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

[Scott Aniol]

Thanks, Dan, and I very much appreciate the tone in which you have engaged in conversation here. Thank you, brother.

But here’s the thing: if you think our convictions are misapplications of Scriptural principle (like forbidden women to wear pants, etc), then tell us why; don’t just tell us our convictions are baseless, tell us why. Show us how we have misinterpreted Scripture. Show us how we have misapplied Scripture.

The issue really isn’t one of application, because you (and others!) deny that Scripture even applies to musical style. That’s really where the debate lies.

I, on the other hand, believe that the Bible speaks to everything, including musical style.

So, at the end of the day, we are quite likely never going to agree, not just on application, but on method!

Scott, this will be my last reply for now because I have a meeting to get to here in just a few minutes. Maybe more later, but doubtful because Julie will kill me if I do this at home :-)

Maybe my illustration wasn’t best. Let’s use the analogy of a conviction against smoking cigars. I believe that I can make a Biblical argument, based upon principle, for not doing so. However, I realize that Romans 14 comes into play here. So, when I preach about Christians caring for their body as the Temple of the Holy Spirit, I have to consider many other aspects as well such as types of food we eat, exercise, etc., Smoking could be included in a sermon of this nature. In fact, I would probably even say, “I have a personal conviction against smoking cigars. I choose not to do it. Its probably wise for you not to do it.” However, I would stop short of saying, “Its sin if you do it.” I can definitely preaching against addiction because the Scriptures teach us not to be controlled by anything other than the Holy Spirit. But, an occasional cigar in one’s back yard, doesn’t necessarily mean that person is addicted.

So, here’s my point - I will not elevate my personal conviction regarding cigar smoking, which I have drawn based upon the application of certain Biblical principles, to the degree that I say that others who disagree with me are actually sinfully degrading the Gospel of Christ. I won’t break fellowship with those who see the matter differently. I will teach what I believe, but I would also stand shoulder to shoulder in a cooperative effort with someone who saw it differently.

That’s all for now. I really have to go to this meeting. I love you in Christ, Scott. To all my brothers, I love you in Christ.

Dan,

You’ve said you have to go. That’s probably a wise piece of counsel for me as well; other things call for attention.

Let me offer this one piece of disanalogy in this illustration: what if this pastor believes that he can smoke a cigar to the glory of God, and so he wishes to lead the church in a moment of corporate cigar smoking before the message? Romans 14 applies fairly neatly (although not without controversy!) when we’re speaking of personal holiness and private devotion. But this discussion is different: we’re speaking of the corporate worship of the church. Difference of conscience here aren’t nearly so simple.

I was recently reading James over and over, and as I though about how I need to apply the themes to my life, I was really convicted about my tone of voice talking to my kids.

However, James doesn’t say one single word about tone of voice. He just talks several times about arguing, divisions, factions, etc. And I don’t think anywhere in the Bible is tone of voice mentioned directly. I thought about the “contentious wife” in Proverbs. Tone of voice is maybe implied.

So anyway, my point is, I think musical style is perhaps like this. It’s just somehow implied all around, and we have to take those implications and apply them individually and corporately. And in other settings.

So I personally lean to the more conservative side of the music seesaw, but not as much as Aniol, Harding, et al. I can’t really handle casting crowns at this point, but if others thoughtfully like it, I think that’s wonderful.

I personally like a few well placed drum beats when I’m singing about God’s righteousness and rule and sinlessness, and I think about the wickedness of the s`x trade going on in my city, the children being … abused is too good a word.

… yak, yak.

My point is that musical style seems to be addressed like tone of voice is. It’s indirect. It’s application of a lot of things—knowledge of God, current culture, etc.

End of thought.

OK, for further interest, I found some insights here:

Gregory I … developed the Gregorian Chant which
modified the scales and all voices sang in unison. All musical
instruments were banned during this time and only men were
allowed to sing in worship.

John Huss … opposed all polyphonic
and instrumental music and only would support the singing of
devotional and simple songs in unison.

Luther, however, took a position of adapting the use of popular, secular tunes with the truth of Scripture. He also believed that there was room in the church service for the use of instruments, especially the organ, polyphonic choir singing as well as congregational singing in the venacular.

