Bible passages that guide us about secular/unbelieving criticisms of Christian worship music/ministry?

Forum category

“If you sing pop lyrics, you are going to have a problem with your ministry because rock n’ roll by definition, and popular music, is about sexuality.” A judge then interjected, “And demons.” Simmons then repeated, “And demons.”

— Gene Simmons, a famous rock musician; transcribed from a video clip from an episode where he appeared on American Idol

Should Christians care about what secular/unbelieving people say in negative comments such as these about the worship music/ministry of certain Christians? What Bible passages do you think guide us in knowing what to do with such comments?

Discussion

[Kevin Miller]

RajeshG wrote:

Asserting that what Simmons’ says is to be dismissed entirely just because he is an unbeliever is an invalid assertion that cannot be supported biblically.

And you are trying to refute that assertion, aren’t you? I don’t think adding those words changes the point of what Ricky was saying. He said “If your goal is to refute claims, then you aren’t seeking to learn what Scripture says…you are just looking for passages to support what you already believe.” And then he asked “Are you truly willing to learn what Scripture says or are you trying to make a point?” You really didn’t answer that part of his post. (If I was you I’d say “both,” but I don’t want to put words in your mouth.)

Kevin is correct…you did not address what I said. With all due respect, your approach to Scripture is dangerous. We don’t go to Scripture to try and prove what we already believe. We go to Scripture so that it will form our beliefs.

[RickyHorton]

Kevin is correct…you did not address what I said. With all due respect, your approach to Scripture is dangerous. We don’t go to Scripture to try and prove what we already believe. We go to Scripture so that it will form our beliefs.

I had already studied this subject before starting this thread (but not nearly to the extent that I did while being engaged in this discussion). I already knew from my prior study of Scripture that view was false. I did not go to Scripture to try and prove what I already believe. You have no basis to assert validly that my approach to Scripture is “dangerous.”

[RickyHorton]

Kevin is correct…you did not address what I said. With all due respect, your approach to Scripture is dangerous. We don’t go to Scripture to try and prove what we already believe. We go to Scripture so that it will form our beliefs.

But sometimes it does help our understanding if we ask other people for Scripture that relates to the topic about which we already have a certain belief. If I started a thread about male leadership in the church, I might already have the belief that only men should be pastors, but I might not know every verse that applies to the topic. What might be odd is if i later made the point that i was only trying to refute some claim that not very many people were actually making anyway.

Rajesh you are apparently arguing against a Straw Man. I don’t see anyone here saying claiming that we have to categorically deny an unbelievers advice even about spiritual matters.

[josh p]

Rajesh you are apparently arguing against a Straw Man. I don’t see anyone here saying claiming that we have to categorically deny an unbelievers advice even about spiritual matters.

No, I am not. Someone on this very thread acknowledged that he has said something to that very effect: https://sharperiron.org/comment/106639#comment-106639
I have also had other people argue with me similarly in other venues besides SI.

[RajeshG]

The Bible also teaches us that we have to “prove all things; hold fast that which is good” (1 Thess. 5:21) and provides many examples of wrong statements made by unbelievers.

This is interesting. Do you believe that verse is talking about evaluating comments from unbelievers about worship? I think the context would argue against using it in that way. Paul is speaking about the Thessalonians examining prophecies in the church, presumably by believers, rather than despising the ongoing revelation that was occurring at that time.

[RajeshG]

josh p wrote:

Rajesh you are apparently arguing against a Straw Man. I don’t see anyone here saying claiming that we have to categorically deny an unbelievers advice even about spiritual matters.

No, I am not. Someone on this very thread acknowledged that he has said something to that very effect: https://sharperiron.org/comment/106639#comment-106639

I have also had other people argue with me similarly in other venues besides SI.

Jay can certainly answer for himself, but it looks to me like he explicitly denies making the assertion that unbelievers are always wrong and untrustworthy. I do not remember ever hearing someone make that assertion on SI or anywhere else.

