The ultimate sign of quality CCM: Every band’s goal was to have teenagers stop their grooving mid-song and exclaim, like a soda commercial actress who’s just realized she’s been drinking diet, “Wait, this is Christian?”

[Larry]

Since when did God choose the ‘foolishness of music’ to save them that believe? (1Cor. 1:21)

Just a quick comment: The “foolishness of music” vs. the “foolishness of preaching” is missing the point of 1 Cor 1:21, IMO. Paul’s words there are not about the method of communication (preaching vs. music), but about the message that is preached (Christ crucified vs. anything else). It is the message preached that is foolish in the context of 1 Cor 1.

So whatever we might say about music in evangelism, I think it misguided to use 1 Cor 1:21 to do it with.

If one were inclined to make the point about the methodology (music vs. talking), 1 Cor 2 is a better text because there Paul is actually talking about methodology (simple words, not persuasive words of man’s wisdom so that the power might be of God). Even so, though, I think music per se (vs. talking) is going to be a bit of a stretch to work in there.

Overall an interesting article with some thought provoking insights.

I understand you concerns, Bro. Larry. However, if Paul meant to communicate the idea that music was just as viable a medium for proclaiming the Gospel to unbelievers (which is the context of the comment I quoted in the OP), why not give us examples of using singing in this way? Is the term kērugma ever associated with ‘singing the Gospel’? When kērugma is used, is it not always in reference to the Scriptures being read and expounded sans melody? (That’s actually a question, not a statement, hence the ?, because I have not done an exhaustive study of the term, and am willing to learn something here)

1Cor. 1:21 was the first verse that popped into my head. I agree that this passage is not addressing methodology directly, and I didn’t do a search for a better passage in support of my comment, so on that I stand corrected.

Obviously, singing about God, to God, will communicate the Gospel- IF the Gospel is contained in the song in unmistakeable terms, without general pronouns being substituted for proper nouns, leaving us to guess whether or not the singer is talking about the Lord Jesus Christ or his/her boyfriend.

EDITED TO ADD:
To avoid this thread becoming about CCM or music primarily (we can hope, right?)- I think a large part of the problem that the author of the OP faced was an anemic, diluted Gospel, and her discipleship taken for granted as if she’d learn the depths and riches of the knowledge of God by osmosis and catchy tunes.

[Susan R] Bro. Mount- does the Bible separate the terms and functions of music and preaching? IOW, is the primary purpose of music the communication of the Gospel to those that are in unbelief? Or is it a pleasant side effect? Do we have any examples of the Gospel being ‘preached’ through music? That’s my concern - that music is being used as a substitute for preaching for those who are too lazy or cowardly to convey the Gospel in an unashamed, unambiguous fashion. Hope that clarifies my disquiet a bit better.

In some cases, yes, they are mentioned as separate facets of the Christian life. But I can think of cases where music is used or prescribed to reprove/rebuke (Judges 5) and exhort (Eph. 5:19), which Paul tells Timothy is the primary purpose of preaching. So there is overlap. Furthermore, many of the Psalms are a musical retelling of the salvation of the Lord, and if I’m telling someone how I was saved, that retelling will necessarily include a presentation of the Gospel. So in a song that gives thanks for Christ’s sacrifice, you have the basic framework of a Gospel presentation through music.

So while I agree that music shouldn’t be the last recourse of the lazy in giving the Gospel (maybe coming in second only to “lifestyle evangelism” where you hope people recognize something different in you but you don’t ever actually say anything) I also don’t think that music is disqualified as an avenue for the presentation of the Gospel.

[mounty]…So while I agree that music shouldn’t be the last recourse of the lazy in giving the Gospel (maybe coming in second only to “lifestyle evangelism” where you hope people recognize something different in you but you don’t ever actually say anything) I also don’t think that music is disqualified as an avenue for the presentation of the Gospel.

I don’t think very many will seriously contend that “music is disqualified as an avenue for the presentation of the Gospel.” That being said, one’s theology of preaching must correlate with the NT Biblical texts where preaching is exemplified, which pretty much limits you to the Gospels and to the Book of Acts. Preaching is as common as mosquitoes throughout those records, whether done by John the Baptist, Jesus Christ, Peter, Paul, Phillip, John, Stephen, or others. I cannot recall any record where music was ever the modus operandi for the preaching of the Gospel or calling people to repentance.

On the other hand, preaching as “…an authoritative monologue (…a long speech by a single person monopolizing the conversation) [by one] who has authority to do it by virtue of his gifts (he’s been given by God something that the people listening to him do not have), …by virtue of calling (he was chosen to do the talking while everyone else does the listening—it was God’s choice; it is not that he is better than they are, [but] he is more responsible than they are) and… by virtue primarily of the content—that what he is giving is propositional truth; in other words, it is actually factual assertion and firm denial from the Word of God that is intended by God to bind peoples consciences and behavior…” (Dr. Mark Minnick) is amply illustrated throughout the Gospel record, Acts, and even in the Man of God (prophet) with the Word of God in the OT.