Zwingli reacted against the use of any instruments that had association with the Catholic church. Calvin went even farther in his opposition to Luther’s ‘liberal’ use of music in worship. Calvin felt that instruments were only tolerated in the Old Testament because the people of God were only infants then. He opposed the use of instruments and the singing in parts.
He also eliminated any lyric not found in Scripture. He allowed only the singing of the Psalms in worship

…

[Scott Aniol] But once again, Jay, your analogy implies that we have not based our judgments on what we truly believe to be reasonable application of Scripture. Your analogy is demeaning and uncharitable to those who hold convictions about music.

[Scott Aniol] But here’s the thing: if you think our convictions are misapplications of Scriptural principle (like forbidden women to wear pants, etc), then tell us why; don’t just tell us our convictions are baseless, tell us why. Show us how we have misinterpreted Scripture. Show us how we have misapplied Scripture.

The issue really isn’t one of application, because you (and others!) deny that Scripture even applies to musical style. That’s really where the debate lies.

I, on the other hand, believe that the Bible speaks to everything, including musical style.

So, at the end of the day, we are quite likely never going to agree, not just on application, but on method!

Scott,

It might do you some good to read some of the very many posts I’ve written recently on this topic. Check out the Big Daddy Weave thread, this other thread, and the thread that we’re currently in.

If you honestly think that I’ve been arguing that the Bible doesn’t speak to musical style…well, I don’t know what I can do to help you. I’ve never argued that Scripture doesn’t apply to musical style. That’s an ignorant and foolish claim, and you ought to know better than that.

Yes, we disagree on method and I doubt I’ll ever convince you of my position (or vice versa). But you clearly haven’t been reading what I wrote, so maybe you ought to start there before you start ascribing things to me that aren’t true.

Dmyers,

I have not requested to be treated charitably.

@Mike,

I’ll leave off for now—your line of argumentation is likely going to be better than mine.

@Dan—thanks for your answers—I have more questions, but I am satisfied with your answers for now. (Now to go steal a Mike Riley sermon to preach tonight)…

Is there coming a day where something like a denomination will form around a conservative theology of music and worship?

I would suspect that are many individual churches and a number of fellowships that already make a conservative theology of music and worship a test for fellowship.

[Ron Bean] I would suspect that are many individual churches and a number of fellowships that already make a conservative theology of music and worship a test for fellowship.

But if that happened, would that be any worse than, say, having both BJ Seminary and Geneva Reformed? If the “conservative” denomination would maintain its distinctives, but recognize a capacity for wider fellowship in some limited areas, what would be the problem with that?

It is important that we consider what standards we should employ for good art in general and good music specifically.

God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness” (Gen 1:26). God, the creative genius, spoke all things into existence and then made man analogous to God. Like God, man is inventive, imaginative, creative and thus able to arrange and depict God’s world in an orderly way.

“God saw all that He had made; and behold it was very good” (1:31). The biblical basis for the production and enjoyment of artistic expression is simply that God declared it to be very good. All of His creation is very good including man’s sanctified creativity which is part of the image of God in man.

When man sinned, however, by wanting to be God, his creative imagination was no longer perfect or holy, but instead was marred by sin. Apart from the grace of God, both common and saving, man no longer necessarily reflects the order, beauty, loveliness, or virtue of God and His creation in his artistic creations. Now we have the possibility of good art and bad art on a continuum. Man struggles to produce good art and music. We, therefore, must use the special revelation of God to interpret God’s general revelation in order to discern good artistic expression from bad artistic expression.

How can we judge good artistic expression from the bad? Good art is the work of man by which man uses his God-given creativity to produce artistic expressions for the enjoyment of man and the reflection of God which meet God’s standards of contemplation.

Philippians 4:8 gives us a divinely inspired formula which authoritatively guides us when choosing those artistic expressions in the world which are conformable to the virtues of the Lord Jesus Christ and His Gospel.

Philippians 4:8 Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.

