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

After reading most of these posts (but probably not all), the observation I’m gathering is this: every one of us would agree that there is music that is completely inappropriate for use in the church even if accompanied by sound lyrics. The disagreement is on the defining characteristics of that music.

If I may indulge in an extreme example: some years ago a youth pastor brought to my attention a phenomenon referenced as “Screamo-Emo” where singers (performers) in a praise and worship context utilized “music” that basically consisted of the heaviest of heavy metal beat/format accompanied by screamed words (good words mind you) and thrash actions performed with such intensity that the end result was the performers literally puking all over the church (that was the goal).

While I can’t speak for everyone my tent is pretty large, and even my brethren most “tolerant” of musical styles readily stated, as I’m sure practically everyone on this forum would, that that is way “over the top.” Which is an admission that there is a right/wrong line of demarcation when it comes to music styles in relation to the church, worship, and the believer. Just where that line is is the discussion.

Music is a unique entity in that it is a medium of communication, so there is a moral quality to it. After all, we know absolutely from scripture that there is “corrupt communication.” But music also falls under the very broad statement “there is nothing unclean of itself,” so classifying it as good or bad and in what contexts is not simple.

Me thinks our efforts are misplaced. There is a plethora of information throughout scripture, especially in the OT, as to what is acceptable in worship and what is not. Irreverence, the slightest form of immorality, or idolatry at any level are all completely ver boten in worship (words like “abomination” and “profaned” are common descriptors).

Music whose foundation structure is immorality (“rock music is sex”—Frank Zappa and others), which is absolutely definitive of a prevalent societal idolatry, and which struggles on its best day to communicate any form of reverence really deserves little consideration as a legitimate tool of worship, much less agonizing for hours upon hours as to where the exact line should be drawn.

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.

And yet, I think there is room for strong expressions, yea, even occasional controversy. There are issues that Christians, even between Fundamentalists, have strong disagreements. Things like church polity, baptism, divorce and remarriage, revivalism, matters of soteriology… and much of the time, though discussions can get heated, we figure out ways to avoid labeling each other heretics (even if it means, sometimes, separate churches or institutions on the applications of some of those topics).

This is why I am not kidding when I suggest there may need to come a day when conservatives somehow organize around something that would include a theology of music/worship as a distinctive. For good or bad, almost no one comes into a Baptist church demanding to have their newborn sprinkled- it would go against an established distinctive. A revivalist evangelist should probably know better than to call up a Baptist church that has “Sovereign Grace” in its title. I am not sure what that label or organization would look like, but it seems to me some of the controversy might be alleviated if the parameters were more precisely defined and part of the identity of the congregation or fellowship of churches. It doesn’t necessarily have to be the issue they lead with constantly (I’m not suggesting the birth of “To Hymn Be the Glory Baptist Fellowship…”), any more than all Baptists ride baptism by immersion as a perpetual topic of emphasis. Rather, believer’s immersion is assumed, taught and practiced, and people generally understand that if that practice is altered, the will be abandoning a key component of what it means to be Baptist.

As it stands now, the music topic is a point of unresolved controversy, and will continue to remain so, if not increase in coming days, just because there is no established, agreed upon consensus.

[Scott Aniol]

Dan, here’s the point of all this:

There are certain Christians today (me, Mike Harding, John Vaughan, or whomever) who believe that certain musical forms are inappropriate for worship at best, and displeasing to the Lord at worst.

We believe this, not out of personal preference (i.e. we don’t like it), but out of conviction that it is so, and we have based our convictions on (what we believe to be) reasonable application of God’s all-authoritative, all-sufficient Word.

We (or I, at least) am quite open to anyone disagreeing with my interpretation of Scripture or how I apply Scripture to musical choices. I welcome discussion on these matters. Anyone who reads me honestly will have to admit that I welcome such discourse. That doesn’t mean I will agree, of course. But if someone is willing to say, “Here is why I think the form of rap is fitting with biblical principles” (for example) I am more than willing to hear him out.

Yet you are denying us even the right to claim that we have these convictions based upon Scripture. You insist, rather, that we admit that our judgments are based on personal preference alone. Folks like you are unwilling to disagree with us on the basis of our interpretation or application; rather you shut down any discussion by claiming that the Bible doesn’t say anything about musical style or that we are defending preference.

