to give it up for no reason, without explanation, with no time frame in mind? Is your devotion to God such that you will endure anything so long as God gets His way? Or is it so important that you would allow it to corrupt the Gospel? Sure, some will hear a message. God even used a donkey to speak to Balaam. But I really think God would rather Balaam have listened to the angel.

Romans 1:16 - For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. It's not hard or soft rock, old or new music, 2.000 seat auditoriums or tents. It's the message, the power of God unto salvation. And it is the Holy Spirit that convicts the heart, not a drum beat, cool clothes or shoes, hair styles or loud music.

John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. It's not the music that draws men. Jesus didn't sing and dance and act for the people. He is our standard. He is what we aspire to be like. Not some mosh pit driven circus acts (News Boys ring a bell?) that plays on sexual innuendo to elicit a response from the crowd. Music stirs the emotions. Can that always be good? Even if dressed up in Christian terms? Did Paul say - "cling to that which feels good", or to that which is good? (1Thes 5:21)

Though I agree with a lot of what he says, Mr. F. is not the standard by which we live, Jesus is (the One who Mr. Hicks claims to be super freaky about - sound insulting?). Nor is the cultural environment in which we live supposed to water down the message of the gospel. The Word of God stands alone and doesn't need any additions to make it more relevant, more clear, more palatable to the unsaved, or more inspiring to the saved.

1 Peter 1:25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you. The Word of God is the unchanging guide by which we live, not our culture. Otherwise we will have a moving target that changes yearly, monthly, daily. And that is bondage.

And it is enough: Luke 24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures? (Notice that their hearts burned before they knew it was Christ who talked to them. He could have made Himself known to them, but this shows the power of Scripture)

Luke 16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. (Now wouldn't that be a good side show - raising people from the dead? Jesus said the Scriptures were enough to convince anyone.)

2 Peter 1:17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. 18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. 19We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: (Peter saw the Transfiguration - but he calls the Scriptures "a more sure word")

If I've sounded intolerant, I am. Towards anything that will water down, soil or pollute the Word of God. Towards anything that diminishes the purity of the Church. I strive to make my understanding more complete by studying the Word of God, praying, and meditating, always asking God for wisdom in my thoughts, words and deeds. Error must be confronted, and evil hated. If I am wrong, I ask God to show me what I have done. I want the things that anger God to anger me, and not let my own prejudices (of which I have many) interfere. I want to love the things that God loves, and not let my own prejudices interfere. I am constantly, as we all are, inundated by the onslaught of all that the world has to offer in this day and age. I fall, I confess my sins, Christ lifts me up and we are back on the path again.

The challenge is not to please each other, but to please Christ.

Al Garcia - garcia_ae@hotmail.com

I just read the third contribution, and I loved it. Sure, he hasn't given the final word on this little evangelical controversy, but in general his piece was superior to the other two, I feel. Although, there are some difficult questions and grey areas that remain. Maybe someone will deal with this in the future. I am still hoping to contribute, but right now, it doesn't look like that'll happen before the Rapture.

Hans M.

I would like to comment on Mr. Garcia's statement, "The Word of God is the unchanging guide by which we live, not our culture."

On the surface that sounds very reasonable, but is it possible that it's not quite that simple?? The fact is that we ALL interpret scripture through our own cultural prejudices.

A good illustration of this is the German Christian who was horrified to hear about the "worldly practices" of American Christians. He was told how Americans would "profane the Sabbath" by buying a newspaper on Sunday. It made him so sad that the tears ran down his cheek, off of his cigar and into his stein of beer.

While scripture does have Biblical absolutes, often they are culturally interpreted.

For example, the Bible specifically says, "thou shalt not steal!" But what does it mean to steal? That seems like a "no brainer", but is it really?

A missionary couple was working with the Kwakayutle Indians, but was making little progress. In order to build relationships with these people they decided to honor the chief by naming their newborn baby after him. However, names in the Kwakayutle culture are private property. In essence, the missionary couple inadvertently stole the chief's name. As a result they were kicked out of the village for stealing!!!

