Is Using CCM a Step Toward Apostasy?

At his conference, MacArthur said the following:

“I’m convinced that the contemporary style of Charismatic music is the entry point for Charismatic theology into church. If you buy the music, the theology follows,” he continued. “I think that the Charismatic movement has significantly diminished worship. It has taken it out of the area of truth, out of the mind, and reduced it to the feelings of the flesh.”

KML

So none of Watt’s Whims either?

Really, I don’t see anything in the Bible supporting this idea that there is such a thing as an immoral style of music. The song as a whole could communicate something moral, but most of this argument is like saying that no true Christian would praise God with free verse because we know the only acceptable format is the sonnet.

Are the ungodly artists of Amos 6:5 doing anything appreciably different musically from David?

#1 about Calvinists is completely nuts… there are believers all over the Calvinist-Arminian spectrum using hymns and modern songs.

1. The phrase “Watt’s Whims” was first used to describe his hymn texts, not any musical style. The discussion at that time was whether or not the church should sing only Psalms or if it was permissible to also sing hymns based on the Bible that were written by uninspired writers.

2. One of the producers of current CCM music for church use is Vineyard Music. Here’s what they have to say about their music:

Vineyard Worship exists as an organic extension of the Vineyard church movement in the USA (Vineyard USA)… . We believe that the Vineyard continues to have a unique voice and quality in the broader Church’s experience of worship. We believe that the songs, words and expression of our worship are different because they are informed and infused with Vineyard core values… . Our music … comes from the trenches of local Vineyard church ministry as they seek to experience engaging the Kingdom of God in their local communities… . Vineyard Worship was established in response to the original worship songs that were being born out of the fledgling Vineyard movement… . The Vineyard still has a role to play to bless the whole Church in worship by expressing our unique God-given voice - a unique expression of heart and values that has been called “Vineyard Worship”.

We have a dynamic and prolific creative community in the Vineyard, and Vineyard Worship maintains the ability to speak into this community; being able to give creative, spiritual and theological input influencing content of our songs before they are written. At the same time, Vineyard Worship provides an outlet and gathering point for these local Vineyard church worship expressions to bless our wider Vineyard worship community and beyond.

3. Regarding morality of music, here is an excerpt from FORGOTTEN TEXTS AND DOCTRINES IN CURRENT EVANGELICAL RESPONSES TO CULTURE by John Makujina:

At some point in life the Christian is faced with moral choices that are not specifically addressed in Scripture. So the question is asked, “What do I do when the Bible is silent about the moral status of a certain activity?” Or, “How do I apply the Bible to everyday moral decisions?” The common answer seems to be, “What the Bible clearly forbids we must forbid; but where there is no clear command we are free to engage as long as our conscience allows.” When applied to the current worship wars this position is known as the normative principle of worship, … . In its most elementary formulation the normative approach essentially conceives of the Bible as a catalogue of sins or an encyclopedia of prohibitions. Therefore if a certain prohibition is not mentioned, Christians are considered free to engage if their conscience is not violated… . Fortunately the Bible was not delivered to us as a comprehensive directory of taboos, but often guides behavior through a network of larger principles, worldviews, and theology as a whole… . [however] those who operate in the elementary instruction of Christianity are like infants who drink milk, because they lack experience and skill in gleaning moral guidance from Scripture… . I would argue that the writer of Hebrews would consider the normative principle of popular evangelicalism, i.e., “nothing that is not specifically designated as evil in Scripture is evil—but rather a matter of one’s personal preference or taste,” as a token of spiritual immaturity. Hebrews would regard the practitioners of this policy as babes, unskillful in the word of righteousness and ethical reasoning, … .

[Brenda T] “Watt’s Whims” was first used to describe his hymn texts, not any musical style.