Straw man or not, and Jay’s view or not (I think not), that proposition has certainly been defeated in this discussion several times over. If the objective was to show biblical evidence that nonbelievers can’t be categorically dismissed as a source of useful information in general (not excluding useful in ministry), that probably happened on page 1.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

[RajeshG]

No, I am not. Someone on this very thread acknowledged that he has said something to that very effect: https://sharperiron.org/comment/106639#comment-106639

I have also had other people argue with me similarly in other venues besides SI.

Linking to this comment of Jay’s made me think of another category that we really should include in order to get a full understanding of the topic.

8.Passages that encourage us to be skeptical of the understanding of unbelievers in regards to spiritual matters. Several of us have mentioned I Cor 2:14, and Jay also points out Acts 8:21. Aaron previously mentioned Eph. 4:18 and 2 Cor 4:4. I’ve also thought of Isaiah 44:18, Matthew 13:13, and Romans 8:6-8. (I’m glad the software shows the verses when you hover over them so I don’t have to cut and paste them all.)

Now these verses do NOT mean that unbelievers should never be heard or are never right. We’ve concluded from the other 7 categories that they can be right. However, we would be remiss if we do not include the category that tells us to be skeptical of their spiritual understanding.

[Kevin Miller]

Linking to this comment of Jay’s made me think of another category that we really should include in order to get a full understanding of the topic.

8.Passages that encourage us to be skeptical of the understanding of unbelievers in regards to spiritual matters. Several of us have mentioned I Cor 2:14, and Jay also points out Acts 8:21. Aaron previously mentioned Eph. 4:18 and 2 Cor 4:4. I’ve also thought of Isaiah 44:18, Matthew 13:13, and Romans 8:6-8. (I’m glad the software shows the verses when you hover over them so I don’t have to cut and paste them all.)

Now these verses do NOT mean that unbelievers should never be heard or are never right. We’ve concluded from the other 7 categories that they can be right. However, we would be remiss if we do not include the category that tells us to be skeptical of their spiritual understanding.

I was taking this category for granted and thought about doing the same thing. It certainly is part of what we have to consider to have a full understanding.

[pvawter]

This is interesting. Do you believe that verse is talking about evaluating comments from unbelievers about worship? I think the context would argue against using it in that way. Paul is speaking about the Thessalonians examining prophecies in the church, presumably by believers, rather than despising the ongoing revelation that was occurring at that time.

Of course, in context, Paul was talking about prophecies, etc. The verse also expresses a principle that applies on a broader base. Paul’s own practice suggests that he did this very thing when he made use of a statement by an unbelieving Cretan prophet in Titus 1:12-14:
Titus 1:12 One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. 13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; 14 Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.
Verse 12 shows that Paul knew of a statement by a Cretan prophet concerning the ungodliness of the Cretians. Paul assessed that statement to be true (v. 13a). Because he had examined it and assessed it to be true, he used it to instruct Titus about what he was to do in his ministry there.
By this inspired passage, Paul instructs us that in Christian ministry, we can and should make use of valid statements of unbelievers who evaluate ungodliness in the actions of others.

Now I’m even more intrigued, Rajesh. You are reticent to make applications about worship music until you have included every possible text relating to the subject, yet you gladly make application from 1 Thess 5:21 even while you acknowledge that you’re applying it outside of the clearly intended meaning in its context.

As far as Paul’s instruction in Titus 1 concerning the use of unregenerate sources, I think you are overstating your case. Paul is instructing Titus on the need for a stern rebuke for the Cretan believers, not in the use of sources of truth. His example is not the same thing as propositional instruction.

[pvawter]

As far as Paul’s instruction in Titus 1 concerning the use of unregenerate sources, I think you are overstating your case. Paul is instructing Titus on the need for a stern rebuke for the Cretan believers, not in the use of sources of truth. His example is not the same thing as propositional instruction.