In our society, I can name my baby after anyone I choose. But if I open a new burger joint and call it McDonald's, I will be sued faster than you can say, "do you want fries with that?" Why is it that I can use someone else's name for my baby, but not for my place of business? Why is one scenario considered stealing and the other isn't? Does our society interpret Biblical absolutes? You better believe it does!

The Biblical absolute is: "thou shalt not steal." But whose culture correctly defines stealing? Is the American culture correct or the Kwakautle?

Scripture says, "Make a joyful noise unto the LORD, ALL the earth (Ps. 98:4)."

But what culture uses the only "God-ordained" scale for making this joyful noise? The Orientals use a totally different scale than we use in our Western culture. Who has the right scale? Did Bach and Beethoven have the only true "Holy Spirit inspired" insight to write music? Or could it possibly be that when the palmist penned those words, the Holy Spirit desired that each culture sing praise through their own medium? Far too long missionaries (of which I am one) have "forced" our own Western values upon fledgling churches in foreign lands. Are we to force our music upon them also?

This debate is not new. No doubt Christians of old raised a few eyebrows as folks in the church borrowed English bar tunes such as "Green Sleeves" and "O Danny Boy" for songs of praise.

My plea is to get back to scripture. What does God's Word have to say about the genre of music? If the beat, or rhythm of a certain genre music is wrong, then let's prove it from God's Word and not our own cultural prejudices, preferences or tastes in music. So far what I've read in this discussion has more to do with "music theory" or personal preferences. The scripture that has been quoted thus far does not relate to the genre of music. There's been discussion regarding "worldliness," but unfortunately that too is often culturally defined. Among the Amish, symmetrical window curtains are considered "worldly." A certain tribe in Papua New Guinea considers putting salt on vegetables to be "worldly." By those "standards" I think that all of us in this discussion would fail the "worldly" test! Again I plead, let's see what God's Word has to say with regard to the genre of music!!!

Mr. Garcia is correct in saying, "the Word of God is the unchanging guide by which we live, not our culture." Unfortunately, much of what I've seen in this discussion is simply personal preference with a few scriptures thrown in here and there to justify our own Western prejudices.

The question was previously raised, "would you give up your rock music if it was offensive to 'weaker' brothers?" Hmmmm..... I wonder if folks in this discussion would give up classical music for the sake of the 'weaker' brother???

Some of my missionary co-workers minister to a tribe in the Philippines. That tribe ONLY uses music for demonic purposes. My missionary friends agreed among themselves that they would not listen to any music lest they be seen as worshipping demons. Of course, when they have fully mastered the language then they will be able to explain to these tribal people how Christians use music to worship the ONLY true God. But until that time, they refrain from ALL music lest they be misunderstood. Would you be willing to do that for the sake of the gospel? It's easy to say "yes" to that sacrifice from the comfort of our easy chairs. But when Abraham was asked to sacrifice Isaac, he actually went to the mountain. He didn't simply stay back in his tent and reason "oh well, God is going to give Isaac back to me so why bother going to the mountain!?" Are we prepared to make such a sacrifice?

Sincerely,

Bob Nyberg bnyberg@usa.net

Cicero once said: "Let me write the songs of a nation, and I care not who writes its laws."

(This isn't Biblical--I know. I see no reason to throw out-of-context Biblical verses into a discussion for no apparent reason when I can use quotes that actually do make my point.)

I think good ole Marcus Tullius had the right idea here, and I think it is very relevant to this discussion on music. Music has been a pervasive influence on Western civilization for millennia: the Greeks believed that simply changing the scale (the "mode") on which a musical piece was based (the equivalent of switching from "major" to "minor" in our music today) could in some cases incite people to violence, or bring forth uncontrollable lust, or... well, you name it. But enough about the Greeks.

The Roman Catholic Church has kept control of the music used in its liturgy since the day it was founded. In the days of Charlemagne, the pope used his influence over the Holy Roman Emperor to convert all of the chants being used at that time to the ROMAN version; and for 500 years afterward, a piece of music couldn't be used in an official mass unless it was one of the original chants, or at least contained an original chant in some form (eventually, the chants became used as what we would call today as "bass lines" for parts of masses). This control continues even to this day, although Martin Luther's bringing in of bar-room songs as hymn tunes and (in the Catholic tradition) Vatican II, blurred the line between what sort of music is allowed in the church and what isn't immensely.