William Romaine is one who was known to refer to Watts’s hymns as Watts’s Whims. In his Essay on Psalmody written in 1775 Romaine wrote,

My concern is to see Christian congregations shut out divinely inspired psalms, and take in Dr. Watts’s flights of fancy; as if the words of a poet were better than the words of a prophet, or as if the wit of a man was to be preferred to the wisdom of God… . Why should Dr. Watts, or any hymnwriter not only take the precedence of the Holy Ghost, but also thrust him entirely out of the church? Insomuch that the hymns of a man are now magnified above the word of God… .

And, I believe the psalm book in use during Watts’s time and place was the edition by Sternhold & Hopkins.

I think we need to be careful with how we seriously we take these words:

“At some point in life the Christian is faced with moral choices that are not specifically addressed in Scripture. So the question is asked, “What do I do when the Bible is silent about the moral status of a certain activity?” Or, “How do I apply the Bible to everyday moral decisions?” The common answer seems to be, “What the Bible clearly forbids we must forbid; but where there is no clear command we are free to engage as long as our conscience allows.”

This position makes it very hard to take strong biblical principles and apply them to our lives in any circumstance.

For example, take the verse “Abstain from all appearance of evil.” from I Thessalonians 5:22.

Can we not all agree that some things do “appear” to be evil and our need is to determine what those things might be? To suggest it is only up to someone’s conscience to determine this is akin to “every man doing that which is right in his own eyes.”

That is the challenge. Which issues are truly a matter of conscience and which matters are biblical principles that need to be applied by all. (Not in a legalistic sort of way, but a clear understanding of how to apply a principle from Scripture in 2013 and beyond.) If we make all issues a matter of conscience, I think holiness in the lives of believers is destined to suffer.

Also, I think a man or woman’s conscience can be seared, so trusting our conscience is dangerous.

Whatever happened to examining a passage, determining timeless truths, and then determining how they apply to our lives in our culture. I sense we have become too inebriated with our freedom from the law, that we allow our liberty to permit or support things which we would not, if we tried to apply the Scripture rather than just making taking the easy way out and making something a matter of conscience.

We need to spend more time deciding how a timeless truth could be applied to our lives and activities, rather than arguing over the morality of it or not. If we fight over morality, conclusions are diverse, and the result is many will suggest this means they must be a matter of conscience. Perhaps we need to focus on what things are truly a matter of conscience and what are a matter of good biblical principles found in His Word.

KML

When it comes to aesthetics, evangelicals have overlooked the doctrine of depravity, whether the vintage is Reformed or Arminian. If every component of our humanity is infected with sin and error, it must be the case that our aesthetic sensibilities have also suffered injury. If that much can be agreed on, then blanket statements to the effect that “there’s just no disputing my tastes,” or “all art and music forms are good” must be rejected and deemed incompatible with evangelical theology. To refuse to do so would be to court the Pelagian heresy, a position no Christian intentionally wishes to embrace.

http://religiousaffections.org/wp-content/uploads/MakujinaETS04_rev2.pdf

[KLengel]

I think we need to be careful with how we seriously we take these words:

“At some point in life the Christian is faced with moral choices that are not specifically addressed in Scripture. So the question is asked, “What do I do when the Bible is silent about the moral status of a certain activity?” Or, “How do I apply the Bible to everyday moral decisions?” The common answer seems to be, “What the Bible clearly forbids we must forbid; but where there is no clear command we are free to engage as long as our conscience allows.”

This position makes it very hard to take strong biblical principles and apply them to our lives in any circumstance.

For example, take the verse “Abstain from all appearance of evil.” from I Thessalonians 5:22.

Can we not all agree that some things do “appear” to be evil and our need is to determine what those things might be? To suggest it is only up to someone’s conscience to determine this is akin to “every man doing that which is right in his own eyes.”

That is the challenge. Which issues are truly a matter of conscience and which matters are biblical principles that need to be applied by all. (Not in a legalistic sort of way, but a clear understanding of how to apply a principle from Scripture in 2013 and beyond.) If we make all issues a matter of conscience, I think holiness in the lives of believers is destined to suffer.

Also, I think a man or woman’s conscience can be seared, so trusting our conscience is dangerous.