I don’t think we necessary are denying you the right to claim that you hold these convictions based on scripture. But we are saying that scripture does not allow them to be first tier issues. They at best 2nd tier, possibly 3rd. And to go against your convictions (conscience) would be sin for you. But for you to assert that they are sin for others is to elevate them to a level we believe scripture doesn’t allow, and thus to cause disunity in the church.

Greg,

Various sacramental groups will “saint” an individual often after that brave soul suffered much as a result of a “heavenly cause.” So bro - you want to organize baptist around a musical-theological distinctive? You are a sweet man - you are a brave man - you are a principled man but dude - you are nuts!

So as John Calvin would say, “good luck with that!”

Actually you probably can do it but it will either be one of two things - a broad enough statement concerning a biblical-theology of music/worship/theology distinctive that enough of the various groups can come up with a substantial consensus……

Or you’ll have it so detailed it will be as it is now - fractured to the point of guys playing musical “pick-up sticks!” in their own little corner of our Lord’s grand ecclesiastical vineyard.

Hey - I think it’s a great idea. Greg, if anyone can do it, I’m sure you could.

Straight Ahead!

jt

ps - by the way, I like the idea that when we do come together when there is much diversity there is safety in singing some of the historically rich hymns. Not sure how you go wrong there!

[jcoleman] 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]

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.

And yet, I think there is room for strong expressions, yea, even occasional controversy. There are issues that Christians, even between Fundamentalists, have strong disagreements. Things like church polity, baptism, divorce and remarriage, revivalism, matters of soteriology… and much of the time, though discussions can get heated, we figure out ways to avoid labeling each other heretics (even if it means, sometimes, separate churches or institutions on the applications of some of those topics).

Oh, strong expressions, sure! I’m all for that! For example, I’d suggest listening to the (several videos) of James White debating Michael Brown (Calvinism versus Arminianism). There is very strong disagreement! Yet they both treat each other as brothers!

And I’m definitely not opposed to different churches either. The whole point of denominations is disagreement on secondary and tertiary, but not primary, differences. I just want to see each of those churches interacting about the other with the willingness to say they disagree but along with the strong reminder that they share the gospel as being of primary importance.

[Greg Linscott]

This is why I am not kidding when I suggest there may need to come a day when conservatives somehow organize around something that would include a theology of music/worship as a distinctive. For good or bad, almost no one comes into a Baptist church demanding to have their newborn sprinkled- it would go against an established distinctive.

No problems there. Just so long as the church doesn’t accuse the paedobaptist couple in their congregation of sin for desiring to have their newborn sprinkled.

I’m not saying I’d want to organize it. I am saying, though, that if there are those who feel strongly enough about it (that it is a “first tier” issue), it will have to come to something like that, especially if there is to be any hope to last more than a generation. It will need to be taught and stressed, passed on. Example: John MacArthur has done this with the style of elder polity he emphasizes.

[dcbii]

[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 … .

What about style? I am not prepared to argue that one can map style to truth. However, as one preacher I heard years ago say, “Music paints pictures.” It is communicative. It seems to me that the message that it communicates must be truthful and consistent with the words.

[Lee]

After reading most of these posts (but probably not all), the observation I’m gathering is this: every one of us would agree that there is music that is completely inappropriate for use in the church even if accompanied by sound lyrics. The disagreement is on the defining characteristics of that music.

If I may indulge in an extreme example: some years ago a youth pastor brought to my attention a phenomenon referenced as “Screamo-Emo” where singers (performers) in a praise and worship context utilized “music” that basically consisted of the heaviest of heavy metal beat/format accompanied by screamed words (good words mind you) and thrash actions performed with such intensity that the end result was the performers literally puking all over the church (that was the goal).

While I can’t speak for everyone my tent is pretty large, and even my brethren most “tolerant” of musical styles readily stated, as I’m sure practically everyone on this forum would, that that is way “over the top.” Which is an admission that there is a right/wrong line of demarcation when it comes to music styles in relation to the church, worship, and the believer. Just where that line is is the discussion.

Music is a unique entity in that it is a medium of communication, so there is a moral quality to it. After all, we know absolutely from scripture that there is “corrupt communication.” But music also falls under the very broad statement “there is nothing unclean of itself,” so classifying it as good or bad and in what contexts is not simple.