Anyhow, my point from all this history is that the Church (not to mention all of Western culture) has gone to great lengths over its history to control music. Why? Because it has the potential to incite all sorts of emotions in the listener. And, I must admit, most of popular music tends to incite the wrong sorts of emotions. Much of it is the lyrics, of course. But there is something that the emotionally unleashed playing of repetitive drum beats and wailing and screeching vocally and on other instruments conveys to the listener as an intense emotional response. This is not just part of our culture--it is a cross-culture phenomenon. Intense emotional outbursts of the performers vocally and on their instruments do convey something to their listeners.

Even if this wasn't a cross-culture phenomenon, what does it matter? The point is that in our culture, much of pop music is connected with un-Christian attitudes. Thus, these attitudes will be culturally conveyed to listeners. Yes, if we played this music to some random tribe in Africa, it might not mean much to them... but that isn't what we're arguing about. We're talking about music that IS part of a culture, and although the music itself may not have bad effects, the culture surrounding it DOES, and you can't arbitrarily separate the two.

In any case, this isn't to say that all "pop" music is bad and un-Christian. Used properly and with proper lyrics, it can be quite uplifting (the emotional responses are then focused toward the Christian side of things); and "soft rock" often doesn't have the driving beat of some more intense heavy metal or rap... thus, it doesn't produce the same uncontrolled emotional responses. I therefore believe that Christian music in a popular style may be useful in religious services if used tastefully.

However, the connection with pop culture is a precarious position in which to put the Church. The Church must justify its use of pop elements (such as music) while maintaining a moral code above that which is espoused by similar pop elements in the rest of the culture. This is a difficult line to draw, so perhaps the pop elements aren't a good idea after all.

It is difficult to make an argument for Bach et al., since most pop music (with its relative simplicity and gratifying regularity of beat) is more easily understood and appreciated by the masses. And, since recording technology was invented, it has become quite easy to make this music accessible to all--not just to people rich enough to be able to afford to put together an orchestra. Yet Bach has much to offer to those who choose to listen carefully, and, of course, why not give God performances of well-crafted, artistic pieces of music rather than an improvised rock song? Doesn't God deserve the best? (I know that everyone will criticize me for this comment--I will only say that although a lot of jazz and some rock, etc. is well-crafted, Bach and other "classical" composers still composed with a much more refined skill than most pop artists do. I do not mean to denigrate pop music--only to say that Bach worked harder to create a great listening experience, while pop artists often work harder to be glamorous.)

And then there is the argument for tradition. Believe it or not, tradition does mean something in the Church--it is what most of the Church is founded upon. The Church is and has always been strongest when it refuses to bow to secular views and the changing world; when it does, the faith of the members is diluted. The Church stands for absolutes: absolutes in faith and morality among other things. Changes in doctrine ripple through the community and weaken the faith because more doubts are raised. Music undoubtedly is, and has always been, a very important part of the Christian faith, and thus of the Christian tradition. While there is a place, perhaps, for modern pop music in Church traditions, the continuity of older music preserves the security of an important part of religious life, and thus holds the Church's ground steady (at least in one area).

Oh--and if we are worried about alienating people, well I say too bad. As I said, we can incorporate some appropriate pop style Christian music into the Church, but if those same people cannot appreciate the old music (and what I would strongly term a "purer" form of expression) and don't want to be a part of it, we shouldn't come down to their level. If someone wanted to come into your church and give a sermon in which every third word was profanity, would you let him do it? Even if much of his message was supposedly based on the Gospel? Of course not--we need to have some standards. Thus, a preacher shouldn't use profanity in his sermons either, even if it might make his sermon funny or appealing to the masses. In fact, much of the language used in most churches is more formal than people would speak on the street--and for good reasons: tradition and artistry. The former I've already discussed and the latter means God doesn't deserve to be treated like a common person--he deserves our best language... and our best music.