It’s true that Paul’s example is not the same thing as propositional instruction. In this case, we are dealing with statements in a NT Epistle that the Spirit would not have needed to include had He only wanted us to consider that Paul was “instructing Titus on the need for a stern rebuke for the Cretan believers.” If that were the only thing that the Spirit wanted us to know and profit from, He could have inspired Paul to write the following:
Titus 1:12[modified] The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. 13 Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; 14 Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.
Because the Spirit did not only reveal what this modified version of Titus 1:12-13 says, we must give serious consideration to how He wants us to profit from all that He inspired Paul to say to us.
In addition, Paul commands us as believers several times to follow his example.

[RajeshG]

It’s true that Paul’s example is not the same thing as propositional instruction. In this case, we are dealing with statements in a NT Epistle that the Spirit would not have needed to include had He only wanted us to consider that Paul was “instructing Titus on the need for a stern rebuke for the Cretan believers.” If that were the only thing that the Spirit wanted us to know and profit from, He could have inspired Paul to write the following:

Titus 1:12[modified] The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. 13 Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; 14 Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.

Because the Spirit did not only reveal what this modified version of Titus 1:12-13 says, we must give serious consideration to how He wants us to profit from all that He inspired Paul to say to us.

In addition, Paul commands us as believers several times to follow his example.

I understand all of that Rajesh, but your confidence in applying what you consider to be Paul’s intention is interesting, especially in light of your reticence to apply much more direct statements on the subject of worship. It just seems inconsistent to me.

[pvawter]

I understand all of that Rajesh, but your confidence in applying what you consider to be Paul’s intention is interesting, especially in light of your reticence to apply much more direct statements on the subject of worship. It just seems inconsistent to me.

Paul, I’m not following what you are saying. What much more direct statements on the subject of worship are you saying that I am reticent to apply?

[RajeshG]

Paul, I’m not following what you are saying. What much more direct statements on the subject of worship are you saying that I am reticent to apply?

I’m sorry, Rajesh, I think I misspoke. I was thinking about your response to the mention of 1 Cor 2 and the noetic effects of sin, so it’s not a statement about worship.

We must account for all such passages in order to make proper applications and assessments.

This was part of your response to Josh on the subject earlier. Why not simply apply 1 Cor 2 to the extent the passage clearly speaks to the wisdom, or lack thereof, of unbelievers? Especially when you are comfortable making applications from Paul’s example in Titus 1 which is outside any of the propositional purpose of that passage.

It seems to me that you’re making a point that is tangential at best to one passage while cautioning against making one that is central to another text. Just my $0.02.

[pvawter]

This was part of your response to Josh on the subject earlier. Why not simply apply 1 Cor 2 to the extent the passage clearly speaks to the wisdom, or lack thereof, of unbelievers? Especially when you are comfortable making applications from Paul’s example in Titus 1 which is outside any of the propositional purpose of that passage.

It seems to me that you’re making a point that is tangential at best to one passage while cautioning against making one that is central to another text. Just my $0.02.

I have not made “a point that is tangential at best to one passage.”
This thread provides you with many explicit Bible passages that do not support your view of what 1 Corinthians 2:14 means. You cannot interpret the Bible properly when you do not account for all that God says about a subject.

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold [Gk. suppress] the truth in unrighteousness.
Romans 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
What these verses says unbelievers know about spiritual truths is not “tangential” to their teaching about unbelievers. Romans 1:32 plainly says that unbelievers know that people who practice the unrighteous things that Paul lists in the preceding verses are worthy of death.
The Bible is very plain that unbelievers can make right assessments of ungodly conduct.

[RajeshG]

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold [Gk. suppress] the truth in unrighteousness.
Romans 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

What these verses says unbelievers know about spiritual truths is not “tangential” to their teaching about unbelievers. Romans 1:32 plainly says that unbelievers know that people who practice the unrighteous things that Paul lists in the preceding verses are worthy of death.

The Bible is very plain that unbelievers can make right assessments of ungodly conduct.

I find it interesting that you quote Romans 1:18 as you make your point. Romans 1:32 does say that unbelievers know the truth, but Romans 1:18 says that they are suppressing it. They are holding it in, not showing the truth that deep down they really know. So if unbelievers are described as people who suppress the truth, it seems it would be rather difficult to count on them to be making right assessments. They can still do it, but I wouldn’t count on them to do it consistently.