Me thinks our efforts are misplaced. There is a plethora of information throughout scripture, especially in the OT, as to what is acceptable in worship and what is not. Irreverence, the slightest form of immorality, or idolatry at any level are all completely ver boten in worship (words like “abomination” and “profaned” are common descriptors).

Music whose foundation structure is immorality (“rock music is sex”—Frank Zappa and others), which is absolutely definitive of a prevalent societal idolatry, and which struggles on its best day to communicate any form of reverence really deserves little consideration as a legitimate tool of worship, much less agonizing for hours upon hours as to where the exact line should be drawn.

Well, even a Christian Hip-Hop advocate like me would have a problem with the music you described. Screaming until one almost pukes in song definitely does not fit Phil. 4:8. I actually agree with one of your points. That Scripture speaks of corrupt communication and there is nothing unclean in itself. In this, you have acknowledged the goodness of creation and the depravity of man because of the fall.

Yet when you make the application is where I differ. First of all, just because certain rock musicians state that rock music is sex, doesn’t necessarily make it true. I was a keyboardist in a Christian rock band that played throughout Michigan for 7 years and I can honestly say that our audiences were not linking us to sexual immorality. The only ones that might make that connection were fundamentalists that really believed there still was a link between all rock music and immorality. However, I do have to say that I honestly struggled with our audience and idolatry and I was one of the ones that broke up the band because of “societal idolatry.” At several youth events after a concert and after pouring out our hearts sharing Jesus, we’d often get starry eyed teens asking us how we started a band. Very frustrating. Yet there were venues that this did not happen. Whenever we played at coffee houses or when we led worship for a youth group or church, the idolatry didn’t occur……… We began to pray about the direction of our band. Do we just do coffee houses and worship? Do we break up the band? When our guitar player moved away, it made our decision much easier.

You mention that irreverence, the slightest hint of immorality or idolatry at any level is unacceptable. I’m sure you realize that music began with Jubal from the ungodly line of Cain. Where pride, violence, immorality had already reared its ugly head. If we had your standard, music never would have been accepted in the first place because it came from such a rotten culture of Cain’s line rather than the godly line of Seth. That is why within the doctrine of creation I also embrace common grace.

Is engaging in discussion at this late hour allowed? Oh well.

I’ll admit up front that I’m pretty strict in what I would approve when it comes to music. I appreciated very much KTB’s comment which succinctly and logically underscored why this is a “big deal” to some of us. This fleshed out something that I’ve felt for a long time, but never understood how to express very well. Of course, to explain the reasoning for why certain forms/styles of music are “sinful”, “fleshly”, etc. would take much more space. However, the point that musical styles can be a “fundamental” issue due to the “affections” that accompany them I thought was very well expressed.

Regarding how I would apply this conviction as it relates to separation, let me simply give a few guiding principles.

First, it has absolutely NOTHING to do with preference. My concern is not what you prefer, nor what I prefer. Honestly, if I made choices based upon preference, I could list any number of songs (read: styles, not lyrics) that I “like”, but which I am convinced lead my heart toward worldly thoughts and affections. My sin nature enjoys them; my spirit abhors them. The issue is not what I like, but what my Lord commands and desires.

Secondly, I see a very great difference between what one might listen to in leisure, and what one presents before God in worship. That is the greatest part of what we are doing (the act of which yields exhortation and encouragement to one another; i.e. Col. 3:16) when we sing or play music in the meeting of the church, or other Spiritual gathering. We are presenting it as an offering of worship to God. Scripture is replete from beginning to end with commands and principles that strictly govern what is acceptable worship to God. It must be truthful, from the heart, and absolutely holy. For example, the animal sacrifices were required to be without blemish or spot. Before one could approach the temple with such a sacrifice, they must be ceremonially clean. It is entirely about Him and His glory. So to draw out a principle - any musical style which tends toward performance or showmanship in its exhibition should receive the strictest examination (will anyone deny the “showiness” of some of the musicians in the NIU video?).