As far as I'm concerned, since music has always played such an important role in the Church, people need to learn to appreciate whatever music the Church offers. Since, as I've argued, pop music is often not the best expression for worship, we shouldn't feel compelled to use it anymore than we should feel compelled to use profanity in our prayers, even if it is the way people talk in the streets. The Church has standards in belief, and it seems in language, too--why not in music?

In summary, good "classical" music is artistically superior and carries important traditions with it. Pop music is a "watered down" version of music that also has connections to pop culture, whether we like to acknowledge it or not. And, since as Christians we are taught not to be too much a part of this world, I personally prefer to distance myself from its culture--which includes much of pop music (probably one of the most pervasive aspects of our Western culture).

Cicero recognized the importance of proper music in maintaining law and morality, and we shouldn't be so blind as to ignore it.

In Christ,

John McKay jzmckay@mit.edu

Here's a statement worth reading.

"There Is a Virus Loose Within Our Culture" -- An Honest Look at Music’s Impact

Dan S

This is in reposes to the posting of John McKay. . .

The Church throughout history has been trying to control music? Hmmm, well, throughout history, we see a lot of people claiming to represent the Church trying to control a lot of things (including music). Take Calvin for example. With his secret police in Geneva, he tried to control everything about people's lives--from what they believed in, what they wore, how their facial expressions looked in church. And, if good ol' Cal didn't like what he saw, he would simply burn them with green wood (hello Sebastian Castellio--among others--see The Right to Heresy by Stefan Zweig).

Mr. McKay revealed in his posting a brilliant point that music "has the potential to incite all sorts of emotions in the listener," and I agree with him. But is that really what traditionalist have against most of the music that lies outside their tiny, closed-off world--that it creates an emotional response in the listener? Sounds like the antics of our friend Calvin, who campaigned against people who dare show any emotions that he considered heathen (which included any sign of joy and happiness ESPECIALLY in church). But I digress. . .Mr. McKay then points out that "most of popular music tends to incite the wrong sorts of emotions." Look out! It is another wide sweeping generalization that has no boundaries (i.e., prejudice). And then he points out what should be the pinnacle of this whole discussion--"much of it is the lyrics." EVERYTHING has to do with the lyrics or the message or the point of the song.

Emotions are quite amoral--they are simply cause and effect type of reactions that happened somewhere between a human's body and soul. What one does with those emotions through subsequent choices is what determines morality. So, as music stirs up the emotions (which ALL music does), what is the message that is being sung that will drive those emotions? When you find that out, you have solved this whole mess. The tunes, rhythms, melodies, and such are simply vehicles to take the message (whether good or bad) to and fro. Take Martin Luther--whom Mr. McKay cited. He took bar music which was obviously used to stir up the wrong kind things, and he changed the message while keeping the same tune. . .And Walla! we have ourselves some nice hymns tailor made for the traditionalists of today (who, interestingly enough, would have tried to stand in the way of the author of the very hymns they hold up as sacred--if they were around back then, of course).

Anyhow, the McKay posting goes on to say how the "repetitive drum beats and wailing and screeching vocally and on other instruments" (I can't help but chuckle at this vivid description of 99% of my music collection) are part of a culture. And that it is the culture around the music that somehow creates these bad effects and harmful emotions to the listeners. Yikes--another grossly over generalized assumption. I love punk music--many of my Christian friends love punk music. . .yes, there is a large subculture of demonized punks out there, but they, in no way, have any direct effect on the morality and spirituality of the subculture of Holy Ghost filled punks that I belong to. You see, as Mr. McKay points out, music IS a part of a culture and one cannot arbitrarily separate the two. You see, it works both ways.

Another point that I find quite interesting is the statement from McKay's posting: "Christian music in a popular style may be useful in religious services if used tastefully." But whose tastes are we talking about? If it is my grandmother, then no thank you. If it is Mr. Smith who is a country-western buff, double-no-thank-you. Where does this paranoia from "repetitive drum beats and wailing and screeching vocals]" and "more intense heavy metal or rap" come from? Is it really some intrinsic evil in them that is so obvious to my colleagues on the other side of the isle? Or could it be that this music expression comes from a culture that is totally foreign to what I call the "traditionalist?" It seems that the traditionalists have it all figured out, their world is nice and smooth. . .but as soon as something comes along that looks, sounds, or behaves different than their comfort level allows--then that's all she wrote. What about this quote from the Sacred Text, "Humans look to appearance, but God looks to the heart?" God looks at motive--not style.

