"Matt Ols[o]n would do well to eject, but it may cost him his school"

So, when was the zenith of Christendom? The 16 or 1700’s ?

Must we encapsulate only that musical style as the only kind worthy of using in worship?

[WilliamD]

So, when was the zenith of Christendom? The 16 or 1700’s ?

Must we encapsulate only that musical style as the only kind worthy of using in worship?

Great questions.

Let me say, first„ that I think Christendom was a bad idea. The union of church and state was misguided and unwise.

However, in the providence of God it happened, and among many negative results, it did allow for the development of musical forms that well-express the transcendence of God and moral virtues fitting for the worship of God.

But the primary negative result of Christendom that I see is that it lulled the church into thinking that “looking like the world” is the accepted biblical norm.

What many today fail to recognize, however, is that we did not look like the world during Christendom, the world looked like us.

And when that happens (and it still does happen in pockets today by the grace of God)—when the world borrows from biblical values and thereby produces something that is good and fitting for Christian life and worship—then there is no problem with “looking like the world” in those respects, only I think we should recognize that we are not borrowing from them; they are borrowing from us.

But today, as Christian values continue to fade away in the public square, it is more than ever important that we realize that that cultural conditions are once again returning to a similar state as that in which the early church found itself. And the response of the early church fathers to those conditions? They universally rejected the use of pagan music in their worship. I highly recommend Calvin Stapert’s book on this point, A New Song for an Old World. He demonstrates that, although there was much disagreement between the church fathers, they all agreed about rejecting pagan music—music that expressed pagan worship values, that debased the morals, and than manipulated the passions.

Christendom lulled us into complacency. We are in exile once again, my friends.

Only this time, we don’t know it.

1) basically, yes, what anti-ccm, anti-pop culture music people are saying is that we have to go back to that time period of musical expression. Think cathedral.

2) this is problematical for those who have experienced worshipping God through a musical form/expression that is not in the OK-ed, cathedral-style list.

it’s confusing.

because:

not everything on the OK list raises my heart in worship to God. Some does.

some songs on the not-OK list raise my heart in worship to God, but not all (or even many perhaps).

So this is very confusing.

To say, categorically, that all music in the not-OK box doesn’t honor God …

is not an acceptable answer in people’s varied experiences.

I highly recommend Calvin Stapert’s book on this point, A New Song for an Old World. He demonstrates that, although there was much disagreement between the church fathers, they all agreed about rejecting pagan music—music that expressed pagan worship values, that debased the morals, and than manipulated the passions.

True, but as I learned in seminary, just about every church father struggled with platonic thinking, even though they were fighting against it. They lacked a robust doctrine of creation theology (which, like nowadays often leads to a functional dualism) to be able to discern the good from the bad.

As you know, the creation of music in Genesis 4 came through the ungodly line of Cain through Jubal……you know, the line that refused to worship God, and created a culture of depravity and debased morals? I might be able to buy your argument had it come through the godly line of Seth. But God, in his providence and common grace, demonstrates once again the goodness of his creation, even when humanity completely twists and perverts culture due to the depravity of their hearts…….

Anne- Maybe I shouldn’t have used the word Christendom because of all the political baggage, and an attempted copying of past cultures no matter how great they were can end up looking “kitschy”. My point was to give an example of the fact that cultures reflect their metaphysical dreams, and those worldviews are to greater or lesser degrees Christian or compatible with Christianity. Therefore their forms are more or less compatible with Christianity. I’m saying not all music is infinitely adaptable to Christianity.

[Scott Aniol]

Let me say, first„ that I think Christendom was a bad idea. The union of church and state was misguided and unwise.

However, in the providence of God it happened, and among many negative results, it did allow for the development of musical forms that well-express the transcendence of God and moral virtues fitting for the worship of God.

Full stop.

How do you know that these forms that you cannot have heard (unless you’re 400-500 years old, which I kind of doubt) expressed moral virtues fitting for the worship of God? Where did you find that in the Bible?

See, this is what I mean when I refer to Sola Scriptura as sufficient for matters of faith and practice.