Speaking of principles - some would argue that where God’s Word does not speak “explicitly”, there needs to be much leniency. However, I could list a number of activities that God’s Word does not specifically approve or condemn, but for which almost everyone would be willing to engage in battle. Why? Obviously, because we naturally apply the principles of Scripture to these areas. This is how Scripture remains sufficient and relevant in any age and culture! Granted, some issues are clearer than others, and I willingly admit that music has a very subjective nature. However, the styles that are most often the subject of debate seem so incredibly clear-cut, it amazes me the scope of the argument over them! Although by no means an expert on cultural history, I see a very clear connection between rock music styling and the sexual revolution, teen rebellion, feminism, and drug abuse culture which accompanied its explicit inception in the 50’s and 60s. All these other things we clearly see by the common sense of the Spirit-enlightened man to be worldly and fleshly - yet we defend that which is joined at the hip with these things! I’m not trying to demean the intellect of those who disagree. I realize that we’ve reached the point where we are so immersed in this culture, it’s hard to think “outside the box”. Yet at the same time, I do look with amazement and dismay over debate of such (to my eyes) obvious worldiness.

Practically, I would not disassociate with any individual who listens to CCM, rock, hip-hop, rap, etc. as long as they did not flaunt their music in my face. I don’t believe that listening to these styles necessitates that you will end up a devil worshipper. But in the corporate sense, I would find it extremely difficult to fellowship with a church that used CCM. I view it as basically a form of sycretistic idolatry. Realizing that some have good intentions with what they’re trying to do does not change the fact that I could not bear to be a part of a worship practice that I see as being in direct opposition to the worship that God desires. For those that see it from across the way, would you not then be willing to apply the principle of Rom. 15:1 for us “weak” brothers?

Kind of immersed in my own thoughts for a while… seeing Joel’s comment above, I can see that there are some ideas that I’m kind of re-hashing (probably unnecessarily). Just quickly my thoughts on this:

First of all, just because certain rock musicians state that rock music is sex, doesn’t necessarily make it true. I was a keyboardist in a Christian rock band that played throughout Michigan for 7 years and I can honestly say that our audiences were not linking us to sexual immorality. The only ones that might make that connection were fundamentalists that really believed there still was a link between all rock music and immorality.

First, just because certain audience members fail to link your rock music with sexual immorality, doesn’t necessarily make it untrue. :) However, I’ll agree that not all rock music communicates “sex” explicitly. Some of it seems to communicate other emotions more prominently - anger, sentimentalism, etc. That being said, the reactions it engenders seem to arise out of natural man, not the spiritual man (ex: sometimes rock communicates happiness, but I can’t say that it communicates joy).

There is still an undeniable connection between the general style of music and the various forms of debauchery which came to the cultural forefront half a century ago. That rock can communicate something besides sex does not preclude the fact that it was the sound of choice for those that promoted “free love” and carnal experimentation (thus the catchphrase “sex, drugs and rock n’ roll”), and that the same sounds and it’s derivatives are still the predominant sounds of choice for the same ideologies today.

[Karl S]

Kind of immersed in my own thoughts for a while… seeing Joel’s comment above, I can see that there are some ideas that I’m kind of re-hashing (probably unnecessarily). Just quickly my thoughts on this:

First of all, just because certain rock musicians state that rock music is sex, doesn’t necessarily make it true. I was a keyboardist in a Christian rock band that played throughout Michigan for 7 years and I can honestly say that our audiences were not linking us to sexual immorality. The only ones that might make that connection were fundamentalists that really believed there still was a link between all rock music and immorality.

First, just because certain audience members fail to link your rock music with sexual immorality, doesn’t necessarily make it untrue. :) However, I’ll agree that not all rock music communicates “sex” explicitly. Some of it seems to communicate other emotions more prominently - anger, sentimentalism, etc. That being said, the reactions it engenders seem to arise out of natural man, not the spiritual man (ex: sometimes rock communicates happiness, but I can’t say that it communicates joy).

There is still an undeniable connection between the general style of music and the various forms of debauchery which came to the cultural forefront half a century ago. That rock can communicate something besides sex does not preclude the fact that it was the sound of choice for those that promoted “free love” and carnal experimentation (thus the catchphrase “sex, drugs and rock n’ roll”), and that the same sounds and it’s derivatives are still the predominant sounds of choice for the same ideologies today.

You just proved my point! The only ones that still make that connection of rock music and rebellion and free love in our culture are the fundamentalists…..

