"Church survival doesn't depend on music style."
[Bert Perry]Craig wrote:
Ron Bean wrote:
I was asked an interesting question today that I’d like to pass on to those of you who hold to the traditional position. “Where and when did your tradition originate?” First century? 16th Century? 19th Century? 1950’s?
My question (for anyone) would be when did music with a heavy beat become prominent?
Look at the Psalms, where 149 and 150 clearly mention percussive instruments like cymbals and the practice of dancing in Temple worship. If it doesn’t have some discernable beat, good luck dancing to it, unless it’s that mushy swaying people used to do to Air Supply (airsickness bags available upon request). So the tradition—see the abduction of wives for the Benjamites as well—goes back over 3000 years. I would even argue that, given the ubiquity of drums and such in various tribal situations, it’s been worldwide for a while.
Really, the question is not whether Biblical music had a beat or not, though. It’s whether music with a beat communicates well to people today—and I’d argue it does. One other reason to move our repertoire of modern music in the church beyond what might pose as “light rock”, really. You could do “When I Survey The Wondrous Cross” as a heavy metal power ballad quite well. Similar idea to Crue’s “Home Sweet Home”….start out quiet, build to a forte/fortissimo, back off….no, power chords and drums are not inherently worldly. Yes, I am saying that it may be possible for the church to learn quite a bit, musically speaking, from hair metal bands.
Are we able to discern the type of music used in the Old Testament? I mean … do you think they had heavy metal power ballads? I guess my concern is that music definitely has an affect on the physical senses which means worship could easily lead into the fleshly over the spiritual. I’m really concerned since mysticism is making its way into the evangelical church that music could turn into a medium of leading people into that mystic experience rather than praising God and exhorting the believer.
[]…Are we able to discern the type of music used in the Old Testament? I mean … do you think they had heavy metal power ballads? I guess my concern is that music definitely has an affect on the physical senses which means worship could easily lead into the fleshly over the spiritual. I’m really concerned since mysticism is making its way into the evangelical church that music could turn into a medium of leading people into that mystic experience rather than praising God and exhorting the believer.
Emphasis mine.
Let’s not lose sight of the fact that the issue in any external influence affecting true worship in the church is in its relation to idolatry. Music “could easily lead into the fleshly over the spiritual” only if it is a part of the idolatry of the culture and that is what it is bringing into the assembly.
Isa. 42:1-10 introduces the Savior and talks of His ministry, particularly His purpose to redeem. It concludes as follows: “…I am the Lord: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images. Behold, the former things are come to pass, and new things do I declare: before they spring forth I tell you of them. Sing unto the Lord a new song, and his praise from the end of the earth, ye that go down to the sea, and all that is therein; the isles, and the inhabitants thereof.” It is evident that the inclusion of a “new song” as the antithesis of God’s abhorrence of all things idolatrous (a concept that is presented in at least 8 other contexts throughout scripture) puts its status as high priority and is, at the very least, worthy of serious examination in regards to the discussion currently at hand.
That being said I think a case could easily be made that certain contemporary genres of music are so associative with the predominant idolatry of our society that they very likely should be identified as “pollutions of idols”. Scripture is pretty clear as to what the assembly’s reaction to any “pollutions of idols” should be.
Lee
….read the Psalms I referenced. Again, how do you get percussive instruments and dancing without a beat to the music? Let’s not forget Colossians 2:20-23, which points out that external, man-made rules have NO value in restraining sensual indulgence.
If you wonder why Southerners joke “Catholics don’t recognize the Westminster Confession, Protestants don’t recognize the Pope, and Baptists don’t recognize each other at the movie theater or the liquor store”, re-read Colossians 2:20-23. Again and again until it takes.
Good music involves the intellect and the emotions, and unfortunately at this point, the secular world has a LOT to teach us in this regard. We don’t need to get full body tattoos and leather pants and such, but we do need to start learning why some things just plain work musically and others do not.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Craig]The first reply to the article stated “It is in our contemporary services that we are seeing the great preponderance of visitors, new attendees, salvations, baptisms, and new members.” The statement gives the perception that their growth is the result of contemporary music rather than traditional music. My emphasis is that growth in a church should primarily be the result of the teaching and preaching of the word of God. Music, whether it is contemporary or traditional, is not going to be the primary reason for the salvation and spiritual growth of individuals.