IOW, though not “disqualified…for the presentation of the Gospel,” it is a pretty skewed theology of preaching that is going to emphasize/utilize music as the primary, or even a major avenue of presentation for the message of the Gospel. The weight of Scripture simply doesn’t support it.

The ultimate sign of quality CCM: Every band’s goal was to have teenagers stop their grooving mid-song and exclaim, like a soda commercial actress who’s just realized she’s been drinking diet, “Wait, this is Christian?”

This is a great example of clever writing. Strip away the colorful language and this reads really differently.

Colorful language:
Listening is called “grooving.”
Next she makes a comparison to a product that seeks to be enjoyable and yet not full of sugar. Good tasting low-calorie soda is actually a laudable goal. But stupidity is implied by “soda commercial actress” (read: dumb bimbo).

If what these bands wanted to do was make enjoyable music that lacked all the negative messages and instead had some positive messages, then that’s not a bad goal, IMO. Not a really great goal, either, but not bad.

It could read:

Every band’s goal was to make music that listeners enjoyed - that they really enjoyed. Not just that they listened to because it was music that they knew it was healthier.

Great article, though. I agree with Jeffrey Dean. One problem is that she was never really converted. But she doesn’t consider that a problem. The fact that she was in a “fun christian culture” only meant that she stuck around longer and missed out on some “fun.”

Do we walk away thinking that it’s wrong for Christians to have fun in ways that are not distinctly Christian? No, but if our affections are right, our enjoyment of distinctly Christian things should be prominent.

I’ve always hated that line of Newsboys: “make them wish that they were not / on the outside looking bored.” They are not bored out there. And if they are, boredom isn’t their chief problem. They’re unconverted. They need to Gospel.

[Dan Miller]
I’ve always hated that line of Newsboys: “make them wish that they were not / on the outside looking bored.” They are not bored out there. And if they are, boredom isn’t their chief problem. They’re unconverted. They need to Gospel.

But surely the line “Shine, let it shine before all men / let ‘em see good works and then / let ‘em glorify the Lord” makes up for that, at least a little.

OK, I don’t really have anything to add to this thread. I just like talking to Dan Miller and I recognized the Newsboys reference.

I have made this long in hopes of most people just skipping right over it. I have given enough qualifications and explanations to at least be muddled. It is a “stream of consciousness” off the top of my head so it isn’t well organized.

However, if Paul meant to communicate the idea that music was just as viable a medium for proclaiming the Gospel to unbelievers (which is the context of the comment I quoted in the OP), why not give us examples of using singing in this way?

Couldn’t we say the same thing about many things that we do? Isn’t this what Kevin was addressing in his NOT article a few weeks ago? (I don’t recall exactly, but I think it was.)

I am unconvinced that the NT intended to lay out a precise framework for the circumstances of modern ministry (as opposed to the elements). Even the RP makes no such explicit claim (though there is some debate about the RP). It lays out the things that we do in corporate worship, such as preach, pray, sing, read, etc. It does not prescribe how we do them . It does not say how long the reading should be, who should pray, how long the preaching should be (it seems that no one except preachers want to follow the example of Paul in Acts 20), or how loud, or what style the music should be, or what instrumentation the music should use. In fact, if we are going to adopt the “NT pattern” argument, it seems that the acapella side has the strongest position on music, yet most of us reject that (and rightly so). These are, IMO, completely different questions than the RP addresses.

A few points:

First, we assume that proclaiming the gospel to unbelievers is different than proclaiming it to believers. I don’t think that is so. We can we sing about the gospel to “teach and admonish” fellow believers but not unbelievers? While I think there are some problems in the “gospel-centered” talk of today, and this is one of the good things. We all need the gospel, and frequently is not too often to be reminded of what saved us.

Secondly, given that one of the biblical purposes of music is to teach and admonish (Col 3:16), and given that the foundational issue in discipleship is teaching (Matt 28:18-20, which is in the context of unbelievers becoming believers (cf. baptism), and then growing in faith), it seems a reasonable deduction (or a good and necessary inference) that teaching the gospel to unbelievers can use the means of teaching as prescribed in the NT including music. Therefore, the gospel can be sung as well as preached, both to believers and unbelievers. The nature of song or verse is that the gospel normally requires more explanation than can exist in a song, but that doesn’t seem to preclude its use.

Third, we assume that music played the same role in the first century that it does today, culturally speaking. I am not convinced that is true. Whether for good or ill, music is much more today than it was then. The leads to the question at least, of whether the absence of “music evangelism” was intentional or cultural.

Fourth, the OT clearly gives music the role of proclaiming the greatness of God so that people may see. Some people want to relegate psalms (and their pattern) to the OT dispensation. I am not convinced. As a died in the wool dispensationalist, I think much of the psalms are transdispensational. And if evangelism does not include the proclamation of the greatness of God, then it is extremely misguided because our deepest need springs out of God’s greatest greatness. Only the gospel can address that gap.