Because of how my wife and I raised our children (2 of which are teenagers) and the music I played while in our Christian rock band and the music we use for worship in our church, they associate CCM with beauty and holiness. I also expose them to classical music and hymns as well (I am a classically trained musician that graduated with a music degree). What seems so obvious that what I’m describing is somehow worldly, is so obvious to me that you are denouncing an aspect of God’s creation that he declared good, even in such a fallen world (I Tim 4:1-5).

You just proved my point! The only ones that still make that connection of rock music and rebellion and free love in our culture are the fundamentalists…

Joel,

To be fair, though- is that the only way to judge something? Let’s apply your thinking to something like women’s clothing. I have teenage daughters. Sometimes they want to wear clothing that is fashionable, but doesn’t meet with parental approval- say, because of skirt length, or the cut of the neck or waistline, or midriff exposure, or degree of adherence to the body. They could argue that in the culture, those things have become accepted, and are no longer explicitly associated with “free love” and overt sexuality- and in some ways you could say they had a point, because that kind of clothing is pretty well established and accepted in our culture, even for pre-teen girls. Women don’t necessarily put it on to consciously advertise their sexual availability. They could even argue that Scripture doesn’t address these things explicitly- there’s no verse that specifies how form fitting clothing can or can’t be.

I would suggest, though, that just because a society doesn’t make the connection doesn’t mean a message isn’t being communicated. I understand, too that some Christians don’t agree with the application we hold to in our home (“But Mom, Mrs. _________ wore an outfit like this to church just last week!”). Is it possible that societal desensitization factors into this at all, whether speaking to matters of clothing or music?

[Greg Linscott]

You just proved my point! The only ones that still make that connection of rock music and rebellion and free love in our culture are the fundamentalists…

Joel,

To be fair, though- is that the only way to judge something? Let’s apply your thinking to something like women’s clothing. I have teenage daughters. Sometimes they want to wear clothing that is fashionable, but doesn’t meet with parental approval- say, because of skirt length, or the cut of the neck or waistline, or midriff exposure, or degree of adherence to the body. They could argue that in the culture, those things have become accepted, and are no longer explicitly associated with “free love” and overt sexuality- and in some ways you could say they had a point, because that kind of clothing is pretty well established and accepted in our culture, even for pre-teen girls. Women don’t necessarily put it on to consciously advertise their sexual availability. They could even argue that Scripture doesn’t address these things explicitly- there’s no verse that specifies how form fitting clothing can or can’t be.

I would suggest, though, that just because a society doesn’t make the connection doesn’t mean a message isn’t being communicated. I understand, too that some Christians don’t agree with the application we hold to in our home (“But Mom, Mrs. _________ wore an outfit like this to church just last week!”). Is it possible that societal desensitization factors into this at all, whether speaking to matters of clothing or music?

Good point. And by the way, I am not saying that it is the only way to judge something. At the same time, there really are some cultural associations that were birthed within depravity that do have no bearing today. The puritans were against wearing wedding bands because of its associated worldliness back 400 years ago. What I was getting at is summed up in this video by Dr. Doran. http://vimeo.com/56639911

[Brent Marshall]

[jcoleman] 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.

I think that I follow your clarification, but I still perceive problems. First, assuming that you are building on Matt. 18:17, I do not see how “needing to evangelize them” flows from that passage (it seems like a misinterpretation). Did Paul need to “evangelize” Peter when he had to confront and rebuke him for his blameworthy behavior (Gal. 2:11)? Even if the interpretation is correct, I do not think it helps here, for it still seems like you are analyzing this backwards: using Scriptures about the punishment to determine whether there was disobedience. Why do we need to have categories of punishment/consequences/response to determine whether there is a violation in the first place? Or am I still misunderstanding you?

Further clarification: I’m not “using Scriptures about the punishment to determine whether there was disobedience”. It may in fact be that someone is disobedient. But what I’m talking about is a paradigm not for determining whether or not disobedience has occurred, but for determining if the perceived issue/disobedience rises to the level of separation. And I’m arguing that scripture knows nothing of separating from those whom we still profess as brothers in Christ. (Note: that doesn’t mean there might be less or more cooperation on a practical level…e.g. denominations.) Separation is always from “disobedient brothers” whom we’re removing from the visible church because we’re saying that based on what we can see, they aren’t actually believers in the first place.