Philippians 4:8 is unique in Pauline literature and is similar to Hellenistic moral literature. These six adjectives and two nouns are the objective standards by which we “take into account” these virtues in the world which are conformable to Christ. We are to examine, consider, evaluate, reflect upon, and take into account (logi,zesqe) the artistic expressions of man in the world and see if they are praiseworthy in the light of Christ and His Gospel message. Whatever is right for the Christian must be defined by God and His character. We are to “examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; abstain from every form of evil” (1 Thess 5:21-22).

I. Good Music Must be True (avlhqh,j—true, truthful, honest; real, genuine)

Truth and truthfulness are the first standards by which we are to judge an artistic work. In secular pop culture many songs croon about the pleasures of one-night stands and sinful relationships while ignoring God’s moral viewpoint of those relationships and the tragic consequences of guilt, illegitimate births, abortion, divorce, violence and the welfare state. We must remember that the so-called “real world” is not the temporal one which will be judged by God and burned with fire, but is the eternal one where we strive for God’s ideal in the present age and will experience in its maturity during the age to come. Truth is what God has said or would say about any fact in the universe.

Truth and truthfulness are particularly necessary in sacred music. Jesus prayed, “Sanctify them through thy truth; thy word is truth.” We must not communicate in our musical lyrics that man is his own ultimate savior as he arrogantly decides whether or not he will open the door of his heart to a weak and powerless “Jesus”. It is God who ultimately opens hearts and illumines human minds, drawing men and women to His Son through the Gospel and the effectual work of the Holy Spirit (Eph 2:1-4).

Denice Williams sings, “Somebody Loves You” from her album Special Love:

He’s waiting for you. Oh, he understands the pain you’re going through. There is no problem that my Jesus just can’t help you solve. For he can do wonders. Won’t you open up and let him touch you?

This Christian song is about salvation from the pain and trouble of life with no mention of sin, redemption, repentance, or eternity.

Another common deception in sacred music is the “easy love” syndrome. Love is described by many Christian artists in every possible way except as obedience to God: “If you love me, you will keep My commandments” (Jn 14:15). Such a shallow and varied understanding of God’s love leads to marital unfaithfulness and emotional sentimentality which has plagued the Christian music industry in particular and the Christian Church in general. Theologian, Alva McClain, once defined biblical love as “That quality in God which moves Him to give of Himself and His gifts to creatures made in His own image – to give sacrificially, eternally, righteously, and unconditionally, without regard as to merit or response.” You seldom hear of Christian love sung in those kinds of terms today on the typical Christian radio station.

II. Good Music Must be Honorable (semno,j— noble, of good character, honorable, worthy, respectable)

Good music goes beyond mediocrity. It has outstanding musical qualities. It is well-crafted, polished, inspiring the hearts of its listeners to noble character and affections. The opposite of nobility and honor is to be shallow, banal, simplistic, and trivial. Too often Christian music aims for the lowest common denominator in a hedonistic pop culture resulting in the loss of aesthetic beauty.

If Christian music fulfills its so-called mission of evangelism by adding salvific Christian cliches to poorly crafted music, then the very question of the quality of the music itself is ignored by Christian leaders today. The assumption is that the Lord has no aesthetic concern for excellence, beauty, loveliness, attractiveness, or an honorable reputation.

III. Good Music Must be Righteous and Just (di,kaioj—conforming to the standard, will, or character of God; upright, righteous, good; just, right; proper; fair, honest; innocent)

Much secular music today could not be considered righteous or just when it comes to social issues, egalitarianism, multi-culturalism, or environmentalism. Nature worship, the noble savage, the insightful street bum are all common themes in pop, rock, and modern country. Popular music in Western society usually reflects the wrong ideas of our culture, the unjust notion of calling good evil and evil good. Right from wrong is mitigated as relativism is propagated resulting in the graying of absolutes. We should not be surprised that suicidal music became very popular in the styles of grunge and metal.

IV. Good Music Must be Pure (a`gno,j —pure, holy; chaste; innocent)

Good music should promote purity in thought, word, and deed. The MTV video clearly demonstrates that most pop, rock, modern country is impure. Immodesty, sensuality, vulgarity, and brutality abound in the visual displays of these musical performances. The music videos embody a chaotic, fragmented view of God’s world where the moment is all that matters, and sex and death are what sell best. There is little portrayal of human relationships or the world as God would view them. Art communicates ideas through the mind to the affections and ideas have consequences. One famous secular musician defined MTV as “vulgarians entertaining barbarians.”

