"Church survival doesn't depend on music style."

[Steve Picray]

Larry Nelson wrote:

How is it that the tabla, a drum instrument [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabla] , can be appreciated in worship in other countries or cultures, but such an instrument is widely deemed unacceptable within fundamentalism in the U.S.? (From a couple of YouTube videos I saw, it definitely produces a “beat.”)

Or how is it that the “joyfully rhythmic music of Africa” (“with body motions” even!) can be appreciated in worship elsewhere, but not here?

All music has a beat. But there’s a difference between the beat of a piano, the beat of an Irish Bodhrán drum (such as is seen here), and the beat of a complete American drum kit, which is designed for a different type of music.

I’m sorry, Steve, but that’s nonsense. If you’re going to tell me that the same drummer with the same sets of sticks with the same drums around him is going to have a completely different genre just because he’s sitting and the drum stands are different, you really need to get out more. Reality here is that the drum set is simply an affordable, compact way to get percussion, period, and we shouldn’t get all worked up about whether a drum has Gaelic art or “Ludwig” on the side.

The drum, or whatever instrument, and the genre, are just tools, just like a gun or car. The same snare drum can, according to chance, find itself on stage with the BJU orchestra or Iron Maiden. The same voice can sing Handel’s Messiah or one of Air Supply’s peans to fornication. The same harp can play hymns, Stairway to Heaven, or Highway to Hell. (heavy metal is actually surprisingly popular among classically trained musicians, believe it or not)

Let’s grow up, abandon our guilt by association nonsense, and start asking real questions about our music, starting with does this particular song effectively communicate the Word of God to the People of God?

Bert, I think most of us understand that it’s not the instrument, per se, but the way it is played that makes a difference. And yes, there is a noticeable difference in style between say Sousa, and Queen. Another question is if either of those styles would be appropriate for worship, and that is entirely separate from whether either of those styles is “wrong.”

As far as association is concerned, it’s the only or even most important factor, but we can’t ignore it either. Hence the long texts about eating meat that is associated with idol worship or an idol temple, when Paul declares that it is certainly not the meat itself that is the problem.

Dave,keep in mind here that Paul wasn’t dealing with a situation where those meats just looked like they could have been sacrificed to pagan gods. He was dealing with a situation where almost all meat available to the poor (and even the middle class) had in fact been sacrificed to idols.

So it’s really not guilt by association at all, and it’s profound that his conclusion is that it’s OK to eat that meat unless either the idol is praised in doing so (by eating in the temple or with acknowledgement of that “god”), or whether others around will automatically infer a praise to that idol. Get those guys to Jerusalem and away from the temple of Zeus, and they’re going to give up vegetarianism.

It’s really a profound statement against guilt by association, akin to saying you need to show it the same hospitality as you would a traveling vacuum cleaner salesman.

Behold! A metal drummer plays, “I’m a Little Teapot.” A wonderful example of genre crossover …

[dcbii]

Another question is if either of those styles would be appropriate for worship…..

I see exhortations to worship God by means such as clapping, shouting, dancing(!), “loud clashing symbols,” and other exuberant ways all throughout the Psalms. Is there anyone who maintains that, while such means were clearly pleasing to God at that time, such means are not pleasing to (our immutable) God today?

Typically, I see appeals to so-called “Traditional” music-only that point to the “psalms and hymns and spiritual songs” passages in Ephesians and Colossians. These passages, it is sternly intoned, obviously refer to the style known today as traditional. Of course, this exegesis only works if:

1. One ignores the internal descriptions of worship within the Psalms themselves.

2. One simply assumes, lack of evidence notwithstanding, that the style that we associate today with the word “hymn” equates with the style of music associated with the Greek word of the 1st century that is today translated as “hymn.”

3. One simply assumes that “spiritual songs” are necessarily sedate and somber.

Really, the clearest command we have for how we must worship God comes from Jesus Himself in John 4:23, which, try as some might, contains no reference to style.

The other concern I sometimes see is an appeal to “reverence,” with the implication being that only one style is reverent. It that accurate to say, though? Here’s one definition of “reverence”:

1 : honor or respect felt or shown : deference; especially : profound adoring awed respect

2 : a gesture of respect (as a bow)

3 : the state of being revered

4 : one held in reverence —used as a title for a clergyman

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reverence

From the relevant parts of the definition above it seems to me that reverence is an attitude that can exist independent of style. To put that another way, a participant in a traditional service may be sullen, angry, disrespectful, and may simply be “going through the motions.” Conversely, a participant in a contemporary service may inwardly be respectful, in awe of God, and fully engaged in worship. Which one is showing reverence?