I think most (not all) people who espouse your position are actually talking about something very different than musical evangelism, namely the use of particular styles of music for musical evangelism, not the use of music per se. That, IMO, is a completely different topic. (Interesting that people who think music is not to be evangelistic put on Christmas and Easter cantatas and encourage the church family to invite unbelievers to hear it.)

It seems to me that the use of particular styles is what this article seems mainly to be about. It argues that CCM adopted what amounts to a fraudulent means of proclaiming the gospel by virtue of adopting a style of music based on consumerism. In other words they preach a gospel of self-denial through a medium of self-satisfaction. “Jesus died on the cross because you are utterly hopeless any other way” is incompatible with “You can have it your way right away by choosing your favorite music off the “sounds like” chart.”

But even this is tricky because we have preferences in speaking styles. Some people love the simple speaking of a Lloyd-Jones, and others the passionate proclamation of a John Piper, others the pedantic exegesis of a John MacArthur, others the culturally informed apologetic method of Tim Keller, and others the ranting of Jack Schaap or Mark Driscoll (don’t you like how I got those two together?), and many others. And which style is right? All of that is not to make a moral equivalent between Christian metal and Bach cantatas. Me genoite. It is simply to say that communication style is not a “one size fits all” when it comes to teaching/proclamation/etc of the Bible, whereas communication content absolutely is a “one size fits all.” We all must say the same thing; we do not all have to say it the same way.

Is the term kērugma ever associated with ‘singing the Gospel’?

Actually, neither “music” nor “kerugma” are used that much in the NT. Kerugma/kerusso are used only about 35 or so times outside the gospels. I think the references to singing are less than that, particularly if we recognize that at least two verses (Eph 5:19/Col 3:16) give it all in one shot, and neither really addresses the full use of music. On the other hand, there are a fair number of words used for the idea of communication of the gospel. So I think the “normal use” argument is somewhat limited since it is relatively infrequent and since there are other words used for the same idea. The “normal use” argument is most effective when only one word used for an idea, or when one word overwhelmingly predominant.

Here’s the argument being invoked: Since the NT says only that music is used for “one another,” therefore the NT says that music is only to be used for one another. These are two very different sentences. Which one does that Bible actually say? (This seems to me to be the heart of the regulative/normative discussion.) The former is what is said; the latter is, at best, a deduction.

None of which should be construed as saying that I am in favor of CCM concerts for evangelism (or for anything else for that matter).

When kērugma is used, is it not always in reference to the Scriptures being read and expounded sans melody?

I am not sure that we can dogmatically say it is “sans melody” (though you get extra credit for the word “sans”). Again, the emphasis in the NT is not on the style but on the content and the authority. It is true that “kerugma” means something like “to herald,” and that brings to mind a crier shouting at the top of his lungs. But most of us have rightly rejected the exclusive use of “shouting loudly so that everyone hear.”

My point is that preaching/proclamation/teaching/evangelizing/etc is a lot wider than kerugma, and that 1 Cor 1:21 has nothing to do with whether or not we use melody or monotone. It has to do with whether we preach Christ crucified or the wisdom of man.

Thank you, Bro. Larry, for the detailed response. I think what we end up with is a pattern, or perhaps a perceived pattern, in the primary method with which the Gospel should be communicated? I see much thinking on this dynamic in my future.

To continue to address the OP specifically, I would still object to this premise-

The logic was that the more these bands fit in with what was playing on the radio, the more someone like me would feel comfortable passing their album on to my non-Christian friends (supposing I’d had any), giving them a chance to hear the gospel.

[Larry] I am not sure that we can dogmatically say it is “sans melody” (though you get extra credit for the word “sans”).

Yeah for me!

I think what we end up with is a pattern, or perhaps a perceived pattern, in the primary method with which the Gospel should be communicated?

Generally, I agree. I am opposed, generally speaking, to the use of music for evangelism.

To continue to address the OP specifically, I would still object to this premise-

As do I.

Lee, I’ll let Larry’s reply stand in for the long monologue I was going to write over lunch. However, I would like to point out that, as a regular attender at Mount Calvary for the better part of five years, the concept of music and preaching both (and praying, if memory serves) as “prophesying” is a concept I picked up straight from Mark Minnick’s pulpit. Consequently, in reference to the extended quote you have from him, I think that could easily describe the function of a gospel singer. So, like you, I wouldn’t say music is to be the primary method of conveying the Gospel. I happen to think “preaching” (or more generically, instructional speech from one person to one or more other people, so defined as to include personal evangelism) is the primary means of conveying the Gospel. But as a musician myself and knowing the power of music to lodge itself in the hearts and minds of men, I simply can’t see *not* using music as a means of conveying the gospel message, both to the lost and the saved. Arguing that music should not occupy any sort of prominent place in the grand scheme of the presentation of the Gospel because it’s not present in the accounts in Acts or the Synoptics is merely arguing from silence.

Semi-random thought- we take for granted the necessity of teachers and preachers to meet certain qualifications of knowledge, character, maturity, etc… So, should those who compose and perform music for church services also meet similar qualifications, if they are, indeed, tasked to be purveyors of the Gospel?

Er… is this a topic for another thread?