Thoughts on Music not Being a Controversy When It Really is

A statement like: “We are not going to allow music to be a controversy,” might mean, “If you don’t like what we are doing, then don’t bother complaining, because we have already made our decisions and we are going to stick with it, and if you complain you are creating controversy and division.”

That may not be what NIU means, but if it is, or when it has been what leaders of ministries mean whey they begin using more progressive music, it puts those who are committed to traditional music in a no-win situation. They can’t in good conscience sing the progressive music, but neither can they effectively dissent without being cast as the bad guy.

The visual should show the smaller circle (Traditional) fully inside of the larger (Progressive) circle. I don’t think the progressive Christian would consider that any part of the traditional Christian’s repertoire was “irreverent”.

The problem is that there aren’t just two circles. Since traditional Christians can’t agree on where the lines should be drawn, there are many progressively smaller circles in the conservative tradition. The musical landscape is a more complicated diagram.

What exactly did he mean by “We are not going to allow music to be a controversy”? I don’t think we can be certain.

So we made this clear several years ago at SVBC -

1. It’s easier to build a fundamentalist church reaching primarily traditional believers with traditional music. In this model, contemporary believers and ministries are held in at least “suspect” and are kept at arms length in part because of their choice in music. You can do this and still be a carnal congregation.

2. It’s also easier to build an evangelical church reaching primarily contemporary believers with contemporary music. In this model traditional believers and ministries are held in at least “suspect” and are kept at arms length in part because of their choice in music. You can do this and still be a carnal congregation.

3. It’s a challenge to reach out to both traditional believers and contemporary believers using both traditional and contemporary music. While this is the most difficult approach it is also the most Biblical one. Ministering to each other with a traditional and contemporary approach to hymns, Psalms and Spiritual songs. In this model the traditional believer may not prefer a contemporary song but because he demonstrates the fruit of the Spirit rejoices that his brother or sister is touched deeply by a newer song, lead by the worship team. Then when we stand and sing “A Mighty Fortress is our God” led by our Pastor of Worship and Missions, with the Keyboard using only the “organ” sound - the contemporary believer is blessed that his more traditional brother has his eyes closed and his heart filled. Actually our experience is that while Godly contemporary believers love the newer music frankly they love (and maybe I should say they “really love”) some of the deeper more theologically rich hymns of the past. How in the world we are convinced contemporary believers don’t enjoy hymns is a mystery to me. Yes - you can’t do this sort of thing in the normal contemporary or traditional church. You can do it in the blended church where the fruit of the Sprit is present with both traditional and contemporary believers. Having said that in all fairness a congregation can take this approach and still be a carnal congregation - but I think it’s easier to be carnal with the other two approaches. Just my view.

4. In a direct response to the article I would say we have determined that (a) it is possible for sake of deference in the body, to exercise care that when using contemporary music that the style is not soooo contemporary that you wound the traditional believer & (b) There are traditional believers (and some contemporary) believers who sinfully pick up an offense that they have no business picking up. So what happens is that with the quote-in-quote tag of “not offending the brother” you can actually allow a certain (immature) section of the church to run their own private “taste” over the rest of the congregation…..all in the name of “conscience.” This is a twisting of a right application of Romans 14 in my view.

5. So it is exactly what we say when you come into our congregation. Our approach is what we believe is right from the perspective of both our congregation at large and our leaders in particular. We try to be clear on this with those considering joining our congregation. That being the case -if you sow discord amongst the brethren because of a continual, nasty attitude - by pouting, refusing to sing because you know better than the musicians and elders who are responsible to choose music - we will warn you and if it continues you’ll be met with Church discipline. This approach to “schismatic elitism” in music is not allowed in our congregation. It’s OK for you to not “prefer” a song - and if you can show us from the Scriptures why a song is not Scriptural we will consider not using it. But this individual, “lone ranger” mentality that “you know best” and better than everyone else in the congregation is sick and divisive. I guess I already said that.

Be warmed and filled.

Straight Ahead!

jt

ps - I’m sure there are congregations that only use traditional or contemporary music that have sweet believers and who don’t have attitudes towards other congregations that have a different approach to their music. I don’t know very many - but I’m sure theoritically it’s possible to have a congregation like that.

