On "Conservative" Worship

I will say that those aiming to force others to participate in CCM often haven’t really been good at listening to the other side’s perspective. The sounds of rock and roll were more or less born out of the sexual revolution where that generation found the perfect rhythm and beat to help them celebrate and accentuate their free sex and drugs. The reason they found it to be the perfect musical vehicle for their message goes back to the truth that music has a voice. Without any words, music can carry a tone that communicates violence, romance, the light-heartedness of a circus, or a military marching drill. So the CCM advocate approaches the traditionalist and says he needs to start singing and enjoying CCM, and what the traditionalist hears them say, is you want me to start saying God’s love sounds like a sexual orgy, and His grace sounds like a war, and his mercy sounds like a migraine headache. Yes, when that happens they are going to be under the temptation to wag their finger in faces for ten minutes instead of handling the encounter with grace.

Darrell, I actually feel sorry for you and other traditionalists that CCM to you may sound like a sexual orgy. To be honest, I’ve never really thought about what a sexual orgy would sound like. It sounds like you and the traditionalists are the weaker brother? Especially when its been 50-60 years since the “sex, drugs, and Rock and Roll” connotation has been closely associated with Rock music when there are just as many secular rock artists that don’t include sexuality as there are with those who do. As a former Christian Rock Musician, I’ve never seen the beat or guitars or drums (or anything we played) cause sexuality among all the audiences that I played over the 7 years that I performed in concerts. Never. My problem with CCM and even the Christian Rock concerts that I became delusioned with was the idolization by the fans. After the concerts, the people weren’t so much interested in spiritual things, but rather how they could get a band together and be like us.

In order to be a “church”, they would like to be organized, have a doctrinal statement, deacons/elders, and a pastor. They currently call themselves a “fellowship”, the leader works full-time and his “preaching” is simply sharing simple truths from the Bible. Some of the people have church backgrounds and know what “church” looks like but don’t know how to get there.

No need to feel sorry for me. I feel sorry for those who listen to something that sounds like a migraine headache and think it is beautiful, or listen to something that sounds like a war and sing words of peace. I do appreciate the point you made about idolization. I recall years ago in a church that transitioned from more traditional, corporate worship music to impressive soloists singing the latest popular songs, and after the service seeing the young man who sang walking through the foyer while a young teenage girl eagerly chased him down, got his attention and squeaked at him, “oh! you were awesome!!” Of course my first thought was, where was Christ in all that?

Ricky, I have said repeatedly here that the Colossians and Ephesians verse is Paul’s instruction to sing truth to one another. You also highlighted prayer in your hearts connected to singing. I have never spoken against that anywhere in this thread, and I routinely have songs in my mind that play automatically on repeat.

You referenced I Corinthians 14:12-15, but there is nothing in those verses about music.

“you may think the NT excludes singing”

I have not said the NT excludes singing. I have said that in the context of local church assembly music is secondary to preaching, corporate prayer, fellowship and communion. Again, go back to the very start of the discussion where I raised the issue of what happens in the assembled church. I am not talking about your personal life, or the bulk of the book of Revelation which is after the church age, and I wasn’t talking about the vast quantity of musical material in the Old Testament. I was speaking specifically to the question of what the assembled church should focus on spending their corporate time doing. I have agreed that music should be a part of that…I have never said otherwise. My contention has been that many (not all), but many churches have made too much of it, and/or have turned it into entertainment that excludes Christ, and/or have forced fellow believers out of the church because of their determined use of it in a way that they know is offensive to some in the body.

I am saying the church in America should awaken to the reality that we live in an entertainment saturated society and the longing desire to be entertained can affect the church in ways we don’t even realize. I have said that something is wrong with the church when there has been a decades long war over something that should be in the back seat of the car instead of the front.

I agree with a great deal of what you’re saying, and particularly your original post, far above this one!

I have not said the NT excludes singing. I have said that in the context of local church assembly music is secondary to preaching, corporate prayer, fellowship and communion.

I think is what is being questioned. I am not sure that this argument is sustainable from Scripture. You say that Acts doesn’t record it, but you admit that it doesn’t preclude it. You also acknowledge that Acts is prescriptive, not descriptive. You also acknowledge that Eph 5:17 and Col 3:16 are authoritative and thus the congregation is commanded to sing. Yet you seem to diminish the authority of that in spite of your claims otherwise.

Eph 5 and Col 3 do not seem to present music as some secondary thing. In short, we can all agree with your concerns that music has become “the show” in many churches, and wrongly so, without agreeing that music is somehow secondary to everything else. If Eph 5 and Col 3 are commands to the gathered church, then it seems to put your point out to pasture fairly clearly, doesn’t it?