[Kevin Miller]

So if unbelievers are described as people who suppress the truth, it seems it would be rather difficult to count on them to be making right assessments. They can still do it, but I wouldn’t count on them to do it consistently.

Have you considered closely what Acts 16:16-17 reveals?
Acts 16:16 And it came to pass, as we went to prayer, a certain damsel possessed with a spirit of divination met us, which brought her masters much gain by soothsaying: 17 The same followed Paul and us, and cried, saying, These men are the servants of the most high God, which shew unto us the way of salvation. 18 And this did she many days… .
An unbelieving woman who was possessed by a demon was bearing repeated testimony to profound spiritual truths about vital subjects! Her testimony was fully accurate. They were the servants of the most high God. They were showing to her and others the way of salvation.
Consider that on top of her being lost, she was being possessed by a demon. For her to bear accurate testimony about the servants of the most high God and the message of salvation would seem to have been profoundly against all the interests of the devil and his demons. Yet, she did so for many days.
Not only was she not suppressing the truth in unrighteousness, she was openly broadcasting it to all who heard her utter these words over a period of many days.

[RajeshG]

Have you considered closely what Acts 16:16-17 reveals?

Acts 16:16 And it came to pass, as we went to prayer, a certain damsel possessed with a spirit of divination met us, which brought her masters much gain by soothsaying: 17 The same followed Paul and us, and cried, saying, These men are the servants of the most high God, which shew unto us the way of salvation. 18 And this did she many days… .

An unbelieving woman who was possessed by a demon was bearing repeated testimony to profound spiritual truths about vital subjects! Her testimony was fully accurate. They were the servants of the most high God. They were showing to her and others the way of salvation.

Consider that on top of her being lost, she was being possessed by a demon. For her to bear accurate testimony about the servants of the most high God and the message of salvation would seem to have been profoundly against all the interests of the devil and his demons. Yet, she did so for many days.

Not only was she not suppressing the truth in unrighteousness, she was openly broadcasting it to all who heard her utter these words over a period of many days.

Yes, I have considered it. I think one of the reason this example is given to us in Scripture is actually BECAUSE it is so very odd for one possessed of a demon to be proclaiming the truth to the general public. Oh, when demons are being cast out, they have to acknowledge the power of God, but it is very very rare for one to be acknowledging that power prior to the casting out. As I said, unbelievers can make right assessments, but I wouldn’t count on them to do it consistently. We have multiple verses that tell us their eyes are blind, their hearts are hard, they cannot understand things of the Spirit, they are in rebellion to God and live in darkness. Do a few examples of unbelievers giving correct assessments override the main teachings of Scripture that the minds of unbelievers are set against God and His truth?

[Kevin Miller]

We have multiple verses that tell us their eyes are blind, their hearts are hard, they cannot understand things of the Spirit, they are in rebellion to God and live in darkness. Do a few examples of unbelievers giving correct assessments override the main teachings of Scripture that the minds of unbelievers are set against God and His truth?

I have given you more than a few examples of unbelievers giving correct assessments or declaring spiritual truths in various respects and there is more data. An exhaustive consideration of the data pertaining to both sides of the discussion is far beyond the scope of this thread.
Holding that the minds of unbelievers are set against God and His truth is not a valid basis for asserting that the criticisms of Christian misconduct that they offer are to be dismissed or regarded as invalid in every case. As has been remarked more than once, whatever criticisms they offer must be carefully evaluated to assess the validity and merit of the criticisms.

[RajeshG]

I have given you more than a few examples of unbelievers giving correct assessments or declaring spiritual truths in various respects and there is more data. An exhaustive consideration of the data pertaining to both sides of the discussion is far beyond the scope of this thread.

Holding that the minds of unbelievers are set against God and His truth is not a valid basis for asserting that the criticisms of Christian misconduct that they offer are to be dismissed or regarded as invalid in every case. As has been remarked more than once, whatever criticisms they offer must be carefully evaluated to assess the validity and merit of the criticisms.