Whatever happened to examining a passage, determining timeless truths, and then determining how they apply to our lives in our culture. I sense we have become too inebriated with our freedom from the law, that we allow our liberty to permit or support things which we would not, if we tried to apply the Scripture rather than just making taking the easy way out and making something a matter of conscience.

We need to spend more time deciding how a timeless truth could be applied to our lives and activities, rather than arguing over the morality of it or not. If we fight over morality, conclusions are diverse, and the result is many will suggest this means they must be a matter of conscience. Perhaps we need to focus on what things are truly a matter of conscience and what are a matter of good biblical principles found in His Word.

KML

Chris, sorry I didn’t give a very thorough answer last night. I was pressed for time and probably should have just left it alone until I knew I would have more time for discussion.

It’s probably not a good practice to listen to a tune to a Watts hymn today and assume that’s how it sounded when he first wrote the text. I can think of at least two tunes off the top of my head that are currently in use in hymnbooks for Alas, and Did My Savior Bleed. Which tune was used when Watts first wrote that hymn? probably neither tune that I have heard.

If you look at Watts’ early hymn book you will see there are only texts, no notes. I’m guessing you know that at that time they used existing tunes that matched the meter of the text. If you look at a website like cyberhymnal you will see that the dates of the tunes attached to Watts’ hymns are later than the dates on which Watts wrote the texts. I glanced through one of my hymnals this morning and noticed that a number of tune writers for the Watts hymns in that book wrote their tunes after Watts’ death.

Regarding the link in the OP, I would have to say that it is not an article I would use or recommend when discussing music with someone. I think there is better material that addresses the subject, such as the Makujina text I referenced.

[Brenda T]

2. One of the producers of current CCM music for church use is Vineyard Music. Here’s what they have to say about their music:

Vineyard Worship exists as an organic extension of the Vineyard church movement in the USA (Vineyard USA)… . We believe that the Vineyard continues to have a unique voice and quality in the broader Church’s experience of worship. We believe that the songs, words and expression of our worship are different because they are informed and infused with Vineyard core values… . Our music … comes from the trenches of local Vineyard church ministry as they seek to experience engaging the Kingdom of God in their local communities… . Vineyard Worship was established in response to the original worship songs that were being born out of the fledgling Vineyard movement… . The Vineyard still has a role to play to bless the whole Church in worship by expressing our unique God-given voice - a unique expression of heart and values that has been called “Vineyard Worship”.

We have a dynamic and prolific creative community in the Vineyard, and Vineyard Worship maintains the ability to speak into this community; being able to give creative, spiritual and theological input influencing content of our songs before they are written. At the same time, Vineyard Worship provides an outlet and gathering point for these local Vineyard church worship expressions to bless our wider Vineyard worship community and beyond.

Which is exactly why I can enjoy modern music and still have Vineyard music on my personal ban list. And I can also complain to Pastor when people want to sing Vineyard songs. And ask the deacons/elders to remove that music from the church’s congregational worship for shoddy theology (and trite, repetitive songs, but that’s a different matter).

Saying that all CCM is bad because one publishing house has an agenda doesn’t prove anything other than one publishing house has an agenda.

As a result, we are hearing the death rattle of Fundamentalism’s last moments! Many are pleased to witness the death of Fundamentalism for they believe they are now free from the bondage of “Pharisaical ideals.” Others are heart broken because of what Fundamentalism stood for and what it stood against in its time. In my opinion, I believe that Fundamentalism has to die in order to pave the way for the Anti-Christ who will rise to dominate the world scene. All that remains of Fundamentalism is a Godly remnant as a witness of Christ in a very dark time.

With:

Behold, the hour is coming, indeed it has come, when you will be scattered, each to his own home, and will leave me alone. Yet I am not alone, for the Father is with me. I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world.” (John 16:32-33)

That article reeks of fear. And God did not give us a spirit of fear.