I agree with the problem; I am not convinced by your solution.

[Darrell Post]

You referenced I Corinthians 14:12-15, but there is nothing in those verses about music.

1 Corinthians 14:15 What am I to do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will pray with my mind also; I will sing praise with my spirit, but I will sing with my mind also.

[Darrell Post]

… decades long war over something that should be in the back seat of the car instead of the front.

Darrell, my entire point has been that you have said Scripture emphasizes teaching/preaching so music/singing should take its rightful place in the back seat of the car. My point has been that music ACTUALLY IS teaching (there is no back seat). It does not lack in importance.

You said “You also acknowledge that Acts is prescriptive, not descriptive” - I said the reverse, that Acts is descriptive. My point was that in the description of what the early church was known for doing when they met together, music did not make the list. Maybe they did it, maybe they didn’t, but it didn’t make the list. And again, the parallel verse in Eph and Col describes singing truth to one another, with no role defined for instruments. So again, maybe they used them, maybe they didn’t. But it is the scant information we get as to music in the life of the church that suggests its place is secondary and not dominant—and certainly not something that should have resulted in believers being forced from the assembly. I am not saying stop singing, and that it has no place. I am saying we should re-evaluate it in light of the NT instructions on it, and go from there. Perhaps I could offer an illustration of what I am trying to say. A pastor of a church gets the indication that members are starting to battle over music, so he announces on Sunday that there will be no worship war in this church, and this Sunday, instead of singing, we are going to have a time of prayer. And will continue to humble oursleves and pray together until the conflict is resolved and we can go back to singing, because if there is an offense among brothers, God isn’t going to hear the singing anyway.

Darrell, I am sorry you have had such a bad experience with this issue in a church. I can symphathize somewhat with you as I, too, have been on the receiving end of bad behavior of the music issue. My first Sunday as the children’s pastor in my previous ministry, which happened to be when we had the group This Hope leading worship during the Sunday morning service (basically an acapella group, used some prerecorded music but certainly nothing that “rocky”), the bus ministry director angrily confronted me and said he wouldn’t bring children to church on the bus if we continued to have music like this. But I know it goes both ways, and I know people who prefer conservative music have been ignored and thrown under the bus (switching to a metaphorical use of bus of course :) ), and that shouldn’t be.

I really wish you could see that music doesn’t have to be an issue, that people of all ages can worship together joyfully with a blend of older and newer songs (our church happens to lean towards the newer songs but uses both). A church where all kinds of instrumentation is used—yes, a “praise band” but also choir and orchestra on some Sundays.

I was sitting behind a lady in church yesterday and was so moved by her participation in worship. This is a senior saint in her late 70s who has had tremendous health problems in recent months, and yet it was obvious she was fully engaged as she raised her hands while singing this song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAK3t6uG58Q

You choose the humble and raise them high
You choose the weak and make them strong
You heal our brokenness inside
And give us life

The same love that set the captives free
The same love that opened eyes to see
Is calling us all by name
You are calling us all by name
The same God that spread the heavens wide
The same God that was crucified
Is calling us all by name
You are calling us all by name

I snapped a quick picture of her: https://www.facebook.com/gracedsm/photos/a.125993820781959.15521.124065094308165/1236972956350701/?type=3&theater&notif_t=like&notif_id=1484584404225724

Darrell, I’m going to say it one more time; if you are arguing that the low number of New Testament examples and commands regarding music means it’s the tail of the dog, you are in fact arguing from silence. Period. It is a fallacy simply because you don’t know why Paul, the Gospel-writers, and others did not mention it often. It could be:

• It simply wasn’t a problem at the time for the writers to deal with
• There was no need to mention it—singing was as natural as breathing to them.
• It truly was the tail of the dog
• Other possibilities

So saying “singing is only mentioned a few times” does not get us anywhere specific; it simply mentions it was not mentioned often.

Another nasty fallacy you’re committing when you make accusations like “it sounds like a sexual orgy” is “guilt by association.” Beyond the question of “how do you know what a sexual orgy sounds like?”, you can associate anything with just about anything—for example, with “traditional showy” church music, you could say “that sounds like Sandi Patti, and she committed adultery”. Or “Sibelius composed the music to that hymn, and it originally was about a pagan Finnish epic.” (Be Still my Soul) Or, “Beethoven wrote that for a pantheistic poem by Schiller.” (Joyful Joyful we adore Thee)

Let’s be blunt about the matter; if we are going to use older hymns in church, we need to confront the fact that the age of classical music was an age of composers and musicians being supported by royalty of the day, and that would have included heavy exposure to the courtesans and mistresses that almost all royals had. In other words, classical music is NOT more “morally pure” than rock & roll, so you don’t want to play the game of “guilt by association.”