No one here in this thread has been asserting that the criticism of unbelievers are “invalid in every case.” You keep arguing against that point as if someone is making it, but no one is. I’m not even trying to take the discussion to an area that is beyond the scope of this thread. (That being said, I don’t think there is a page limit here, so we could get quite exhaustive if we desired to do so.) This thread has covered the general topic of unbelievers declaring spiritual truths and the much more narrow focus of unbelievers criticizing the musical ministry of certain believers as being ungodly. You presented 7 subtopics of the general topic with verses to illustrate them, but you haven’t provided any verses in this thread to illustrate your more narrow focus. When you were asked for a verse, you said that you didn’t want to rehash a previous thread, which we all could figure out was the one about the golden calf incident. Even with allowing for your perspective on that passage to be correct, that is still just one passage about unbelievers recognizing ungodly worship and/or music practices of believers. If we stick to just that narrow topic, then there is not much to discuss. That’s why the thread expanded to the more general topic of ANY spiritual assessment, positive or negative, by unbelievers. I found it quite interesting to search the Scriptures for examples of that, and as we’ve all acknowledged, such examples exist.

Now, I believe, we are at the point of the discussion where we think of factors to consider in our evaluation of an unbeliever’s comments about spiritual matters, and more specifically, comments about Christian misconduct. First off, we will not automatically dismiss them, but we will also not consider every comment from them to automatically be true.

Secondly, we compare the truth of the comment with the truth of Scripture, but this only works if there is a Scripture passage that deals directly with the statement made by the unbeliever. If the unbeliever says “women should be pastors because it is wrong to treat them as unequal to men,” we can examine that statement through the lens of Scripture and see it is untrue. It is not nearly so easy to examine claims from an unbeliever about musical styles. The Bible does not specifically say whether certain musical styles are wrong to use. Certain actions are definitely wrong, such as dancing suggestively or dressing immodestly, so if an unbeliever see those actions and criticizes them, we can affirm the Biblical truth of what they say. But if they just say a style is wrong, how can that be assessed Biblically?

Thirdly, and this relates to my first point, I think we have to take into account a spectrum of reliability related to the spiritual understanding that is exhibited by unbelievers. We can’t consider their statements to be all truth or all lies, but we do have to acknowledge that they lack a specific understanding of spiritual matters and they do not ordinarily reflect the righteousness of God. This is why it was such a challenge to find examples of unbelievers giving correct assessments and declaring spiritual truths. Those examples existed, but they are the exception rather than being commonplace. Then, if we start looking at specific statements about music styles made by specific unbelievers, as you did in your opening post, it is certainly fair to look at how that particular unbeliever uses the music style in his own work and whether that use affects his own perception. Simmons considered rock music to be bad for ministry, but country was okay. You told me that if that was truly what he meant, then he was wrong in his assessment. So you want us to consider Simmons to be a reliable speaker about rock music, but we shouldn’t pay attention to what he says about country. Is he a worthwhile source of information or not?

No one here in this thread has been asserting that the criticism of unbelievers are “invalid in every case.” You keep arguing against that point as if someone is making it, but no one is.

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

No one here in this thread has been asserting that the criticism of unbelievers are “invalid in every case.” You keep arguing against that point as if someone is making it, but no one is.

Actually, Rajesh called me out in particular for saying that, and did it again later on, this time by linking directly to a clarification post I made to try and put a stop to it. I saw his posts but wasn’t going to bother wasting my time with yet another response. Just for the record, this is what I said in the post that Rajesh linked to:

That being said, I don’t mean to communicate that I reject all advice from unbelievers. I have an unsaved mechanic, friends, coworkers, and doctor. Of course I take their advice. It would be foolish not to.

When it comes to pointing out issues in the church, however, I stand on 1 Cor. 2:14 and Acts 8:21 - “You have neither part nor lot in this matter, for your heart is not right before God.”