But the primary negative result of Christendom that I see is that it lulled the church into thinking that “looking like the world” is the accepted biblical norm.

What many today fail to recognize, however, is that we did not look like the world during Christendom, the world looked like us.

And when that happens (and it still does happen in pockets today by the grace of God)—when the world borrows from biblical values and thereby produces something that is good and fitting for Christian life and worship—then there is no problem with “looking like the world” in those respects, only I think we should recognize that we are not borrowing from them; they are borrowing from us.

Scott - when has the ‘world’ by which I mean the unsaved and unregenerate kosmos - ever wanted to look like or act like the redeemed people of God? Doesn’t that kind of fly in the face of Biblical teachings like Romans 1 (for starters?)

I seem to recall that the light came into the world, and the world hated it (John 3:18-20)

But today, as Christian values continue to fade away in the public square, it is more than ever important that we realize that that cultural conditions are once again returning to a similar state as that in which the early church found itself. And the response of the early church fathers to those conditions? They universally rejected the use of pagan music in their worship. I highly recommend Calvin Stapert’s book on this point, A New Song for an Old World. He demonstrates that, although there was much disagreement between the church fathers, they all agreed about rejecting pagan music—music that expressed pagan worship values, that debased the morals, and than manipulated the passions.

Christendom lulled us into complacency. We are in exile once again, my friends.

Only this time, we don’t know it.

We’ve always been in exile, friend. Friendship with the world is to be the enemy of God, remember? We are exiles according to 1 Peter 2:10-12 and Hebrews 11:12-14. If you are here to argue that people love CCM because they grew up on the world’s music and want to use that for worship, you don’t know the pro-CCM arguments very well.

Furthermore, we are not here to save the culture. We are here to preach the Gospel to an world that hates it. Trying to restore a culture (any culture, especially those of the 1700’s) is a great way to be sidetracked.

Again, my point was not we should attempt some restoration of the 17th and 18th centuries, but simply using that time period to illustrate that what a people believe, good or bad, gives birth to cultural forms. And following from Sola Scriptura and the responsibility it lays on us, we have to ask what cultural forms mean before employing them in the worship of God, and further, welcoming their influence in our lives. Don’t blame Scott for anything I say, but I’ve found his pointing to the broader conversation that exists about music and meaning helpful in that evaluation.

Jay-I agree the Christian goal is not culture-shaping directly, but having a culture is unavoidable. The only way our culture will resemble some past culture is that we believe, love, and feel they same way they did. Because orthodoxy in those areas is of prime importance, I think we are well-served to identify within past cultures those forms that facilitated that which we truly want to emulate. This will involve making correct judgments about culture within Sola Scriptura.

[Tim Emslie] Jay-I agree the Christian goal is not culture-shaping directly, but having a culture is unavoidable. The only way our culture will resemble some past culture is that we believe, love, and feel they same way they did. Because orthodoxy in those areas is of prime importance, I think we are well-served to identify within past cultures those forms that facilitated that which we truly want to emulate. This will involve making correct judgments about culture within Sola Scriptura.

Tim -

I understand your point - I’m not saying that culture is neutral or that we can develop music without a culture. I just don’t understand where the certainty that “some forms of culture are the best” argument comes from and why it seems to be so incredibly critical for pro-traditional music people’s arguments. Does it actually come from what the Bible teaches, or does it come from a desire to emulate those things we see as the best or appropriate forms of culture (Choral music, violin music, etc?).

I’m not even opposed to people saying that they think X specific culture is best. I just don’t want to structure corporate worship in a context of someone else’s preferences without some kind of substantial theological underpinning. My preference is for a more traditional worship service, but I can’t argue that my preferences should govern worship in the universal church for all time.

Individually, there are songs, and a lot of them, where I am moved to individual worship or to pray or consider God, but those songs don’t sound like traditional music styles. A lot of those songs that I enjoy are simply remakes of more traditional hymns (like this one) So why should I believe that these hymns are ‘bad’ because it doesn’t sound like something that meets the definition of ‘culture’?