[Larry Nelson]

I see exhortations to worship God by means such as clapping, shouting, dancing(!), “loud clashing symbols,” and other exuberant ways all throughout the Psalms. Is there anyone who maintains that, while such means were clearly pleasing to God at that time, such means are not pleasing to (our immutable) God today?

There might be, but I’m clearly not doing so. I’m questioning if all dancing, shouting, and loud clashing cymbals are the same. I think it’s fairly obvious from the scene where the 10 commandments are broken that not all of what we would do for worship is acceptable (and not just worship of another God). I’m guessing that most of us (if not all) would say that what occurs in a mosh pit is not what is depicted in the Psalms. Unless you don’t accept that there are any differences there, then there must be some way to tell them apart.

From the relevant parts of the definition above it seems to me that reverence is an attitude that can exist independent of style. To put that another way, a participant in a traditional service may be sullen, angry, disrespectful, and simply be “going through the motions.” Conversely, a participant in a contemporary service may inwardly be respectful, in awe of God, and fully engaged in worship. Which one is showing reverence?

I haven’t made that argument, and I’m not generally disagreeing that reverence can be independent of style, to an extent. I don’t even disagree that music could depict anger, hatred, and jealousy and still be valid since those attributes are expressed by God at various times. However, unless you are arguing that *ANY* style is acceptable to be used for worship of God, a line must be drawn somewhere. The real trick is to understand how to draw it properly, which might be different in different places and times.

[Bert Perry]

Dave,keep in mind here that Paul wasn’t dealing with a situation where those meats just looked like they could have been sacrificed to pagan gods. He was dealing with a situation where almost all meat available to the poor (and even the middle class) had in fact been sacrificed to idols.

So it’s really not guilt by association at all, and it’s profound that his conclusion is that it’s OK to eat that meat unless either the idol is praised in doing so (by eating in the temple or with acknowledgement of that “god”), or whether others around will automatically infer a praise to that idol. Get those guys to Jerusalem and away from the temple of Zeus, and they’re going to give up vegetarianism.

It’s really a profound statement against guilt by association, akin to saying you need to show it the same hospitality as you would a traveling vacuum cleaner salesman.

And yet, you still have Paul’s declaration that if meat makes his brother to stumble, he won’t eat it. In the 1st century, it wasn’t that simple to just send Christians to Jerusalem, and the starting of churches in all those pagan cities showed that that wasn’t really necessary or desired. So how did those Christians need to minister and behave where idol influence was strong? I would agree that the meat wasn’t the issue, but eating it where the brothers could take offense was indeed a problem. It’s my view that with enough distance and time, a song that might remind me of, I don’t know, Purple Rain (just an example), might not be the issue it would be for many saints now.

When Paul in Acts 17 said “God is not worshiped by human hands” he didn’t just mean making idols. Anything done in our own strength is not worship. Can singing in assemblies truly worship God? yes, of course! This is not however the designated function of meeting together weekly. It was about reading (hearing), teaching, and exhortation (1Tim. 4.13).

Meeting together was for mutual encouragement primarily (Rom. 1.12, Heb. 10.25) and teaching. Jewish synagogues are still referred as Shuls (schools). The Temple was for worship in displaying the redemptive motifs.

The main worship activity in local churches should be redemptive motifs as commanded: The Lord’s Supper.

The article speaks about “words” instructing. Pictures instruct also. For instance, did you know that the Holy Spirit disclosed in the OT that the way into the most holy place was not yet revealed while the first tabernacle was standing? (Heb. 9.8). God teaches through redemptive motifs besides using words.

Interesting song to mention, since Prince died today.

Also interesting because of what it was; one of Prince’s less creative efforts, and one that looks an awful lot like a huge number of “slow songs” that kids have swayed to at school dances since the late 1950s, and it’s a genre that a lot of CCM tries to emulate. So it’s a great picture of a hasty generalization in terms of response to music. I see it a lot, sad to say.

But let’s avoid guilt by association and figure out whether we could use Prince’s style in church. Most of his songs have irregular meter in the stanzas and regular meter in the refrains, which will be a disadvantage when we’re trying to communicate Scripture to people—if you’re not “into” Prince, his stanzas tend to come together like the adults from Charlie Brown. Moreover, they are very uniformly intense—fitting given the subjects of his songs, generally fornication talk, but the same tends to shut off the brain when you’re trying to communicate Scripture.