[Dave Gilbert]

From experience: Rap, Country, Rock, Jazz, Blues and several others are definitely carnal and no believer should listen to the stuff, if only for the simple reason that it is in disobedience to this: As God’s children we are to deny ourselves, deny the flesh, present our bodies as a living sacrifice, etc. There’s quite a bit out there that is of the flesh, but until God brought me back out of it, I never realized how much of it is.

Dave, what are the technical differences between jazz and blues? And what are the technical reasons that either are “definitely carnal”?

I didn’t lump all of CCM into the Vineyard orbit. It was simply an example of how one music publisher (of CCM) admits to the theological influence they intend to have on the church as a whole. Perhaps they are not the only ones who try to do so. Perhaps other publishers of CCM also have biblically-questionable values and theological positions they intend to dispense along with their music.

[Brenda T] I didn’t lump all of CCM into the Vineyard orbit. It was simply an example of how one music publisher (of CCM) admits to the theological influence they intend to have on the church as a whole. Perhaps they are not the only ones who try to do so. Perhaps other publishers of CCM also have biblically-questionable values and theological positions they intend to dispense along with their music.

Oh, there are more than a few. You’re right in that regard, and it is frustrating to have to throw out a lot of music because of their message. After all, if it’s not explicitly Christian, why should the church sing it? :)

… and I doubt that anyone would deny my freedom to eat steak. So, obviously the word “flesh” needs to be fleshed out. What do people mean when they use the word “flesh” pejoratively? “Feelings”, “the world”, and “emotions” were words that were connected with “flesh.” Is there something innately wrong with “feelings” and “emotions?” Once again, I doubt anyone would claim so. That leaves “the world.” I have a better idea of what people mean when they use it, but I it appears arbitrary in application, at times. I love the NBA. It appeals to my flesh, excites my emotions, prompts feelings in me, and is a product of the world. It also reminds me that we have an awesome Creator.

Maybe rock music is sinful, but, if so, words like “feelings”, “emotions”, and the “flesh” are problematic if not expounded. If someone tells me that rock music appeals to their flesh, I don’t know what I’m supposed to do with that or how it applies to me or anyone else.

I’ll say this, at times, claiming that rock music is wrong because it appeals to the flesh sounds an awful lot like gnosticism. Making me move suggestively or sensually isn’t helpful. I’m not necessarily sure what movements people find suggestive or sensual. I’ll concede that, like Justice Potter, just cause you can’t always define it that doesn’t mean that you don’t know it when you see it. That also doesn’t mean that music that makes you want to move means that the movement is by necessity suggestive or sensual. Once again, clearer definitions would go along way to establishing credibility with people (especially teenagers). Allow me to give an example - I’m sure that everyone on this thread is at least familiar with PCC. Well, I grew up in Pensacola, and several years ago I was a bartender at Seville Quarter (remind me one day to share how the Holy Spirit used Ron Bean in my life during that time.) Seville Quarter was, and I’m assuming still is, the definition of sensual and overtly sexual, especially on Friday and Saturday nights. So, here I am, this guy who grew up in strict fundamentalism surrounded by all this overt sexuality. One of the things that blew my mind about that place is that many of the guys I worked with loved to hang out on the PCC campus because they found the girls there sexy. It didn’t compute with anything that I’d been taught growing up, and served to reinforce in my mind that my parents had been wrong all along. Sensual and sexual were used as “scare” words, and clear Biblical principles were usually not connected with those scare words and we were most definitely not taught how to apply those words in differing situations. My point with that anecdote isn’t to deny teachings on and desires for modesty. My point is that unless we’re more specific with our terms and definitions of those terms and how they directly apply to what our King expects, we run the risk of falling into the trap of subjectivism that immature minds can use to turn back on us. Sometimes maybe Holiness has a subjective element to it (what trips me up doesn’t trip you up) but Holiness is always built on the foundation of what God has revealed about Himself in His word.

