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

[Jay]

That’s why I keep going back to what is the message of the song. Does it line up with the Bible? In this case, I can argue - yes, it does, because it lines up almost perfectly with Matthew 7:24-27. There are songs that I’ve liked because I liked the sound of them, but I won’t listen to them any more because the message doesn’t line up with the Bible.

That being said, I’m probably far more discerning about this than most. So I hope that’s helpful to you.

Music is a medium of communication. Every song with lyrics has at least 2 (hopefully) coherent messages to it—the musical one and the lyrical one. Otherwise there would be no point in wrapping music around a poem. It has absolute ability to stand on its own. Its ability to communicate its message would not be enhanced by the music leaving only the opportunity to be effectively diminished by the music. (not a goal of communication at any level).

If the lyrical message and the musical message are not coherent, at best you wind up with nonsense (nursery rhymes come to mind as good examples of incoherent [conflicting] lyrics and melody).

IOW, is it not somewhat disingenuous to state “what is the message of the song” and disregard at least half of the message as a non-issue?

Lee

[Brenda T]

On my shelf is The Encyclopedia of Music written by Max Wade-Matthews and Wendy Thompson. They are not anti-CCM people and they tell me on p. 77 that rock ‘n’ roll is “synonymous with rebellion.” According to secular musicologists rock = rebellion. There appears to be a cognitive dissonance in using a language or form of rebellion in the worship of God. That’s why I’ve been trying to find out how the Bible informs or endorses the use of rock style music in the worship of the Lord.

I Cor. 10 concludes a lengthy discussion on idolatry and immorality, clarifying the mandates passed down by the Jerusalem council (Acts 15). Paul’s basic conclusion about both immorality and idolatry is to “flee” (I Cor. 6:18; I Cor. 10:14) with follow-up instructions on how to flee (most of chap. 7 and remainder of chap. 10).

Referencing idolatry, the final conclusion is that any vestige of the culturally prevalent idolatry (“meat offered unto idols”) is to be rejected out of hand (“eat not”) as soon as affirmation that it has that association (“if any man say unto you This is offered in sacrifice unto idols”), even though it may have become a normal part of commerce (“sold in the shambles”) or custom (“bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go”).

Furthermore, it informs you that all that is necessary to identify its idolatrous ties is the affirmation of “any man”, and in this particular situation it is the affirmation of an informed unbeliever.

And Paul also gives the why to reject it immediately—as a testimony to the unbeliever (“for his sake that showed it”), and because it is a right or wrong issue (“for conscience sake”).

Is not rebellion idolatry (I Sam 15:23)? Has “any man,” even an informed unbeliever, affirmed a connection with a culturally prevalent idolatry?

Why is it even necessary to have a discussion as to whether we should be bringing this into the church?

Lee

regarding your Casting Crowns example:

My main objection is that it pales next to Harry Chapin’s “Cat’s in the Cradle” which made some of the same points, but more poignantly. :)

Seriously, I’d offer two critiques. First, it’s barely Christian. That’s not a big deal to me in and of itself as I don’t suspect you’d advocate its inclusion in worship, but rather personal listening. By barely Christian, I mean it’s not really inconsistent with Christian thought, but it doesn’t make any boldly Christian points either, onlyfrom one hazy allusion and a “life without God” line. Its more moralism than anything else.

Second, the appeal it does make is purely sentimental, made with the stock/cliche images of children left without a parent because he’s working too long and hard with the wrong objective. It doesn’t enlarge understanding or perception, it just pushes the standard buttons and we are to respond with canned emotions. In other words, it’s poor art. David deBruyn did a good series on this at RAM that I implore you to read. He gives examples to judge and compare. It’s really helpful.

But none of this addresses what we were originally talking about. You said that you don’t think forms (by which I took you to mean musical forms apart from the words) are neutral. I asked how you judge musical forms (apart from the words) as appropriate for church or not. You responded with a list that applies primarily to the words only. Can you help me understand your principles better?

BrendaT - OK, so it references Matthew 7. It also references a bunch of other Biblical concepts.