I am a bit concerned that the administrator may have been quote-mined. It is very difficult to know exactly what the speaker means without some context. Is it possible to link the NI presentation or to give a little more context?

We have done a Day of Prayer the last seven or eight years…. I didn’t want it to get to routine where you get into the same ol’ same ol’ all the time. So, this last year I thought I really want to tie this to a right view of God and worship because I think that is so woven in with prayer. So, I had met Jason and Drew earlier this year and was impressed with their teaching on worship and I invited them to come to join us, same with Josh Beers. I think for many of you it was a real blessing Day of Prayer.

Some expressed to me concerns that you were not comfortable with that day. And I just want to say to you I apologize for that. The last thing I ever want to do (indiscernible) is someone, especially students to be uncomfortable about something. That is not my intent. My intent is completely that we are united to worship God and learn to pray. It was probably different than we normally do and I know for most of you you’re thinking, “what is he talking about?” I think for some of you, you understand what I am saying. It was different. I go back to this; these principles have almost always driven when it comes to music in worship. Music is not going to be a controversy at Northland in the future. We are not going to let it [music] be. We are just not going to fight over that. It [music] is going to look different not that we’ve changed our core values and principles, but as you reapply those to the times it will look different. Most of our alumni that I am with look different than me…. People ask where is Northland heading in the future? I will say we are catching up with our alumni because I think they get it. When it comes to worship and music here is what I am committed to: 1) It’s Doxological. In other words, passionate pursuit of the glory of God above all things. 2) It’s Biblical: The commands and teachings of the Scriptures are the principles that guide us. 3) That it’s spiritual. That it’s in the heart. It is in the heart level and it manifests love. 4) Where it’s in the proper context. I just want to say to you as students there are going be things that you may really love and really not love as much or feel uncomfortable, but if there’s ever a time like in a service you’re not comfortable with something, two things: 1) You feel free to step out and I’ve said even if God’s working in your heart you need to go and pray, you feel free to step out. I don’t want you to feel trapped by anything. 2) You know the door is always open to come and talk. I am not going to try to twist or change or convince. I just hope that you feel we can talk through these things. And I believe this with all my heart: If you live committed to these principals, what I’ve talked about: God’s glory, to be guided by the Scriptures in your life and do everything in love that God is going to bless that kind of life and ministry. As we lead Northland we don’t do things perfectly, but I want you to know the heart in that and the heart behind the Day of Prayer is to be unifying and I think for many of you it was. I don’t want to create a controversy of some saying, “did you think it was good or not?” I don’t even want to get there. How you feel matters. It matters to me. It matters to all of us here and we want your experience at Northland to thrive and be a real, real authentic Christianity that’s rooted in Scripture, the Word of Christ. ~Matt Olson

Joel,

I would agree with your point #3. While I would say that my church is a blended church (as really you also see a lot of fundamentalist go to to some degree), I have been in plenty of contemporary churches. I have yet to see one of them not sing traditional hymns to some degree. Many will not even play some of them with music and will slow them down to draw reverence from what is being sung. I think many fundamentalist have this view that traditional looks one way, and contemporary is a bunch of tattooed guys only using drums and electric guitars and they these people have thrown out the past. I have never seen this.

… if you sow discord amongst the brethren because of a continual, nasty attitude - by pouting, refusing to sing because you know better than the musicians and elders who are responsible to choose music - we will warn you and if it continues you’ll be met with Church discipline. This approach to “schismatic elitism” in music is not allowed in our congregation. It’s OK for you to not “prefer” a song - and if you can show us from the Scriptures why a song is not Scriptural we will consider not using it. But this individual, “lone ranger” mentality that “you know best” and better than everyone else in the congregation is sick and divisive.

Joel, do you think there are cases in which it is possible that someone sitting in the pew actually does know better than those picking the music?

Perhaps I’m reading this too closely, but this statement stikes me as odd. Joel said, “If you can show us from the Scriptures why a song is not Scriptural we will consider not using it.”

If you have been shown from the Scriptures that a song is not Scriptural, what is there to consider?

