John Vaughn (FBFI President/CEO): "one thing is clear: this video ends the fiction that 'Northland has not changed.'”

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?

Well, I’m not really sure I can.

When believers meet for corporate worship, they come as the primary participants that are coming to give praise to God (not to be entertained, as our seeker-sensitive acquaintances would argue). Preaching is also a major part of that. So anything that threatens their ability to do so (their unity - see Ephesians 2-4) becomes a major issue and possibly even a ‘threat’ to that which should be the goal. That ties in nicely with why the NT seems to be emphatic about threats to the church unity and how to deal with them (the separation arguments). I think you and I agree on that.

So if the music itself (not the lyrics, which we’ve discussed already) are too hard to follow, too loud, too fast, are not intelligible, or something like that, then it becomes an issue that hinders the worship and glory of God - something HE doesn’t take lightly either.

Of course, that shoe has to fit on the other foot as well - if I’m the one consistently standing up and demanding traditional music to the point that it disrupts the unity of the church or hinders worship - then we need to either expel the unbeliever (in the most dire cases - I can’t imagine that this would be all that common), separate amiably (as in Acts 15:39), or learn to work together in harmony (pun intended) despite our differences.

Hope that is helpful to you. I know it’s not dealing with music (as in the noise), but it’s the best I could come up with.

[Greg Linscott] To me, it seems that trying to resolve the music issue in threads like this is an exercise in futility. It’s not that the issues aren’t important, but even if a few are convinced here, countless others will remain unconvinced, and it won’t answer the matter at hand. I understand that matter to be: is there room to work alongside those with whom we strongly disagree on this issue?

For example: could Dan McGhee have Bauder in to preach in a conference? Could Scott Aniol send his kids to a week of camp where Jay was the activity director? Could Brenda’s church have a missionary in whose kids listened to “Go Fish”? That kind of a thing.

Practically speaking, that is the question that will not be going away for any of us in the foreseeable future.

Greg,

Good post. REALLY good post. I think there is - but only if they’re willing to work with me in return, which is the frustrating thing.

I was thinking about this thread yesterday, and I have to admit that I’ve reached the point where:

1. I’m never going to make some people change their minds. I knew that going into it, though :)

2. I’m flat out unwilling to serve as a “Fundamentalist Emperor” that tells people what is and isn’t acceptable (which is why I cited 1 Cor. 10 and Romans 14 in a different thread). I have a real problem with that kind of behavior, but I understand the longing to have someone just tell me what is and isn’t acceptable. (Ties in to works-salvation, doesn’t it? Maybe we’re all Catholics at heart?) That role belongs to the Bible and the Holy Spirit, not any man…certainly not me.

3. I’m tired of debating it. Yes, I know - doesn’t seem like that was possible, huh?

If anyone here has thought about their standards and underlying foundational precepts, I think I’ve achieved my goal, but I really just want to step away for a little while, take a deep breath, and relax. So I’m going to do that.

Besides - this thread is really supposed to be about Northland anyway. :)

"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

What if (kind of like Genesis 11:9). God struck every Christian and …

  • Everyone could sing like Jim Peet (basically tone deaf and I cannot sing well … I can sing loud but you don’t want to hear it)
  • Everyone could play the piano or clarinet (I took lessons for about 2 years … ) like Jim Peet (I play the clarinet like I play pool)

So in my new Stephen King “Under the Dome” kind of world .. no one has any musical talent.

Kind of science fiction so let’s simply it a bit

Consider a small country church. The pastor does not have any musical talent. There is one old lady who thinks she can play the organ but she is really heavy on the pedal.

Can those people worship?

Dan,

I have presented lengthy documents on the specificity you desire in “Music That Glorifies God” (32 pages), “The Beauty of God” and “Toward Biblical Music Standards” . Last fall I presented a dozen messages on the subject. I can’t present them here. On account of the fact that our computers at church don’t allow UTUBE, I was unable to listen to your examples. I will take your word for it.