And, now on to the whole tradition side of this discussion. Of course traditions have their place in people's lives and in the Church (ie, baptism of water, baptism of the Holy Spirit, communion), but the Church is NOT founded on traditions. It is founded on the resurrection power of Jesus Christ--the Son of God and the greatest person to ever walk on the planet. Jesus does not come to sustain traditions (because if he did, all the traditionalists out there better start repenting and living their lives exactly how the first generation church lived--change their program-based churches into cell churches by meeting in the temple and house to house, pooling all their money together for the common good, women must cover their heads in church or get it shaved, etc.). Jesus came to redeem humanity AND their culture (which, again, cannot be arbitrarily separated)--he did not come to establish traditions. And I disagree that the Church has always been the strongest when it refuses to bow to the changing world. This has weakened the effectiveness of the over-traditionalized and powerless church of the westernized world. The moment we stop being as relevant to our culture as Jesus was to his, then it is all over. We might as well pack our bags and head for the compound--we are useless for the harvest. And to say that if the "purer" music of the traditionalists might alienate the lost (which it does) and then add to it by saying "if we are worried about alienating people, well I say too bad"--heaven help us! The only people Jesus alienated were the stingy traditionalists of his day that didn't like the message he was speaking--because it took the power and focus off of the tiny, controlled worlds the traditionalists have created and put it back on God and the people he was trying to reach. Jesus didn't have a problem standing against the power brokers of the church of his day, and I am following suit.

There is a harvest that is crying out for someone--ANYONE--to come and bring them into the Father's barn. But, because they are different than us and because we have these wonderful justifications for turning our backs on them, we shout back, "if you want it so bad, then come up to our level and get it." Shame, shame, shame. God promised us that in the last days, he was going to turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers; or else I will come and strike the land with a curse" (Mal 4:6). But the rate we seem to be going, it is from shear stubbornness and hardness of heart that keeps this promise from being fulfilled. I am not suggesting the traditionalists give up and start a mosh pit next Sunday, but I am suggesting that they turn their hearts back to their children before they lose them altogether (which I could argue already has happened, but that is another discussion altogether). It is not music that hinders the Church from its potential, and it is not music that keeps the lost from finding the truth. The culprit lies with those who try to keep the Church from leaking out from its four protective walls and into the marketplace, the streets, the homes of prostitutes and tax collectors, and into the cultures that surround. We are to be a breath of fresh air in this polluted and squalid society. . .but how can we do that if we fight to hold our breath because of this unreasonable fear of contamination?

In the name of the Master,

Trey Hicks

Again Mr. Trey Hicks has hit on his own problem with this statement: "We are to be a breath of fresh air in this polluted and squalid society. But how can we do that if we fight to hold our breath because of this unreasonable fear of contamination?"

We all know Romans 12:2 - "And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.

The following is from Word Studies in the Greek New Testament by Kenneth Wuest.

"The word "conformed" means " an individual assuming an outward expression that does not come from within him, nor is it representative of his inner heart life".

In other words,

"stop assuming an outward expression which is patterned after this world, an expression which does not come from, nor is it representative of what you are in your inner being as a regenerated child of God"

The word "world" means (Wuest quotes Trench): "All that floating mass of thoughts, opinions, maxims, speculations, hopes, impulses, aims, aspirations, at any time current in the world, which it may be impossible to seize and accurately define, but which constitute a most real and effective power, being the moral, or immoral atmosphere which at every moment of our lives we INHALE (emphasis mine), again inevitably to EXHALE (ditto)..."

We are SUPPOSED be keep clear of contamination. It isn't ours to choose whether we can bring something from the world into the church, or churchify it to our liking. And I don't care what Calvin did, or Luther or whoever. I'm concerned that when I see a church teen sporting a tattoo, that it was not a decision devoted to in prayer, or Bible reading, or by seeking the will of God. A Christian so ought to walk in God's will that if he got a tattoo, it would be God's will, and to NOT get one then would be disobedience to God's will.