V. Good Music Must be Beautiful (prosfilh —lovely, that which causes delight)

This concept applies to well-crafted, poetical lines and to the melody, arrangement, instrumentation, and performance of the piece of music. There has been a neglect of training young people, particularly young men, in music because we have a deep misconception about the true nature of beauty. Young men are well-trained today in a culture of blood, but they are largely ignorant regarding beauty, music, art, and literature. The word on the street is that aesthetic appreciation is at best “for sissies”. However, beauty is beyond sugar and spice and everything nice. Beauty reflects both masculine and feminine qualities. Beauty is born of divine, almighty power. There would be no creation, no flowers, no birds, no mountains, no oceans and no stars were it not for the power of God’s voice calling them into existence and sustenance. Both the rose pedal and the mighty redwood were made and sustained by the beauty of God’s almighty imagination and creative power. The power of God’s voice was so great that the Israelites asked Moses to speak with them himself lest they die (Ex 20:19).

What makes a song lovely, delightful, and beautiful? Melody is the key to the beauty of a song. Arrangement, instrumentation, and performance follow the beauty of the melodic line. Great production cannot redeem a poorly crafted melody. A good melody is gripping and memorable so that it may be recalled for meditation. Beauty which is easily forgotten is not very beneficial.

Secondly, melody must be well crafted into a finished arrangement decently and in order according to the accepted principles of music theory and composition. It takes a great deal of musical skill and training to have dominion over the art of music and thereby produce songs that are lovely.

VI. Good Music Must be Admirable (eu;fhmoj —worthy of praise, commendable, with deference to the transcendent, out of respect for those of high status)

When the standard of Christian music becomes evangelism rather than excellence, then the art is no longer categorized as being good or bad, excellent or mediocre. Rather, it is simply categorized as being secular or sacred. Those who have an appreciation for good art and good music often lose respect for the Christian music world simply because Christian music sometimes lacks excellence in melody, craft, composition, and skillful performance. It is simply not admirable, worthy of praise or deferent to that which is transcendent. Admirable music stimulates one’s thoughts and emotions in edification and sanctification. It captures one’s attention in a positive and relevant way.

VII. Good Music Must be Virtuous (avreth, — moral excellence, goodness) and Worthy of Praise (e;painoj —commendation, approval; a praiseworthy thing)

These two terms summarize the six previous excellencies. Virtuous, praiseworthy music leads man toward God and an appreciation of His attributes. It communicates God’s view of the world as opposed to man’s view of the world. God’s Word provides the spectacles with which we can properly interpret God’s world and thereby accurately reflect the biblical world view in our artistic expressions and appreciation. Rather than pitting God’s Word against God’s World, we should reflect God’s World through the lenses of God’s Word.

In a materialistic universe paintings are mere collections of different molecules. Musical notes are merely different frequencies of sound. For the materialist there are no absolutes at all, no truth, no virtue, no right or wrong, no beauty or ugliness, because in a purely materialistic world there is no Creator. To a secular materialist a cesspool and a garbage dump are theoretically as lovely or unlovely as a rainbow and sunset. Only in a Christian world view can truth, beauty, loveliness, and laws be accounted for as reflections of the character of the God of the Bible.

Conclusion

On account of common and saving grace, both unbelievers and believers can produce good art. The distinction, however, is that good art produced by an unbeliever cannot be considered a good work. Nevertheless, the art itself can still be objectively good. Good works, however, must be done in faith for the glory of God. On the other hand, the believer may at times be deceived by the world in which he lives and actually produce art based on a non-Christian world view, thereby reflecting the meaninglessness, ugliness, and relativism so prevalent in a non-Christian world view. Those who constantly reiterate that artistic expression does not have moral influence over the affections, thoughts, ideas, and values of its audience fall into this category.