I was simply pointing out, that at least at my church, where we offer people a choice between traditional and contemporary services, it is in the contemporary services where we are seeing the greatest evidence of God at work. Why? Like I titled my post, I was making “observations.” I drew no conclusions. (Note that the same sermon is preached in all of the services, by the same pastor.)
[Craig]I think the music debate is pretty much a phenomena of the modern American church.
There have been music debates for many moons!!! The worldliness of music in the church was being talked about centuries ago. Funny thing is that the worldly music of yesteryear is the music that hymn-only people point to as the only acceptable music for God’s people. Same song, second verse. I won’t derail the thread by giving specific examples but can provide them if you want to PM me.
Arguments over music have been raging for centuries! Singing and/or instrumentation (of any type) were long denounced. The singing of hymns in churches was rarely practiced until about 300 years ago, when Baptist pastor Benjamin Keach (a predecessor of Spurgeon at the church that became the Met Tab) fought a 20-year battle to gain their widespread acceptance. Spurgeon himself famously deplored much of the contemporary hymnody of his day (which ironically is what is today frequently idolized). Take a look at some of these quotes (and many others in the link provided below):
AUGUSTINE: “musical instruments were not used. The pipe, tabret, and harp here associate so intimately with the sensual heathen cults, as well as with the wild revelries and shameless performances of the degenerate theater and circus, it is easy to understand the prejudices against their use in the worship.” (Augustine 354 A.D., describing the singing at Alexandria under Athanasius)
ERASMUS “We have brought into our churches certain operatic and theatrical music; such a confused, disorderly chattering of some words as I hardly think was ever in any of the Grecian or Roman theatres. The church rings with the noise of trumpets, pipes, and dulcimers; and human voices strive to bear their part with them. Men run to church as to a theatre, to have their ears tickled. And for this end organ makers are hired with great salaries, and a company of boys, who waste all their time learning these whining tones.” (Erasmus, Commentary on I Cor. 14:19)
LUTHER: “The organ in the worship Is the insignia of Baal…”
SPURGEON: “David appears to have had a peculiarly tender remembrance of the singing of the pilgrims, and assuredly it is the most delightful part of worship and that which comes nearest to the adoration of heaven. What a degradation to supplant the intelligent song of the whole congregation by the theatrical prettiness of a quartet, bellows, and pipes. We might as well pray by machinery as praise by it…
‘Praise the Lord with harp.’ Israel was at school, and used childish things to help her to learn; but in these days when Jesus gives us spiritual food, one can make melody without strings and pipes… We do not need them. That would hinder rather than help our praise. Sing unto him. This is the sweetest and best music. No instrument is like the human voice.” (Charles Spurgeon (Baptist), Commentary on Psalm 42.)
WESLEY: “I have no objection to instruments of music in our worship, provided they are neither seen nor heard.”
POSEY “For years the Baptists fought the introduction of instrumental music into the churches…Installation of the organ brought serious difficulties in many churches” (Wm. B. Posey, Baptist, The Baptist Church In The Lower Mississippi Valley).
FRANKLIN: “Instrumental music is permissible for a church under the following conditions: 1. When a church never had or has lost the Spirit of Christ. 2. If a church has a preacher who never had or has lost the Spirit of Christ, who has become a dry, prosing and lifeless preacher. 3. If a church only intends being a fashionable society, a mere place of amusements and secular entertainment and abandoning the idea of religion and worship. 4. If a church has within it a large number of dishonest and corrupt men. 5. If a church has given up all idea of trying to convert the world.” (Ben Franklin, editor of American Christian Review, 1860.)
[RickyHorton]Craig wrote:
I think the music debate is pretty much a phenomena of the modern American church.
There have been music debates for many moons!!! The worldliness of music in the church was being talked about centuries ago. Funny thing is that the worldly music of yesteryear is the music that hymn-only people point to as the only acceptable music for God’s people. Same song, second verse. I won’t derail the thread by giving specific examples but can provide them if you want to PM me.
… but even the worldly music of yesteryear didn’t have the sensual beat of the 20th and 21st century used by pop, rock, country, soul, rhythm and blues….etc….which is now mainstream in many churches …
[Larry Nelson]Craig wrote:
The first reply to the article stated “It is in our contemporary services that we are seeing the great preponderance of visitors, new attendees, salvations, baptisms, and new members.” The statement gives the perception that their growth is the result of contemporary music rather than traditional music. My emphasis is that growth in a church should primarily be the result of the teaching and preaching of the word of God. Music, whether it is contemporary or traditional, is not going to be the primary reason for the salvation and spiritual growth of individuals.