For the record, I’m writing this from a hospital where there are no currently no Christians (much less conservative evangelicals or fundamentalists) involved with the medical care we need. I’m taking all the advice we can get from them on medical issues. I would reject their advice on the music we are going to be using in church tomorrow, if they offered it, because they have to be Christians to understand the rationale behind what we do and the reasons why. That is my position, and I’m sticking to it.

I just wanted to make that abundantly clear since Rajesh seems to continue to misunderstand or possibly deliberately misrepresent what I said, even after I tried to clarify things.

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

[Kevin Miller]

RajeshG wrote:

I have given you more than a few examples of unbelievers giving correct assessments or declaring spiritual truths in various respects and there is more data. An exhaustive consideration of the data pertaining to both sides of the discussion is far beyond the scope of this thread.

Holding that the minds of unbelievers are set against God and His truth is not a valid basis for asserting that the criticisms of Christian misconduct that they offer are to be dismissed or regarded as invalid in every case. As has been remarked more than once, whatever criticisms they offer must be carefully evaluated to assess the validity and merit of the criticisms.

No one here in this thread has been asserting that the criticism of unbelievers are “invalid in every case.”

You left out three very important words that I have underlined in what you quoted from what I said: “criticisms of Christian misconduct,” which certainly would include spiritual matters in the church. This is exactly what Jay is saying that he would reject, as he also has said previously.

[Jay]

No one here in this thread has been asserting that the criticism of unbelievers are “invalid in every case.” You keep arguing against that point as if someone is making it, but no one is.

Actually, Rajesh called me out in particular for saying that, and did it again later on, this time by linking directly to a clarification post I made to try and put a stop to it. I saw his posts but wasn’t going to bother wasting my time with yet another response. Just for the record, this is what I said in the post that Rajesh linked to:

That being said, I don’t mean to communicate that I reject all advice from unbelievers. I have an unsaved mechanic, friends, coworkers, and doctor. Of course I take their advice. It would be foolish not to.

When it comes to pointing out issues in the church, however, I stand on 1 Cor. 2:14 and Acts 8:21 - “You have neither part nor lot in this matter, for your heart is not right before God.”

For the record, I’m writing this from a hospital where there are no currently no Christians (much less conservative evangelicals or fundamentalists) involved with the medical care we need. I’m taking all the advice we can get from them on medical issues. I would reject their advice on the music we are going to be using in church tomorrow, if they offered it, because they have to be Christians to understand the rationale behind what we do and the reasons why. That is my position, and I’m sticking to it.

I just wanted to make that abundantly clear since Rajesh seems to continue to misunderstand or possibly deliberately misrepresent what I said, even after I tried to clarify things.

I have not continued to misunderstand or deliberately misrepresent your view. By your own words, you say that you would take advice from unbelievers concerning car repairs, medical treatment, etc. but you would do the following concerning their criticisms of spiritual matters:
I would reject their advice on the music we are going to be using in church tomorrow, if they offered it, because they have to be Christians to understand the rationale behind what we do and the reasons why. That is my position, and I’m sticking to it.

This is what this whole thread is about—categorically rejecting what unbelievers say about spiritual matters is not a biblically sustainable position.

I have never affirmed that there were/are people who reject any advice or assessments that unbelievers make on any and all subjects regardless of what the subjects might be.
The subject of this thread concerns “secular/unbelieving criticisms of Christian worship music/ministry.”
I have been talking about rejection of statements about spiritual matters from the beginning of this thread. Any further claims that I am asserting something other than this will be willful misrepresentations of my views.

Regarding the topic of “secular/unbelieving criticisms of Christian worship music/ministry,” it seems to me we haven’t progressed much beyond “it depends,” which I don’t believe was really ever in dispute.

This thread is like following a semi truck down a country road - it ain’t going anywhere fast.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.

A Google search on this subject reveals that there are people on both sides of the issue leaving me to conclude that I am as free to consider and ignore Gene Simmons advice as anyone else is to consider and accept it.

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

Regarding the topic of “secular/unbelieving criticisms of Christian worship music/ministry,” it seems to me we haven’t progressed much beyond “it depends,” which I don’t believe was really ever in dispute.