We are to walk in the world as to be a light, not hid under a basket to hide the Christ who dwells in us. We hide ourselves by looking like the world. And the salt loses its savor by being like the world. We are to visibly stand out from the world because that's how the world sees us--visibly. If we bring into Christ's church these elements of the world under the guise of reaching out to the lost, it is still disobeying His command, whether someone else did it or not. Our guide is the Bible, not culture, not history, not my preferences.

I'm personally tired of people claiming, "I'm being persecuted just like Jesus". It's an insult to His holiness to say that because Jesus reached out to the lost that He made Himself to act like the lost, made Himself to look like the lost, or made Himself to talk like the lost. He went to where the lost were and preached repentance and the Kingdom of God.

Let's face it, the world is invading the church do to lack of discernment. Lack of discernment is due to lack of knowledge of God's word (Hebrews 4:12; 5:14). I personally was where Trey Hicks (and millions of others, no doubt) is just a few years ago. I got cancer, and I started seriously studying my Bible and prayed in desperation, and my mind was renewed and my life was renewed. It's not easy, finding out that what appealed to me was offensive to God. It's hard to give up those things I devoted 40 years of my life to.

But the pattern is set, the commands are given, and all we have to do is obey in the power of the Spirit (Eph 5:18), and the results belong to God.

Thank you,

Al Garcia

I don’t agree 100% with any of the above writers, but I do see value in some of their points. Permit me to add some other points.

First, we don’t sing contemporary/pop songs in church to cater to the younger generation, nor should we sing “golden oldies” to cater to the “seasoned citizens.” If this is our mindset, we’ve got some maturing to do. Whatever we sing or play in church (or anywhere else for that matter), we should do it to God; (Col. 3:23; 1 Cor. 10:31). He is our audience, not the people. The fact is, the music we pick for church just won’t satisfy everybody. That’s why there are many churches. You can’t get everybody to attend your church; it just won’t happen. Somebody, somewhere, won’t like the style of music you select. Speaking as a music minister, our job is to be led by the Holy Spirit and select music which we believe will assist people in worshiping God, as we are in tune to the needs of our congregation and aware of our culture. And if we as music ministers are led by the Holy Spirit, nobody in the congregation should have any complaints with the music we select for the services, given of course, that everyone’s goals are the same and we are “culturally compatible”. This means that technically speaking, I should be able to walk into a church in my culture which plays a style of music I really don’t prefer, and still be able to worship God with them, IF their music minister was led by the Holy Spirit in his selection of music for that service. By the same token, a teenager (who loves Christian “rock”) who’s got his mind on the right things and is in a right relationship with God ought to be able to worship God at a nursing home when they sing golden oldies if the golden oldies was what God wanted the people to sing. It doesn’t mean the teenager has to stay at the nursing home forever, but he should still be able to worship God during the service. If not, then his motives and heart were wrong, I believe. I mentioned the relevance of the culture earlier because if I were dropped in a church in Africa, I don’t think the music I’d select would help the natives worship God, for obvious reasons. The same goes with someone in Africa coming to lead music in our American church. If Jesus were here today, I believe he’d wear sneakers, not sandals.