[DavidO]

regarding your Casting Crowns example:

My main objection is that it pales next to Harry Chapin’s “Cat’s in the Cradle” which made some of the same points, but more poignantly. :)

OK, I’ll give you that one, having heard both the old version and the one that came out in the ’90s. :D

Excursus - Yes, I have heard both versions. I heard the ’90s version in high school, shortly before I got saved, and liked it tremendously. Imagine my surprise when my public school English teacher brought the older version of song in and played it for us in class, and then encouraged us to sing along to it because she was making a different point (which of course I have now forgotten).

Seriously, I’d offer two critiques. First, it’s barely Christian. That’s not a big deal to me in and of itself as I don’t suspect you’d advocate its inclusion in worship, but rather personal listening. By barely Christian, I mean it’s not really inconsistent with Christian thought, but it doesn’t make any boldly Christian points either, only from one hazy allusion and a “life without God” line. Its more moralism than anything else.

Correct. One of my bigger frustrations with modern ‘Christian’ music (which is a whole different thread) is that it’s so broad that some of it seems to define “Christian” as “anyone who likes the idea of God”. A lot of Crowns’ newer stuff, in particular, is becoming extraordinarily broad and bland, so much so that I don’t actually listen to them that much anymore. That song was the first one that popped into my head, so I used it. For that matter, so do many of the older and most well loved hymns/gospel songs, so that sword cuts both ways. As an aside - I’m finding that what I’m really attracted to is remakes of hymns and slower, more contemplative “Christian” music like some of the songs on the “Jesus Firm FoundationCD. Not as much the hard ‘rock’ music that I initially got into and grew up on.

I think some of that is that artists want a lot of people to listen and buy their music, so why include something specific like dispensationalism or trinitarianism that would offend potential buyers? PC&D was one of the first groups that I actually started listening to, and I had no idea that they were modalists until about 6-8 months later when I saw a reference to it on PyroManiacs. I wish Christians of our kind would write more music that was meatier, and I’ve complained/commiserated with musicians and friends in my church about it.

Of course, some people would find out it was dispensational and stop right there anyway. :)

Second, the appeal it does make is purely sentimental, made with the stock/cliche images of children left without a parent because he’s working too long and hard with the wrong objective. It doesn’t enlarge understanding or perception, it just pushes the standard buttons and we are to respond with canned emotions. In other words, it’s poor art. David deBruyn did a good series on this at RAM that I implore you to read. He gives examples to judge and compare. It’s really helpful.

I will read the deBruyn piece. Sounds interesting.

Maybe the song has more resonance with me because I have a lengthy commute to work than most, because I have a tendency towards overwork, and because I have a few friends that have sacrificed ministry and family for materialism.

I would disagree, however, with the ‘enlarging understanding or perception’ part - there are songs in the OT that do not ‘enlarge understanding or perception’ that are part of the canon (Arguably Exodus 15:1-18, 21; Psalm 130, 131, 133, etc). So do we exclude them too?

But none of this addresses what we were originally talking about. You said that you don’t think forms (by which I took you to mean musical forms apart from the words) are neutral. I asked how you judge musical forms (apart from the words) as appropriate for church or not. You responded with a list that applies primarily to the words only. Can you help me understand your principles better?

Good question. Let me chew on that and get back to you.

"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

Here are some comparisons to consider. DavidO has directed us to consider Pastor DeBruyn’s comparison of lyrics, so I’d like to propose a comparison of tunes using identical lyrics. People make musical choices based on tune — especially when the text does not change. What Biblical principles inform us as to which of the following examples would be best for declaring praise, worship, and adoration of our King?

(Sorry for all the links, I didn’t know how to embed the videos into the comment)

Casting Crowns — especially for Jay

http://youtu.be/zrOlXLeWJQ4

Chris Tomlin — because he’s currently popular

http://youtu.be/B-sTNKV0HvE

George Strait — for the country folk

http://youtu.be/1GKfuU8UDBs

Go Fish — because, well, I don’t know why

http://youtu.be/uY03LAOc1ro

Mormon Tabernacle Choir — the token traditional rendition

http://youtu.be/IIhnfo_TpFI

Which choice is best/biblical musically?

Just a suggestion: with Brenda T’s examples don’t ask, “Which of these sounds most joyful?” Ask instead, “If this song were to function as the processional music for the coming King, what would his arrival look like?”

[Michael Riley]

Just a suggestion: with Brenda T’s examples don’t ask, “Which of these sounds most joyful?” Ask instead, “If this song were to function as the processional music for the coming King, what would his arrival look like?”