If the chief end of man is to “glorify God and enjoy Him forever”, to “love Him with all the heart, soul, and mind”, and to “[keep] these words that I command you today…on your heart” - then I don’t see why I need to worry about ‘culture’ in music, especially culture from hundreds of years ago that existed long before I was even thought about. That’s a tall enough order.

I don’t see why I need to worry about ‘culture’ in music, especially culture from hundreds of years ago that existed long before I was even thought about.

For the same reason you worry about the work of theologians from hundreds of years ago. Our orthodoxy and orthopraxis are not cut from whole cloth with each generation. Rather, there is a tradition in which we follow and upon which we build. Why would we think orthopathy should not be pursued the same way?

Do I really worry about the work of theologians from hundreds of years ago? I don’t think that I have mentioned them at all in this discussion.

As I said before - church history and systematic theologies are helpful. They don’t serve to sanctify me or make me more like Christ. They don’t cause me to hate sin - only the Bible does that. And the Bible, as we’d all agree, is the final authority for all matters of faith and practice. It is sufficient in and of itself. Culture and history serve as guides - not straitjackets (and I don’t like that term because of the loaded connotations that it carries). They assure me that I’m still on the right path and serve as useful warnings of what people have done wrong and the results.

I’m not arguing to divorce the past from theology - I’m arguing that we do not have to add something to music to ‘sanctify’ it and make it pleasing to the Lord. I think that’s the crux of our disagreement…I think that it is good, even commendable, to take hymns and update them for use with newer and more modern presentations. I think that it is entirely possible to be moved by doctrine and write songs that include drums and electric guitars. I think that the Bible is sufficient in and of itself for all these things. On the other hand, I think that there is a tremendous amount of ‘modern music’ that is awful or even heretical that is popular in ‘Christian’ circles.

To put it another way - I don’t see an explicit ban in the Bible for anything relating to music styles or instrumentation, and because of that, I have a real problem with bolting ‘culture’ to ‘music’. If I were to write a formula, it might look like this:

Bible = acceptable music that is pleasing to the Lord (My argument)

Bible + sanctified culture = acceptable music that is pleasing to the Lord (traditional argument)

I see lots of admonitions about new songs and singing and making music and making melody, but I’m still not sure why we have to go back and draw on ‘sanctified music’ or ‘sanctified culture’. I utterly reject the idea that the 1700s-1800s were the zenith for Christendom/Christianity (as someone else noted), unless you want to talk geopolitics, which I think is outside of the realm of this particular discussion. :)

Appreciate the back and forth with you all (and a few PMs that I’ve gotten as well). I’m trying to avoid arguing for my ‘style’ of music as much as trying to make sense of these ideas and create better discernment.

Bible = acceptable music that is pleasing to the Lord (My argument)

So what are the straight from scripture principles you use to evaluate whether music (not the words, just the notes) is acceptable and pleasing to the Lord?

Here are some quick areas that I came up of without thinking too hard; I don’t have time to pull up the Bible verses:

1. What does it teach about God?

2. Is it appropriate for the occasion?

3. Does it motivate me to worship?

4. Does it line up with Bible teaching (edit - added this)?

5. Does is magnify God, His Works, or His Character (edit - added this)?

5. If in a corporate setting - Is it understandable for the congregation (those offering worship to God)?

6. If in a corporate setting - Is it singable for the group (or are people going to get frustrated and not be able to sing)?

Here’s a reply question for you - in what other area of Christian faith and practice would we insist that culture must inform our practice?

Re: #1, how do you apply that to the music apart from the words?

Re: #3, in what other area of Christian faith and practice to we allow the subjective response of individuals to inform our practice?

Re: #4, are you referring to the music alone or words with this question?

I’m not talking about culture informing our practices so much as properly discerning the usefulness of cultural idiom. No one here (if I can be so bold) is arguing for a permanent installation of 18th century forms only and forever in church. No one here is saying that if it’s in Majesty Hymns it is AOK and if it isn’t, it’s satanic.

[DavidO]

Re: #3, in what other area of Christian faith and practice to we allow the subjective response of individuals to inform our practice?

Anne,

Thanks for the thoughts, but that question isn’t really mine, I borrowed it.