I was simply pointing out, that at least at my church, where we offer people a choice between traditional and contemporary services, it is in the contemporary services where we are seeing the greatest evidence of God at work. Why? Like I titled my post, I was making “observations.” I drew no conclusions. (Note that the same sermon is preached in all of the services, by the same pastor.)
Is there a difference in the preaching of the two services? Maybe the contemporary music is drawing greater numbers, but its the preaching and teaching the word of God that is imparting the gospel. I’d be highly suspect of someone’s salvation that is a result of a particular music style.
[Craig]RickyHorton wrote:
There have been music debates for many moons!!! The worldliness of music in the church was being talked about centuries ago. Funny thing is that the worldly music of yesteryear is the music that hymn-only people point to as the only acceptable music for God’s people. Same song, second verse. I won’t derail the thread by giving specific examples but can provide them if you want to PM me.
… but even the worldly music of yesteryear didn’t have the sensual beat of the 20th and 21st century used by pop, rock, country, soul, rhythm and blues….etc….which is now mainstream in many churches …
It’s worth noting that rock & roll, blues, jazz, country & western, and the like all have their roots in black gospel music. So are we going to insinuate that black gospel is inherently worldly, since it features the same strong beat, the same blues rhythms, and even a lot of the same vocal tendencies of its daughter genres? Or are we wiser to conclude, as one would from Psalms 149 and 150, that it’s simply a tool that makes a lot of sense in communicating the truths of the Gospel and joy of the Lord to many people?
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Larry Nelson]it is in the contemporary services where we are seeing the greatest evidence of God at work. Why? Like I titled my post, I was making “observations.” I drew no conclusions. (Note that the same sermon is preached in all of the services, by the same pastor.)
[Craig]Is there a difference in the preaching of the two services? Maybe the contemporary music is drawing greater numbers, but its the preaching and teaching the word of God that is imparting the gospel. I’d be highly suspect of someone’s salvation that is a result of a particular music style.
Same sermons …
[Craig]Is there a difference in the preaching of the two services? Maybe the contemporary music is drawing greater numbers, but its the preaching and teaching the word of God that is imparting the gospel. I’d be highly suspect of someone’s salvation that is a result of a particular music style.
Now you’re seeing my point. The preaching is the same (same sermon) at all of our services; there is no difference. I agree with this entirely: “it’s the preaching and teaching the word of God that is imparting the gospel.” (See: Romans 10:14-17 ESV). I do not claim, have never claimed, and furthermore would never claim that “someone’s salvation…is a result of a particular music style.”
Where you & I perhaps haven’t been seeing eye-to-eye is how we see fit to gain a hearing for the preaching. I’m talking about how we can get a crowd of people to attend, to at least be present so that they can listen to the preaching. In my church, it is simply a fact that the contemporary services attract far more guests & visitors than the traditional services, for whatever reason(s). Frankly, unless we believed that contemporary music at services is not biblically permissible or wise for some reason(s), then it would be foolish for us to not use it to gain a greater hearing for the Gospel.
(Personally, I am edified by both Phil Wickham’s This is Amazing Grace and John Newton’s Amazing Grace, so for me the choice of contemporary vs. traditional is moot.)
My post (a few posts up) in which I provided numerous quotes in regards to the centuries-long debate about church music got me thinking last night. I pulled a couple of books off my shelves and did some further reading.
Consider this: just a few centuries ago, many were denouncing the organ as a “worldly amusement,” completely unsuitable for church use. It was derided as “crude” and “vulgar.” Furthermore, it was considered tainted due to its popularity in Catholicism.
Today, when the organ is a beloved “traditional” instrument, it is drums or guitars that are stigmatized. They are denounced in terms once directed at the organ. Today, they are tainted due to their popularity in Evangelicalism.
And so it goes…..
[Bert Perry]Look at the Psalms, where 149 and 150 clearly mention percussive instruments like cymbals and the practice of dancing in Temple worship. If it doesn’t have some discernable beat, good luck dancing to it, unless it’s that mushy swaying people used to do to Air Supply (airsickness bags available upon request). So the tradition—see the abduction of wives for the Benjamites as well—goes back over 3000 years. I would even argue that, given the ubiquity of drums and such in various tribal situations, it’s been worldwide for a while.