Why?

Must joy look like this?


Seriously - would we ever equate ‘joy’ with ‘what Jesus’ return will look like’ outside of a musical context? Does joy have to look like that, or can it look like a kid throwing herself at her daddy when he gets off the plane home from Iraq? I’m pretty sure the “joy of the Lord, which is my strength”, doesn’t look like the return of the King. For another question, why does my joy have to look like what Michael or Brenda want it to look like?

This is where their arguments begin to break down, in my opinion.

Besides, we all know that Jesus will return like a thief in the night. There won’t be any time for songs - they will come after!

PS - haven’t heard the Crowns rendition, but I like the Tomlin one. The other stuff I’m not going to deal with.

"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

Jay,

I really wasn’t aiming to make a deep or controversial point here. The song text itself is about the King’s coming to establish of the theocratic kingdom. I was just asking us to consider which of these songs best imagines the event that the song is about.

I agree with you: there are a host of different kinds of joys, and these joys are suitable for different occasions.

I wasn’t asking what people liked or preferred (from a musical taste standpoint) nor was I declaring what anyone else’s joy should look like.

[Michael Riley]

Just a suggestion: with Brenda T’s examples don’t ask, “Which of these sounds most joyful?” Ask instead, “If this song were to function as the processional music for the coming King, what would his arrival look like?”

Well, as it so happens, a King returning is one thing we do have scriptural descriptions of — for example, when David returned with the Ark of the covenant and there was dancing in the streets. (And no, I’m not trying to equate David’s dancing with modern dancing). Maybe the procession of a King may look quite different than British or European traditions would tell us.

Dave Barnhart

Dave,

I definitely would not wish to argue that British/European monarchial practices are our standard.

Just a few points:

  • Nit-picking here: the passage you reference is not so much about the return of the king, but the return of the Ark (although it appears that David accompanies the Ark). That said, with the Ark symbolizing God’s presence among his people, I certainly wouldn’t consider it an irrelevant example to this discussion.
  • Not all “comings of the king” are of the same sort, obviously. Sometimes the king comes in peace; sometimes he does not. The issue here is the kind of coming described for us in “Joy to the World.”
  • So, to reiterate my earlier question, I am not (at this point arguing for anything). I’m simply asking, if we were to choreograph a king’s entrance to each of these settings of Watts’s text, what would that entrance look like?

Marsilius,

Let me further define what I mean when I say that the early church fathers did not have a robust doctrine of creation. The key word I use is robust. True, they did at times utilize the doctrine of creation when arguing against Gnosticism and other heresies that were popping up at the time. As you well know, over time the doctrine of creation has developed, and that’s a good thing. Otherwise, we’d be still be believing nonsense such as that “image” and “likeness” of God were two separate entities: image referring to man’s natural qualities and likeness referring to man’s moral qualities like Iranaeus and most of the early church fathers.

We’d also have a very limited understanding of common grace. Fortunately, we start seeing Calvin, Edwards, and Hodges and then later Bavinck and Kuyper develop this aspect of the doctrine of creation in light of man’s depravity. So even though I appreciate what has written by Stapert (I have the book in my library and read it last year), I also take it with a grain of salt because I don’t believe the early church fathers embraced a robust doctrine of creation. And a more or a less-than robust doctrine of creation, especially in common grace does influence how we view “worldliness.”

[Jay] Seriously - would we ever equate ‘joy’ with ‘what Jesus’ return will look like’ outside of a musical context?

I’m sure painters and poets have had to make artistic decisions about such things as well.

[Chip Van Emmerik]

The Redeemed itinerary had this entry: 03/22 Peter Furler Concert Manitowoc WI

Never hear of Peter, so I Wiki’d him…

Peter Andrew Furler (born 8 September 1966) is an Australian musician, songwriter, producer, and record executive but is best known as the former lead singer for the Christian rock band Newsboys.

and visited his website.

I guess I am growing less and less comfortable with this apparent new music direction at NIU.

The Newsboys are still around? They were popular when I was at Northland, although all of their CDs were banned from being in the dorm at the time.

"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

They’re still around, but they have a new lead singer — Michael Tait, formerly of DC Talk. Peter Furler is solo now.

Not that I pay any attention to CCM.