Notice here that we’ve figured out some real musical and Biblical reasons not to follow Prince too closely that have nothing to do with guilt by association—it’s simply that the intensity and irregular meter of his music doesn’t work to convey God’s Word to God’s People.

[Bert Perry]

Notice here that we’ve figured out some real musical and Biblical reasons not to follow Prince too closely that have nothing to do with guilt by association—it’s simply that the intensity and irregular meter of his music doesn’t work to convey God’s Word to God’s People.

That is not universally true and certainly depends on the person. There are a lot of people to whom a hymn would be so foreign to them that it wouldn’t “work to convey God’s Word” either. That doesn’t make hymns wrong though. It only means that it may not be wise to use them in some particular settings because other forms would be more appropriate or effective at conveying the message. Music is a tool.

Ricky, first I think we’ve got to agree that there are some universals—you seem to agree that a major (the?) purpose of music in Scripture is to convey the Word of God to the People of God, for example. No? And in the same way, I think we would agree that the conveyance of this message is subject to the proper use of poetic devices—it may vary somewhat from culture to culture, but there are some principles to be had.

But regarding “too foreign”—yikes! that’s more or less that the kid who doesn’t want to eat something new says, no? If we want to make our music choices automatically self-referential, go ahead, but that’s going to lead to fights. We don’t necessarily need to be able to spell it out poetically and musically, but we could say “you know, for whatever reason, I just can’t remember what I just sang”.

Time Travel

Gregorian Chant first came to exist in the 9th and 10th centuries in Western and Central Europe, and were named after the Pope St. Gregory the Great (540-604 A.D). These chants are performed A Capella, without musical support, and sung in Latin. Latin had been the language in use throughout the Western Church almost since its foundation. When the Second Vatican Council introduced the use of native language in the Mass instead of Latin, in 1962, the tradition of Gregorian Chants started to decline. Today, Gregorian Chants are rarely sung during offices anymore, but can be heard in some retired monasteries. The sound created by the Monks performing Gregorian Chants, transports you to a time long gone.

These chants had such long tradition — more than ten centuries — because they probably touch deep in one’s very soul and spirituality, and brought a marvellous sense of inner peace. Music knows neither area, time nor language. If you wish, allow yourself to escape your busy life for a while, and re-connect with yourself. Close your eyes, and let the ancient sounds of Monks carry you away.

[Larry Nelson]

What is the standard for judging one beat acceptable and a different beat unacceptable?

I don’t know. I’m not an expert on music. Some of this is highly subjective. Some of it is like the Supreme Court quote about how to tell if something is pornographic or not: “you will know it when you see it.”

[Steve Picray]

Larry Nelson wrote:

What is the standard for judging one beat acceptable and a different beat unacceptable?

I don’t know. I’m not an expert on music. Some of this is highly subjective. Some of it is like the Supreme Court quote about how to tell if something is pornographic or not: “you will know it when you see it.”

For reference, the decision is Jacobellis v. Ohio, and the concurrence I know it when I see it set the stage for No serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value of Miller v. California. Note when you scroll down and read the three prong Miller Test, the first step is “community standards.” In other words, if we go with I know it when I see it, we are inherently choosing a self-referential standard, and not a Biblical standard. This decision more or less set the stage for the legalization of hard core pornography nationwide—the town that bans it by statute or code soon finds the shop right outside city limits in the nearest buildable lot, and finds that it’s all getting in via the Internet.

In terms of our churches, our standard becomes “what the dominant individual in the church likes.” No, thank you. So while there is certainly room for subjectivity in the evaluation of music, I think we need to find something of a firmer foundation for our doctrines of music, to put it mildly. Put more bluntly, are we fundamentalists, holding the Scripture as our sole rule of faith and practice, or are we not? By what Biblical logic do we add to the requirements of Scripture in this regard?

[Bert Perry]

…

Let’s grow up, abandon our guilt by association nonsense, and start asking real questions about our music, starting with does this particular song effectively communicate the Word of God to the People of God?

Emphasis mine.

Ummmmmmmmmmm, wrong. Guilt by association is exactly what Scripture communicates.

“But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of devils [I Cor. 10:20-21].”

And, like the drum, it may be an identical cup with, likely as not, identical stuff in it. Idolatry taints the object and the action. That is what the whole prohibition of pollutions of idols/meat offered to idols is about—incorporating idolatry into the assembly at the most fringe of levels.