Side bar- I don’t understand why Believers fall all over themselves to use media-ecology in this debate. Media-ecology is a form of post-structuralism. I’m looking at you, Why Johnny Can’t Sing Hymns.

[W] hat are the technical differences between jazz and blues? And what are the technical reasons that either are “definitely carnal”?

GregH, How much musical expertise does someone need to have before they can make these judgements? If the common person in the pew can’t make them, doesn’t your question represent the kind of “music popery” the conservative side of this debate is often accused of?

I can enjoy modern music and still have Vineyard music on my personal ban list.

Jay, did you have them on your “ban list” before they announced what they were up to in their music? Can the problem be discerned by merely listening to it? How, specifically, is it different from music not on your ban list?

Fundamentalism has to die in order to pave the way for the Anti-Christ

Not a good indicator that the rest of the article is worth reading …

Jay, did you have them on your “ban list” before they announced what they were up to in their music? Can the problem be discerned by merely listening to it? How, specifically, is it different from music not on your ban list?

In order:

1. Yes - that’s actually the first time I’ve seen them admit to that. MacArthur and others noted it during the Strange Fire conference as well (I’m slowly working my way through the audio).

2. Yes. My criteria is (roughly)

• What is the message of the song’s lyrics?
• How does that message compare to Scripture/Theology? Does it match or mesh?
• What does it sound like?
• Is it offensive to another person, esp. those who come from a rock music background? Would it cause them to sin or stumble?

3. I think the above answer will answer that question. :)

But, consider this: They are musical constructs of unbelievers used to give them auditory pleasure in this present world. Anyone who knows music intimately can probably point to it and say ( basically ) that music has essentially 2 purposes:

1) The entertainment and / or glorification of the flesh.

2) The glorification of God and the refreshment of the human spirit ( not the flesh ).

Dave-

How does non-CCM (music that is acceptable to you or other believers) avoid falling into the category you bolded? I have a ton of non-CCM acquaintances and friends that are listening to music from the classical era. There are no words to communicate. Are they wrong for listening to get ‘auditory pleasure’? I think you would disagree with that, but I’m not sure. If not, then how does classical music glorify God without having ‘lyrics’?

I completely disagree with you on the purpose of music. God gave us music (as he does with any gift) as a means to praise Him. Satan (and I do think that we can fairly blame Satan for this, with a significant portion of our sinful fleshliness involved) distorted that tool when he fell into sin and when we were marred by it.

[DavidO]

[W] hat are the technical differences between jazz and blues? And what are the technical reasons that either are “definitely carnal”?

GregH, How much musical expertise does someone need to have before they can make these judgements? If the common person in the pew can’t make them, doesn’t your question represent the kind of “music popery” the conservative side of this debate is often accused of?

The answer is none. Anyone is welcome to make any judgments they want to to govern themselves or their family. But Dave went far beyond that. He loudly proclaimed that no Christian should listen to that music. I asked the questions to see if he had any expertise that would qualify him to tell me what kind of music to listen to. As it turns out (not surprisingly), he doesn’t.

Dave, I think some expertise is needed to make proclamations that a certain kind of music is right or wrong for all Christians. You have now made statements about jazz, blues, unresolved patterns, discordant notes, minor chords and any myriad of other things. I challenge you to pick just one of them and make a credible case to support your views. My personal preference would be for you to defend your aversion to minor chords; I would love to hear that one but will take what I can get.

If minor chords are to be rejected, then Russian Evangelical Christian-Baptists would have little to no non-imported and translated music. Minor chords are at the heart of native Russian music.

Instead of non-imported and translated, please substitute indigenous.

[Rob Fall]

If minor chords are to be rejected, then Russian Evangelical Christian-Baptists would have little to no non-imported and translated music. Minor chords are at the heart of native Russian music.

[Dave Gilbert]

To all:

I’m beginning to get the distinct impression that I really am in a minority here…What about separation? What about Christ’s commandments? Why is it so hard to understand that rock music and Jesus Christ do not mix? I came out of a lifestyle of carnal sin that was so thick it could be cut with a knife, and now some of you are telling me ( if I understand correctly ) that rock music, in the right amount, is OK?