Secondly, it’s true that the music apart from the lyrics is simply a vehicle to transport the Christian message, but let’s not naively underestimate the power of the vehicle itself and all that comes along with it. For not always do wonderful lyrics pull up rotten music; usually the reverse happens: rotten music drags down wonderful lyrics. Fortunately, God, in His splendid design, allows us to set the same lyrics to a multitude of tunes, but I don’t believe any tune is acceptable, as I’ll explain. Unacceptable tunes are what I meant when I mentioned “rotten” music. We must all eventually agree that the vehicle in and of itself is amoral, neither right nor wrong, just like a gun—a piece of metal has no moral attachment to it. However, if the musical vehicle has certain moral attachments to it due to society and culture and MTV and Woodstock and everything else attaching such things to the vehicle, then it behooves every Christian to be aware of these attachments as much as possible. This leads to the point that if certain attachments are wrong, then the amoral vehicles with those wrong attachments should be avoided until such attachments are either no longer wrong, or have been lost from the particular vehicle. For instance, Jesus probably wore a robe. Back then that was ok. Today, at least in America, it’s not really proper for men to be dressed like Jesus. Being dressed like Jesus isn’t wrong in and of itself, but given a different time and culture, it may very well be wrong! (I’m sure there are better examples.) How does that relate to music? I believe it has been somewhat stated by someone else above, but let me say it again. Just because pop rhythm may be played in heaven doesn’t mean we have the liberty to be playing it now in this time and culture, if it has certain immoral stigmas attached to it. Sad to say, but Christians are at the mercy of the culture to decide what we can and cannot play or listen to at any given time. Romans 14 is all about giving up our rights. Perhaps you need to move to a different continent to listen to your type of music without offending anyone. When we sing hymns today by the tune of “Green Sleeves" or "O Danny Boy”, I doubt many people are thinking about bars. So I believe it’s ok to be singing them now in our culture. But perhaps back when they were getting started, it may not have been such a good idea to be singing songs which bring bars to people’s minds. Similarly, perhaps rap is not ok to be rapped in churches today, but that doesn’t mean it’ll always be that way. Maybe someday rap won’t be associated with certain things which it continues to be associated with today. When that day comes—have at it! I base a lot of this on 1 Thessalonians 5:22 (Abstain from all appearance of evil.). Even if something isn’t evil, if it has evil associated with it, abstain from it. Also, Hebrews 13:1. “…let us lay aside every weight, and the sin...” Weights may not be sins, but if they are a hindrance, sin or no sin, lay it aside. Much of today’s Christian pop music may not be a sin, but may be a weight. What are we to do with it?

Am I saying Christians have to always be “behind the times”? No, I’m saying Christians should not be ignorant of the times they live in (Mt. 10:16; Lk. 16:8) and should be willing to set aside certain musical vehicles (any artistic vehicle, for that matter) which their particular culture has given certain immoral associations to. Not all secular tunes carry with them immoral associations. Many tunes on a “mix” or “light” secular radio station might make fine tune ideas for Christian lyrics. But sad to say, most of the “cutting edge” vehicles more often than not (such as what’s on MTV or “harder” secular radio stations) have immoral associations with them; these vehicles are what I’m advocating we as Christians avoid for the time being. Once the immoral associations fade away and have been abandoned in people’s minds, they’re free to “take over” and be used for the glory of God. Usually when this happens, some new vehicle comes on the secular scene. It is in comparison to the secular “cutting edge” vehicles that I believe mature Christians may seem to always be “behind the times.” Better safe than sorry, though. One Christian artist I believe who has superbly kept integrity with his music, yet been able to continually create music relevant to his changing culture, is Dallas Holm. You may not appreciate his music, but certainly appreciate what he has been able to do. From the 70s to the 80s to the 90s and today, he has been creating music which almost everybody can enjoy, yet without adopting styles which may have had evil attached to them. His music has gotten a little more “harder” through the years, but still he is not playing MTV stuff. He is a good example of someone moving with the culture in a God-honoring way. Had he played some of his more recent songs back in the 70s, it’d most likely be associated with the most evil music of that day, if this kind of music even existed back then. He’s been able to maintain that delicate balance between keeping with the times, but not being conformed to the world (Rom. 12:2). And don’t think you have to stay with the times. You’ll always be able to find someone who enjoys listening to 70s music, myself included.

Let’s also remember that no tune is inspired like Scripture is inspired by God. There is not just one right tune for “Holy, Holy, Holy.” But let’s be careful about the tune we do pick. Let’s do what we can to investigate whether or not a proposed tune/vehicle would glorify God or cause others to stumble. I believe God will honor our discipline and self control to not just pick any melody we want, but set aside our Christian liberty and do what we can to see that the music we select will edify the saints and evangelize the sinners. I believe this is why Paul said in 1 Corinthians 9:22: “To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.”

Sincerely,

Nick, john17_17@hotmail.com

Mail this page to a friend