Really, the question is not whether Biblical music had a beat or not, though. It’s whether music with a beat communicates well to people today—and I’d argue it does. One other reason to move our repertoire of modern music in the church beyond what might pose as “light rock”, really. You could do “When I Survey The Wondrous Cross” as a heavy metal power ballad quite well. Similar idea to Crue’s “Home Sweet Home”….start out quiet, build to a forte/fortissimo, back off….no, power chords and drums are not inherently worldly. Yes, I am saying that it may be possible for the church to learn quite a bit, musically speaking, from hair metal bands.
Why do these Psalms imply the use of a lewd, modern, pop/rock style?
You can fully embrace the elements of those Psalms without embracing a contemporary pop/rock style:
Andy
[AndyE]snip
Why do these Psalms imply the use of a lewd, modern, pop/rock style?
You can fully embrace the elements of those Psalms without embracing a contemporary pop/rock style:
Andy
Andy, first of all, pretty much nobody dances to a march, so you’ve missed the point of Psalm 150:4 there. Plus, when William Booth started using popular songs (often bar songs) for Salvation Army anthems, a lot of people made arguments that are virtually identical to yours. Whitfield and Wesley were also accused of using improper music, and it is said that Whitfield (not Booth) originated the quote “Why should the Devil have all the best tunes?” And today you’ll be hard pressed to find a hymnal without at least one song by each of them.
Which is another way of saying you need to establish why modern music is “lewd”—and no “guilt by association” arguments. Give us chapter and verse. Tell me why black gospel, LeCrae and other Christian rappers, or a metal ballad presentation of When I Survey the Wondrous Cross , or a metric Psalm in the same genre, would be inherently lewd or otherwise objectionable. Does the Bible tell us that we can play drums only with a certain loudness vs. the other instruments, or whether we can use 4/4 time but not 3/4, or whether the emphasis must be on the beat or off it? (Hebrew music, especially klezmer, is notoriously offbeat)
I guarantee you will not find it, and I’m not going to play the game of one person pointing at Brian Johnson or Tommy Lee, and someone else points back at Sandi Patti and Michael English….it’s bad logic and it kills what needs to happen for good music; we need to pay attention to lyrics, meter, poetic devices, and whether the music provided works with the lyrics, or whether it doesn’t.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Bert Perry]Andy, first of all, pretty much nobody dances to a march, so you’ve missed the point of Psalm 150:4 there.
I don’t know if I’ve missed the point or not. However it is clear that you have missed my point and that is that these Psalms do not argue for any particular genre or style of music. There is nothing here that implies the type of lewd dancing of our modern pop culture or the music that goes along with it. These Psalms do not stand in opposition to a conservative church music position, as my one simple counterexample demonstrates.
Which is another way of saying you need to establish why modern music is “lewd”—and no “guilt by association” arguments. Give us chapter and verse. Tell me why black gospel, LeCrae and other Christian rappers, or a metal ballad presentation of When I Survey the Wondrous Cross , or a metric Psalm in the same genre, would be inherently lewd or otherwise objectionable. Does the Bible tell us that we can play drums only with a certain loudness vs. the other instruments, or whether we can use 4/4 time but not 3/4, or whether the emphasis must be on the beat or off it? (Hebrew music, especially klezmer, is notoriously offbeat)I guarantee you will not find it, and I’m not going to play the game of one person pointing at Brian Johnson or Tommy Lee, and someone else points back at Sandi Patti and Michael English….it’s bad logic and it kills what needs to happen for good music; we need to pay attention to lyrics, meter, poetic devices, and whether the music provided works with the lyrics, or whether it doesn’t.
I wonder if you think it is right to misrepresent someone when you disagree with their position? Where did I say that “modern music is ‘lewd’” or that “the Bible tell[s] us that we can play drums only with a certain loudness” or that we can’t use ¾ time? I’m also not sure it’s worth discussing if I have to submit beforehand to all of your extra-biblical restrictions such as, “no guilt by association arguments” or that we can’t point to certain artists, or that we have to “pay attention to lyrics, meter, poetic devices, and whether the music provided works with the lyrics, or whether it doesn’t.” Seriously, where is the chapter and verse for all of that?
I’d rather know how you would determine what is lewd in speech, music, dance, art, or any other form of communication given the restrictions you have put upon me.
Andy
Discussion