Aside from the fact that rap/hip-hop has very little melodic quality, is predominantly rhythmic as opposed to melodic and harmonic, has very poor poetical quality (when compared to OT and NT poetry), and is clearly associated with the most negative aspects of urban culture, I would not desire to encourage our congregation in that style of music knowing that nearly all of the secular music in that genre is profoundly evil. Of course, I am not suggesting at all that your examples are evil in their lyrical content. The medium in my judgment is not worthy of the message and is practically impossible for corporate worship. I am not questioning the motives of the artists nor their personal commitment to the gospel. I am questioning the wisdom of using such a medium for the gospel. We are to walk in a manner worthy of the gospel and we are to adorn the gospel.

Greg,

As usual you ask the most difficult questions. My answer thus far is that I have withheld ecclesiastical common cause with those who egregiously violate what I believe to be biblical principles of music and worship. Yes it is a judgment call. This is difficult for me. Even in this current discussion I have been either youth pastor and/or pastor of Scott Aniol, Mike Riley, and Dan McGhee—all very fine men and good pastors/teachers. Theologically, we are all very close to the same page. At the very least I can say that there are areas of disagreement here between Christian brothers that would limit my ecclesiastical participation. A fundamental seminary president has said that music is not necessarily a separation issue per se. I understand fully where he is coming from and may I add that he takes a conservative position on worship music for his seminary. For me, however, it can be a separation issue and has been. Perhaps as Riley said it is a matter of degree.

Pastor Mike Harding

Yes, they can. :)

Now I tread in dangerous territory - they can worship with kazoos instead, if they have no organ :)

"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

I’m not saying it isn’t ever a factor. I’m just observing that it there is room for cooperation on various levels. Mike H: let’s say your church supports a missionary with Baptist Mid-Missions. He agrees with you on music. However, his fellow BMM field council member (whom you don’t support directly ) does not. In some small way, at least, you share fellowship and cooperation with someone who differs with you on this- or, to use your term, you share “ecclesiastical common cause.”

I certainly would have no problem, say, avoiding sending my kids to a week of camp and selecting another if I knew that Chris Tomlin-style P&W would dominate the week’s chapel services. I don’t necessarily think that means I would have to stop supporting a missionary the church overseeing the camp music that week was the sending church for- or, to make it more uncomfortable, I wouldn’t encourage the missionary our church sent out to reject the funds they sent to support his efforts.

Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN

[Mike Harding]

The medium in my judgment is not worthy of the message and is practically impossible for corporate worship. I am not questioning the motives of the artists nor their personal commitment to the gospel. I am questioning the wisdom of using such a medium for the gospel. We are to walk in a manner worthy of the gospel and we are to adorn the gospel.

Mike, the underlined portion of your statement reveals the actual core, yes, even the VERY HEART of the debate in this area. As you’ve stated, your issue is with the “medium” used to communicate the message. I would agree with you that in most contexts this would be a difficult medium to use for corporate worship music, but I can’t say that it would be sinful in every context. I don’t even think that Shai would argue that this medium ought to be the only form used in a worship context. But, as an introduction to a sermon series regarding false teachers? Well, I can see it used that way in a given context. For the believer to be edified/encouraged/trained in discernment while in his car driving to work? For sure I can see it used there.

But the larger question involves definitions of words like beauty, loveliness, holiness, etc., and this is where I contend that we will never find agreement specifically as it applies to various styles/genres of music. Why? Because God’s Word has not given us those specifics. So my plea to you is simply this: stop making this a matter of separation from good brothers.

Since you can’t do this now, please go listen to the links I added to that post. Shai Linne cares about the Gospel, and not only is he willing to separate over it, he is willing to call out those who preach a false one. He does it, through a medium, that I believe beautifully, creatively, and powerfully adorns his message of calling out false teachers.

Love you, brother.