This thread is like following a semi truck down a country road - it ain’t going anywhere fast.


Laying thoroughly the proper broader theological basis for considering the specific subject is essential. Many disputes about music are never resolved because the subject(s) are never properly treated fully in their broader theological perspective.

This thread is like following a semi truck down a country road - it ain’t going anywhere fast.

Maybe, but that implies that we made progress at some point in the thread. I’m not sure we’ve really gone anywhere since page 1, or most of these other threads for that matter. :)

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

Established pretty early on…

  • That non-believers are able to give good advice, including information that might be useful for ministry purposes.
  • Just as advice from believers, advice from non-believers has to be evaluated cadc by case.

It only takes a couple of passages to make that pretty obvious.

It sounds to me like Jay probably doesn’t disagree, and meant only to say that if some non-believers he knows advised on what music to use in the next service. This isn’t quite the same as saying a nonbelieving music industry expert (or at least, experienced individual) could not provide any information on the art form that could be potentially useful.

But I’m not sure if I’ve understood Jay correctly.

Either way, the difference would be that in the scenario Jay described, it sounds like you have non-believers

  • With no special expertise that would be relevant
  • Directly advising musical choices in a setting where there are more qualified people to do that.

Jay, am I reading you right? It seems like a pretty fine distinction though.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

I wonder if we would be having this discussion if Simmons had encouraged this worship leader to sing popular music and use his talent as an opportunity to share the Gospel with people in the business. After all there are Christians who are actors and singers.

BTW, after watching the video again it appears that Simmons IS NOT commenting on CCM but on this worship leader performing popular music (“singing pop lyrics”) apart from ministry.

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

…and meant only to say that if some non-believers he knows advised on what music to use in the next service. This isn’t quite the same as saying a nonbelieving music industry expert (or at least, experienced individual) could not provide any information on the art form that could be potentially useful.

But I’m not sure if I’ve understood Jay correctly.

Either way, the difference would be that in the scenario Jay described, it sounds like you have non-believers

With no special expertise that would be relevant

Directly advising musical choices in a setting where there are more qualified people to do that.

Jay, am I reading you right? It seems like a pretty fine distinction though.

First of all, I don’t care what Gene Simmons’ opinion is of Christian music. Period. I said that very early on in this thread.

Secondly, if the Gene was saying the things he did tongue in cheek (which appears to have been the case, as others noted early on - I don’t care enough about Simmons’ remarks to watch the YouTube clip for myself), then it’s wrong to take those comments and try and apply them as though they were made seriously and should be taken literally. So that’s another area where I disagree with Rajesh before we start discussing this.

Thirdly, and this is where I get more to Aaron’s questions, if a secular musician wants to give input on the technical aspects of music, that’s fine. If an unsaved person has advice for how to set up sound equipment, recording, playback, or mixing, great. I’m OK with that and will happily take their advice. I edit and upload our sermon podcasts, so anything I can do to make them better is certainly something I want to explore.

If an unbeliever wants to dictate to me (or our church, since I’m not the music leader) what songs are and are not acceptable for the worship of the God they don’t believe in or outright reject, I’m going to politely tell them to take a hike.

Rajesh might have a point if the musicians in a church or at a Christian concert were doing the kinds of things on stage that Simmons, KISS, and other secular rock bands do. I don’t think that’s a fair comparison. I have yet to be in a church where Christian musicians “[utilize] elaborate live performances, which featured fire breathing, (link is external)blood-spitting(link is external), smoking guitars, shooting rockets, levitating drum kits, and pyrotechnics. The band has gone through several lineup changes, with Stanley and Simmons the only remaining original members.(link is external)” Some CCM acts may use pyrotechnics - I’m really not sure, but I’m also not sure that I’d be opposed to pyrotechnics in principle. I would be very surprised if someone in our church wanted to do that, and we’ve already vetoed some other, not as crazy, ideas about putting on ‘the show’ (as I refer to it). I’ve never been to a CCM concert, so I don’t know what goes on there.