Christians should endeavor to produce good art which is also a good work (Col 3:23; 1 Cor 10:31). We need Christians that will work at their craft with intelligence, skill, beauty, creativity, and virtue. John Adams once said, “I must study politics and war that my sons may have the liberty to study mathematics and philosophy … in order to give their sons a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry and porcelain.” Adams knew that in a lawless and pagan society good art and good music do not flourish. Art is religion externalized— a reflection of the values, beliefs, and ideas of a culture. For this reason we must encourage Christian artists to achieve their calling with excellence and virtue.

Mike, I think most of the people on both sides of the issue who have posted here would agree with most of what you have just posted. I know I appreciated it. The problem is that as different people on this site apply those same principles they come to different conclusions. How much leeway should we give each other in those conclusions?

JD,

I agree with you. Still if we meditate on the principles it will help everyone to make decisions on a more objective basis. I have a detailed exposition of Col 3:15-17 and Eph 5:18-20 that helps quite a bit as well.

Mike wrote:

Still if we meditate on the principles it will help everyone to make decisions on a more objective basis.

I think this is one of the best points I have read on this post. We are not all going to agree on where the line should be drawn, nor will we all come to the same conclusions on what is pure, but we should at least examine it. For example, I read about Joel S using rap. I don’t like rap and it was not long ago that I could find no redeeming value in it. Further I am very bothered by the associations that it has, but then I heard how he had weighed a very specific group of rap songs and felt he could use them. Now would I come to the same conclusions he did. I doubt it, but he did not just approach the issue with an anything goes attitude. He weighed the issue and came to a conclusion. I applaud him for that, and though I do not want his music, I am not willing to condemn him either.

[JD Miller]

Mike wrote:

Still if we meditate on the principles it will help everyone to make decisions on a more objective basis.

I think this is one of the best points I have read on this post. We are not all going to agree on where the line should be drawn, nor will we all come to the same conclusions on what is pure, but we should at least examine it. For example, I read about Joel S using rap. I don’t like rap and it was not long ago that I could find no redeeming value in it. Further I am very bothered by the associations that it has, but then I heard how he had weighed a very specific group of rap songs and felt he could use them. Now would I come to the same conclusions he did. I doubt it, but he did not just approach the issue with an anything goes attitude. He weighed the issue and came to a conclusion. I applaud him for that, and though I do not want his music, I am not willing to condemn him either.

JD: Good attitude to have. I’m sure there are plenty of people on both sides of the music wars who are simply going with what they’re used to and/or what they prefer. But there are folks on both sides (or everywhere along the continuum) who are where they are after much thought and Bible study — and who may “move” one way or the other as they continue to think and study.

[Brent Marshall]

[jcoleman] So the question ends up being whether NIU is a disobedient brother. And to answer this question, we might ask this “If they continue doing what they’re doing, would I practice church discipline on them? Which is to say, am I going to treat them as an unbeliever?”

Since I don’t believe for a moment that they should be treated as unbelievers, I don’t believe that you can call them disobedient brothers.

It strikes me that you have this backwards. In essence, you are deciding whether one has broken the law (disobedience) by whether you feel that they should be punished (treated as an unbeliever). Instead, you should be judging disobedience by comparing the deeds, doctrines, or affections to the applicable commands and related principles of God’s Word.

Let me clarify: I’m not trying to say that I don’t think there disobedient brothers because I don’t think they should be treated as unbelievers. I’m saying that there is no Biblical category for so-called disobedient brothers whom we don’t treat as unbelievers. So it’s one or the other. Does the supposed disobedience rise to level of my needing to evangelize them (treat them as unbelievers)? If it doesn’t, then while we may disagree on second or third tier issues, I can’t treat them as disobedient brothers.

[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.

And desperately hope that all of use could answer “Yes”, at least at some level. Maybe it means not sending your kids to NIU. But it shouldn’t mean blasting them.

As an interesting parallel, I remember Bob Kauflin telling that story that the T4G conference almost didn’t have music because the views represented were so widely divergent. In the end, they decided to do a very basic hymnody style.

I think that that’s an excellent model of how we should treat this. When we come together, it may look like only doing what we have in common. But hopefully it also means that we can respect (publicly!) each other’s respective ministries, even while having strong debate on our differences. But that debate (on the issue of the style of music) shouldn’t ever end up in statements that border on accusations of heresy etc.