Joel,

You would discipline an otherwise faithful believer out of your church for not singing along with songs that he is convinced are either beneath the glory of God or contrary to his understanding of Christianity?

Hmm… Where have I heard that before?

[Chris Ames]

Joel,

You would discipline an otherwise faithful believer out of your church for not singing along with songs that he is convinced are either beneath the glory of God or contrary to his understanding of Christianity?

Hmm… Where have I heard that before?

I don’t think he states this at all. He is stating that if the believer is trying to sow discord or create a schism, this person would be dealt with. This in my view is the right biblical approach. This to me is no different than how you would handle an otherwise faithful believer who is sowing discord or schism over the KJV, or the family movement, or wearing hats……. I can’t speak for Joel, but I would assume that if someone doesn’t want to sing the song, that would be fine, just as it would be fine if someone only used their KJV at church, or if they chose to have their children sit with them instead of going to Sunday School, or the woman choose to wear hats. I believe the line that Joel is drawing is when that individual forces this belief on others,or tries to create problems over it.

dgsz,

Joel didn’t nuance it like that. He merely merely defines a “nasty attitude” as “pouting, refusing to sing”.

Although I’m not sure how someone who thinks reverence is as subjective as Joel seems to could ever hope to pin down something as elusive as “pouting”. :D

Joel had better take attendance also. Over the years, we have been members of two Churches where a few times a year, the Pastor would invite a group in to perform Christian rock like the Northland group does. Everything else about the Church was fine so we didn’t choose to leave (and there weren’t many Biblically sound Churches in the areas either) but rather we either stayed home or visited another Church while the Christian rock group provided their entertainment.

If a Church had Christian rock entertainment consistently, we would never visit that Church much less ask for membership.

[dgszweda]

I don’t think he states this at all. He is stating that if the believer is trying to sow discord or create a schism, this person would be dealt with. This in my view is the right biblical approach. This to me is no different than how you would handle an otherwise faithful believer who is sowing discord or schism over the KJV, or the family movement, or wearing hats……. I can’t speak for Joel, but I would assume that if someone doesn’t want to sing the song, that would be fine, just as it would be fine if someone only used their KJV at church, or if they chose to have their children sit with them instead of going to Sunday School, or the woman choose to wear hats. I believe the line that Joel is drawing is when that individual forces this belief on others,or tries to create problems over it.

But how would someone in the pew, an otherwise faithful member of the church, force his belief on other people? More specifically, if I wanted to try to do this, how would I go about it?

Should I bring a boom box to church, and while everyone else is telling Jesus that life is theirs to live, I’ll blast the “Te Deum” in Latin? Or should I wait until after the service and tackle them in the parking lot, chanting a plainsong? Or perhaps you’ve seen other methods that were more effective before you banished the conservatives from your midsts and consigned them to the lot of the tax collector and the heathen.

I must know. It will make life so exciting! :)

I can tell you how someone does what Joel is talking about. The church I pastor is conservative musically. But I had a former member do what Joel is saying in another area. Whenever ANYTHING didn’t go his way at a church business meeting, he would sit back and pout, fold his arms, and make it clear to everyone he was upset. He would do this in a variety of areas. When he was confronted privately, he left in a very nasty manner.

Joel is not talking about someone quietly not singing. He is talking about someone clearly making everyone know that what the church is doing is wrong. At least that is my take on it.

This is what Joel wrote above:

“That being the case -if you sow discord amongst the brethren because of a continual, nasty attitude - by pouting, refusing to sing because you know better than the musicians and elders who are responsible to choose music - we will warn you and if it continues you’ll be met with Church discipline.”

I’ll trust that he means what he says:

1. What is the result of what you are doing? “sow discord”

2. How do you “sow discord”? “a continual, nasty attitude?

3. How do we know you have “a continual, nasty attitude”? “by pouting, refusing to sing”

4. What will we do to you because we noticed that you were “pouting, refusing to sing”? “warn you”

5. What will do to you if you continue in “pouting, refusing to sing” after we warned you? Church discipline — which according to the Bible means you will be put of the Church as an infidel if you don’t repent.

It would seem that conservatives (musically) whose conscience is pricked but what they believe to be irreverent, worldly or even blasphemous music are not welcome in Joel’s Church.