Rajesh’s question seems to be: can unbelievers recognize sinful practices in a Christian setting? Yes, they can. Unbelievers are opposed to some evil practices (lying, gossip, malicious intent, etc), and we’d need to get into a discussion of total depravity to cover that if I were so inclined to discuss it, which I am not. We know that there are many who will say that they are Christians but who Jesus will explicitly disavow from Matthew 7:21-23, and even unbelievers are scandalized by the health and wealth gospel (for starters). But I do not put a lot of stock in unbelievers being able to discern what is Biblical and right from what is not if they have no understanding of spiritual things to begin with, which is why I went to 1 Cor. 2:14 and later Acts 8:21. Frankly, if an unbeliever can point out sinful problems within a Christian setting, then there are (in my opinion) even more extremely serious problems since the Christians within that setting should have been all over it long beforehand. That’s where Matthew 18 - challenging a fellow believer - and biblical separation come into play.

Finally, is Rajesh talking about CCM concerts (which is what I think he’s getting at) or worship music in a church setting? Knowing specifically what he’s talking about would be helpful.

Is that clearer, Aaron?

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

When it comes to pointing out issues in the church, however, I stand on 1 Cor. 2:14 and Acts 8:21 - “You have neither part nor lot in this matter, for your heart is not right before God.”

Even if this is your clarification and stand, it is difficult to see how this is true or helpful. If an unbeliever said something about sex abuse in the church, are you really going to claim 1 Cor 2:14 or Acts 8:21 means we don’t have to listen to them? Of course you wouldn’t. Sometimes an unbeliever knows their world better than we do. And we would do well to listen to them at times because we can unwittingly say something we don’t mean because we don’t know what something means.

I would reject their advice on the music we are going to be using in church tomorrow, if they offered it, because they have to be Christians to understand the rationale behind what we do and the reasons why. That is my position, and I’m sticking to it.

But they don’t have to be Christian to understand the rationale and meaning behind things of their world. They can quite often see them much more clearly than believers because they have no axe to grind..

Frankly, if an unbeliever can point out sinful problems within a Christian setting, then there are (in my opinion) even more extremely serious problems since the Christians within that setting should have been all over it long beforehand.

True, and that is the point in many of these kinds of cases. Why didn’t the church see the sex abuse and the financial scandals when those outside the church did? Why doesn’t the church understand many other things about the world we live in and are supposed to reach? Maybe because we don’t listen.

Unbelievers can certainly see obvious sins in the church. I Corinthians makes that obvious to me. When they point out something that obvious we should certainly take notice. Their criticisms of the liturgy or music we use in church or the occupations we choose…..not so much. “How can you be a Christian and a lawyer too?” (Just to ward off the hyperbole…..if you have a member who makes their living as a prostitute or drug dealer you may want to listen.)

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

Here is Hillsong’s song “Oceans.”(link is external)

Here is the LA Times on a Hillsong concert (link is external)where the song was played:

“God’s not impressed with this stage,” said Joel Houston, one of Hillsong United’s five lead singers and a son of the church’s founders, Brian and Bobbie Houston. “He’s not impressed with these lights.” All God cares about, the frontman went on, is encountering “a heart that needs him.”

Yet that stage, with its movable walls of video screens, and those carefully synchronized lights played an undeniable role in Tuesday’s nearly three-hour concert, among the most polished I’ve seen by any act, faith-based or otherwise.

What should we think about this analysis?

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.

Tyler, I’d see that as another example of bad logic on the part of the LA Times reporter; we may as well say that God’s not impressed with a pastor in suit and tie and in a clean, warm, well lit auditorium, but in 90% of fundagelical churches around the nation, that is exactly what you will see. You can argue the exact same thing about tuning the piano, maintenance on an organ, replacing worn out pews and hymnals, or even basic good habits of grooming, diet, and exercise.

Sure, God isn’t impressed, but as the writer himself declares, people are, and that’s a good reason to put something together that looks and sounds good. Really, we all ought to consider this with the decor, our attire, the maintenance of our instruments (churches are notorious for not getting pianos tuned!), and the musical instruction of those leading music.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.