Dan,

Hypothetical: suppose there was a preacher whose doctrine was sound, but whose manner of preaching was that of a stand-up comic. Or, perhaps, that of the stereotypical hollering evangelist. I suspect that we’d agree that, in both cases, the manner of delivery of the text either subtly or deeply undermines what is being said. Of course, the degree of this will vary, given the passage/topic being addressed, etc.

Would you intentionally avoid that kind of preaching, either as a guest in your pulpit, or at conference you might promote? And on what grounds?

MPR makes a good comparison, I think. I would object to the preaching styles in question and would not promote the event, but again, I wouldn’t encourage the missionary our church sent out to reject the funds that church sent to support his efforts.

Limited fellowship does not mean cutting off all fellowship.

Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN

These last several posts have been very helpful to me because that is essentially where the rubber meets the road on this issue for me. I have stated that I am not willing to make music a separation issue, yet in practice to an extent I have because I would much rather send my kids to a camp with traditional music (all other things being equal). Does that make me a hypocrite or just practical? I believe it is just being practical. At the same time, I am not willing to separate from a brother who made a different choice about where to send his kids if music is the only issue. That is why I think it is good to let us know what is happening at Northland so we can make decisions accordingly, I just am not convinced it is as big of an issue as some people think.

Michael, I think you have a very good point in your last post as well, but it also brings to mind Philippians 1:16-18.

I have long argued that we use the term “separation” too much. We should separate from false teachers (not necessarily as easy as it sounds). We should “note that man, and have no company with him” when someone is disobedient, but treat him as a brother — limited fellowship.

Perhaps a fine distinction, but one that I think is important.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

[Michael Riley]

Dan,

Hypothetical: suppose there was a preacher whose doctrine was sound, but whose manner of preaching was that of a stand-up comic. Or, perhaps, that of the stereotypical hollering evangelist. I suspect that we’d agree that, in both cases, the manner of delivery of the text either subtly or deeply undermines what is being said. Of course, the degree of this will vary, given the passage/topic being addressed, etc.

Would you intentionally avoid that kind of preaching, either as a guest in your pulpit, or at conference you might promote? And on what grounds?

Mike,

These are great questions and I’m glad that you asked them. Now, let me give it my best answer. First, I’ve heard preaching all my life that would fit into either category :-) Sometimes I have found even the two extremes you cited to be beneficial. But, again, this depends upon the context as well. And, doesn’t so much of one’s “style” of preaching depend upon one’s own personality, experiences, and training? Southerners tend to preach differently than those from the North East. Those in small rural towns will preach with a different style than someone preaching consistently in the heart of Detroit.

If a man believes and preaches the Gospel, I could find his ministry to be beneficial to myself and people in my church, even if his particular style isn’t necessarily my preferred method of delivery. In fact, some may find his style to be especially helpful to them, and maybe, even more helpful than my own style/method at times. You see, I think people appreciate variety of style and approach in delivery as long as the substance and content is solid and sound.

Now, having said that, here is where I think the crux of the difference comes into play as we use your analogy of styles (methods of delivery) in preaching with musical styles/genres.

Keeping with your analogy, the problem I have had over the years is NOT with those who say, “You know, I really don’t prefer a hollering southerner to preach in my pulpit to our people, so I’m not going invite that guy to my church to preach.” My issue is with groups like the FBF and many others who have said, “You know, I don’t prefer a hollering southerner preaching in my church, and furthermore, I think hollering is sinful and wrong in the pulpit. It doesn’t meet God’s standards of beauty and loveliness, and furthermore, it doesn’t adorn the Gospel of Christ.” So, what do they do? Well, they get in a cloistered room and write RESOLUTION #13 against “the sinful practice of hollering southern preachers.” Not content to leave it a matter of preference, these men go on the offensive and make it a matter of right vs. wrong, and in so doing, have caused an unnecessary spirit of divisiveness within the body of Christ.

but what if the matter truly is a matter of conviction (conscience) and not preference? Going beyond Riley’s example, and using your own words, is it legitimate to credit Vaughn, FBFI, et.al.’s motives as actually only being a preference, when they seem to project that they are driven by conviction?