Does no one see that the same, exact methods of marketing and sales have been established to distribute most CCM as have already been put in place by the worldly, secular record companies? I don’t know about you, but that makes me sit up and take notice. What about these CCM artists and the way they “promote” themselves…anyone? How about their theology? Their associations?

Let me say this in closing:

I am in no way saying that all CCM is bad…I am saying that CCM that resembles the world and its ways is bad, because it emphasizes the flesh and quenches the true Spirit of God, IMO.

Dave,

You might be in the minority with respect to use of CCM in worship, though in the practical outworking of your view, it sounds like I would be more or less in your camp in the music I would use for worship.

Where you are going to find disagreement here (and even from me) would be when you would try to assert that scripture makes clear exactly which forms of music are bad, or that it’s “obvious” that minor chords or certain chord progressions are wrong, etc. If you are going to do that, you need to prove it, and you need to present the case for it, whether it’s commands or principles from scripture, or other objective truth that can be shown.

I do try for myself to draw some lines that attempt to put a distinction between what is “in the world” and what is “of the world,” but that is not so easy as it seems. We clearly accept some things the world does as being more or less OK, while others we decry as worldly. I think every Christian needs to “judge righteous judgments” to do this. However, if you are going to both make judgments and claim it’s valid for all Christians, then you are going to have to present proof that that’s the case. Simply declaring it as obvious and expecting others to just see it the way you do won’t get the job done, and declaring them to be undiscerning if they don’t see it your way won’t either.

Since I don’t personally believe in the innate morality of music (apart from lyrics), I make judgments based on lyrics (when present) association, appropriateness, time, intent of the piece, capability to be a stumblingblock, etc. However, that will result in different judgments depending on the circumstances, such as whether it’s corporate worship, whether others are with me, etc., and does not result in the hard and fast positions that someone like you would take. Further, it’s going to mean that I might not judge things the way Jay or Greg would. While judging in in that way has the capability to make us uncomfortable (not least because it sounds so close to post-modern), it’s also the Romans 14 way in the absence of clearer information. As soon as someone can demonstrate to my satisfaction that the scriptures can be used to judge any piece of music completely objectively, I’ll change the way I do it. In the mean time, using other scriptural principles is the best I have.

Dave Gilbert,

First, I didn’t say Psalm 46 was for unbelievers; I said Psalm 46:10 was addressed to unbelievers. V. 6 says that when the nations rage, God simply speaks and their opposition melts away. V. 8-9 talk about how God defeats the enemies of his people and causes wars to cease—not through diplomacy, but by devastation. Here is what the UBS OT Handbook says:

In verse 10 God himself speaks to the nations (Anderson thinks the words are addressed to the people of Israel): “Stop fighting” is what he commands. The traditional “Be still” is widely misunderstood as a command to be reverent (in church) and meditate on God’s blessings. The Hebrew verb means to cease, be inactive. SPCL has “Surrender!”; BJ, FRCL “Stop”; NAB, NJV “Desist!”; TOB “Drop your weapons!”; GECL “Make peace.”

Derek Kidner, in his commentary on the Psalms, says:

So, too, the injunction “Be still…” is not in the first place comfort for the harassed but a rebuke to a restless and turbulent world: “Quiet!”—in fact, “Leave off!” It resembles the command to another raging sea: “Peace! Be still!” (p. 176).

Calvin, Spurgeon, and Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown say similar things in their commentaries.

I’m not advocating “carnal dancing” (which of course would need definition). I’m reacting against your statement that seemed to forbid any music that would cause the body to “get moving” in any way (what about marches?).

Second, we all believe in separation from the world, but as Dave Barnhart mentioned above, you are assuming, rather than defining or defending, the notion that certain forms of music are automatically worldly. I was glad for your qualification at the end of the last post when you acknowledged that not all CCM might be bad. Thank you for that.