I would submit that peace at the piano, organ, or drum set starts with abandoning the basic logical fallacies with which this battle has too often been fought. It continues with defining the actual purpose of music in the church, and to do so, we cannot ignore the first 39 books of the Bible. We cannot ignore the fact that large portions of the OT and NT alike are written in lyric form to help memorization.

As I look back on 60 years of church attendance, I realize that there were always songs I didn’t like, but tolerated out of my love for the church. There was the church that sang “Holy, Holy, Holy” every Sunday and the doxology after every offering, “Heaven Came Down and Glory Filled My Soul”, “Coming Again” reminded me of the music at the forbidden roller skating rink, “Just As I Am” (this is the song that never ends), “Blessed Assurance” (watch the song leader for the holds), “Since Jesus Came Into My Heart” (“roooooollllll” not to mention the theology), etc.

Darrell,

My apologies: I said that backwards. I knew what you said, and I agreed with it. I typed it backwards. And I understand your point about Acts. I think it’s placing too much weight on Acts, and particularly on one verse of Acts to th exclusion of actual commands.

But it is the scant information we get as to music in the life of the church that suggests its place is secondary and not dominant

“Secondary” is not something the Scripture communicates about music. There is no reason I can think of to make that claim. It says to sing. If we “reevaluate is in light of the NT instructions on it,” we should conclude that we must sing in the assembly. (I notice you use “instructions” rather than “descriptions” which seems to undermine your point about the descriptive nature of Acts). The NT instructs us to sing. So if we reevaluate that, we will sing. It doesn’t address instruments so there appears to be freedom on that. We know instruments are not wrong because they were part of worship of God in the OT.

I don’t think the answer to “worship wars” is to replace music with prayer. When a church doesn’t sing, they are disobedient because Scripture commands it. That doesn’t necessarily mean that every service has to have music, but it certainly seems to be the norm. If there are “worship wars,” then they need to be addressed differently, and ultimately, if consciences cannot agree, separation may be necessary as distasteful and problemmatic as that may be. Few if any here at SI would object to a person leaving a church because the music was “too worldly” (whatever that means to them). In a broken world with consciences still affected by sin, there will always be these kinds of issues. Handling them with grace and mercy is imperative, even when we differ.

Bert, I will respond one more time. We agree that the NT doesn’t have a whole lot to say about music in the life of the assembled church. We agree that assembled believers should sing truth to one another. My point, in bringing up the fact that music in the life of the assembled doesn’t get a lot of attention in the NT is that some, not all, but some churches have made so much of it, that they were willing to force some of their people to leave the church. My contention is, given what the NT presents in this area, something is wrong.

I don’t really play the association game as to the personal character of an artist/composer and the product of their art. The “nasty fallacy” you referred to was in my response to Joel where I was simply characterizing what traditionalists tend to hear when Christian Rock fans ask them to come on board and enjoy it. The fact is the sounds of rock and roll have a history and origin in the generation that found these sounds to be ideal to celebrate their sin. If the sexual revolution had not developed these sounds to celebrate their lifestyle, and secular music was still Mozart, Beethoven and Dvorak, then I ask, would these sounds of rock and roll have naturally arisen from within the church? I think not.

[Ron Bean] The group really is thankful for any kind of music they can have. If you can carry a tune and are willing, you can be one of the 4 or 5 singers who stand in front of the group to lead singing. If anyone wants to sing a “special” they may. If someone with musical ability visits, they may be encouraged to sing a number of songs. If a “real”pianist shows up, one can expect a post worship singspiration. To be honest, a church music critic would cringe at the quality of their usual music, but the folks really don’t care. They’re happy with whatever they have.

Which is why this makes me angry. They have the mindset and attitude - corporate and joyful worship. So why, then, is the first order of business to ‘fix the music’? This church doesn’t have a pastor or a constitution or doctrinal positions or even a permanent place to meet for worship - and the first thing someone wants to do is ‘fix’ something that isn’t readily apparent as a problem?

WHY?

Would we argue about the right way to take an offering (passed plate, non-passed plate, collection box) the same way we are arguing about the music? Or the ‘right’ way to greet visitors and attendees at your church - at the door, before/after the service, by the pastor or person doing announcements, etc?

Just thinking out loud here.