SamH

[Brent Marshall]
1. How would you complete this sentence: “Scripture clearly and forcefully says that the substance and content must be ….”? I am thinking of the primary attributes of right substance/content. What do you think they are?

2. How is substance or content a different matter than musical style?

Since Dan doesn’t want to answer these, I’ll take a stab at it.

1. Philippians 4:8 would give a pretty good answer to this one. It’s not a complete or comprehensive treatment of all scripture has to say on this point, but it’s a pretty good starting point.

However, I doubt that anyone involved in this discussion believes that content should be different from being true, honest, just, pure, lovely, or of good report. Obviously, any lyrical content falls in this jurisdiction. The disagreement is in the music itself.

2. How are content and substance different from style? For one thing, I’ve never seen a solid treatment discussing how musical style can be directly mapped to concepts like truth, honesty, and justice. The few arguments I’ve seen that even start basically talk about mapping certain musical concepts to emotions, but not only is that something that’s also pretty much agreed on, it’s not very helpful.

If you take the so-called “negative” emotions like anger, jealousy, hatred, and derisiveness, God expresses those, so they all have a righteous component as well. God never has fear, of course, but even that emotion has a positive aspect for us — “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.” So mapping music simply to emotions is not particularly helpful, as we have no way to discern, for example, righteous anger vs the unrighteous kind in music itself.

But once you get past emotions, abstract concepts are practically impossible to map to sounds. That’s why something like truth or honesty is not something that even those who truly believe in intrinsic musical value are able to say with certainty is part of a song or isn’t.

Where this gets interesting (at least for me) would be in the 2nd half of the things we should think on in Phil 4:8, which would be purity, loveliness, and things of good report. I see music that is too closely associated with worldly styles as not being able to fit the “good report” category, at least until far removed in time. Clearly, those in the more “progressive” camp have a different take on this. Loveliness is harder, because we don’t all see the same kind of loveliness in everything. I’m certain that God has a standard of what he believes is lovely, but he hasn’t told us that for all things. Many times we can determine something that is truly ugly, but once you get a little ways from that, the perception of beauty goes in many directions. And of course, on top of that, our perception can certainly be a problem because of the curse.

Purity of something like music can be even harder than loveliness, or at least in the same general area of difficulty. I can hear something, and “feel” that it is somehow impure, but I can’t always come up with a good reason why it is or must be.

All of the 6 categories from Philippians 4:8 can be easily determined with something like lyrics, but cannot as easily be determined with something like style. For me, that evidence is enough to separate content from style.

Dave Barnhart

[SamH]

but what if the matter truly is a matter of conviction (conscience) and not preference? Going beyond Riley’s example, and using your own words, is it legitimate to credit Vaughn, FBFI, et.al.’s motives as actually only being a preference, when they seem to project that they are driven by conviction?

Hey Sam, another really great question. Well, let me answer this by telling you about a friend of mine who is a fellow pastor in our area. He has the habit of occasionally enjoying a cigar while relaxing in his backyard on a warm summer night. In fact, his church knows this about him. Now, you won’t find a guy who is more passionate about the Gospel than he is. He believes it, preaches it, and has even fought battles over it that have been personally costly to him.

So, here I am and I really don’t like cigars. Personally, I think they stink. In fact, I have a certain conviction about them that I wouldn’t smoke one myself. But, I wouldn’t rail against him for doing it, especially when I probably do more harm to my own body when I drink corn-syrup based Pepsi Cola. You see, it is my conviction that I personally wouldn’t smoke a cigar, but I wouldn’t preach that those who enjoy an occasional one are necessarily sinning. This also wouldn’t affect me inviting this man to preach at my church.

When it comes to some personal convictions I think its important to admit when they are being driven by personal preferences regarding a given issue. Otherwise, we will tend to force these personal convictions upon others even when we have very little Scriptural warrant for doing so. And this is why I’m arguing for charity and a willingness to give good brothers the ability to practice differently in this area without castigating them for it.