On "Conservative" Worship

Snoeberger nails it—too often, we try to conserve that which was never thought out well Biblically to begin with, and in doing so, fail to figure out how we may come together in song in a Biblical way. One little quibble; music is not technically speaking “worship”, which the ancient languages define as prostration. Not too many things you can do musically flat on your face! It is called music, or praise, but I think we really ought to define our terms Biblically, too.

I wouldn’t call music written, played, and sung with a “rockish” beat, electric guitars, snare drums, “breathy” style mimicing nightclubs, prancing around on stage like secular musicians, and so loud you can’t even think “conservative” nor “Christian” nor “worship”. Alas, this is still part of the debate/disagreement between Fundamentalists, Convergents, Conservative Evangelicals, and all shades inbetween. Thus the continued, never-ending posts and threads on this blogsite. Some believe that this type of music is neither right nor honors God. Some do. And the two will never agree, no matter how much we define our terms. What I find particularly sad is seeing historically Fundamentalist colleges host speakers who are associated with contemporary music and who use that music in their ministry, thus the weakening of music standards at these schools, which will eventually and inevitably lead to more changes, bringing these historically Fundamentalist schools closer to conservative Evangelicalism, which is what I believe the term “converging” means.

If Mark is correct in his assessment, the church will endure his described cultural cycle tedium until Christ returns. This is just depressing to me. Christians really need to take stock as to whether they are driven by purposeful godliness or cultural comfortableness, and this goes for the seeker/praise churches as well as the conservative/fundamental ones.

Cultural comfortableness can easily replace purposeful godliness, since it does not require thought, prayer, or interaction with God’s Word. Learning to purchase and wear the right clothes, listen to the right music, and speak the right jargon of a cultural denomination is trivially easy. Sanctification becomes just a matter of observing and mimicking. A person can learn to act the part in just a few weeks - dare I say - apart from the Holy Spirit.

Christians have a proclivity to use their own cultural milieu to judge the value of ministries over whether a church’s members are being purposefully godly. It might be interesting to pick up the phone one day and call random Christians, and apart from cultural considerations, talk to them about their lives and desires to see if they are passionate about following the Lord, studying his Word, reaching the lost, repenting of sin, discipleship, and feeding the body. Maybe we would find that not all of those who are exemplary in their faith come from the same style of church to which we’ve become accustomed.

Should that be the case, could we at least say “Amen!” and “To God be the glory!”

…..by taking a look at what we might infer from Scripture’s witness about music? I don’t see prohibitions of instruments or singing methods, let alone common time (which isn’t just rock & roll, but rather most music), but rather I do see God’s Word presented in poetic, lyrical form. I do see some hints for instrumentation and response, including some percussive instruments and dancing described in Psalms 149 and 150.

We might infer that the Psalms and other poems intended to be sung are put there in part to help God’s people memorize God’s Word, and to allow them to return praise to God in that form. It might even get the feet moving from time to time.

This, in turn, suggests a number of tests for any music, old or new. First of all, will anyone sing it? If the congregation is really quiet, they’re either not used to it, or they might hate it. Take a look at its poetry, musical setting, or theology for your answer. Second, does anyone remember what they just sang? It doesn’t have to be an earworm, and shouldn’t be, but if you forget it as soon as the words leave your mouth….again, check the poetry and musical setting.

Regarding how the music is played, I tend to agree with Wally that to “turn it up to 11” (turn up the volume) to “get that extra boost”, or to make extensive use of breathy lyrics, is generally a stylistic mistake, but is not necessarily a sin. The Bible records shouting and whispering from time to time, just not….all the time….and making excessive use of these tools is going to get in the way of our prime goal; to convey God’s Word to God’s People in lyric form and give them an opportunity to return praise.

Be careful not to assume that just because the Bible mentions certain musical instruments and dancing that our cultural use of those instruments and dancing is automatically OK. I’ve lost count of how many people have justified any form of dancing and any form or use of a musical instrument just because that instrument is mentioned in the Psalms. But, again, we will not settle this issue here. And the reality is the issue will never be settled. One concern I have is the subtle and perhaps dishonest changes some historically Fundamentalist colleges are making in their music programs (and other aspects of their ministry) while trying to appear to their traditional supporters that nothing has changed. Thus, the “convergence”.

[WallyMorris]

Be careful not to assume that just because the Bible mentions certain musical instruments and dancing that our cultural use of those instruments and dancing is automatically OK. I’ve lost count of how many people have justified any form of dancing and any form or use of a musical instrument just because that instrument is mentioned in the Psalms. But, again, we will not settle this issue here. And the reality is the issue will never be settled. One concern I have is the subtle and perhaps dishonest changes some historically Fundamentalist colleges are making in their music programs (and other aspects of their ministry) while trying to appear to their traditional supporters that nothing has changed. Thus, the “convergence”.

Wally, with all due respect, when Scripture commends and even commands musical instruments to be used in Temple worship, exactly who are we to decide that it’s not permissible to use them? Are we greater than Scripture and its Author? Besides, the BJU orchestra uses variants of all the instruments mentioned in Psalms, and “Patch the Pirate” even uses music in an identifiable tango rhythm in at least one song. The tango is, of course, one of the most sensual dances out there….and Ron Hamilton is giving that rhythm to kids. Horrors! Are you ready to go protest this at your alma mater?

Or, alternatively, we can admit that most of the arguments against specific instruments, genre, and the like are based on “guilt by association” fallacies, and we can then repent of our bad logic and proceed to come up with a more Biblical way of evaluating Christian music. As I noted above, there are some very real considerations that we can legitimately use to appraise what music we use in the church in terms of practicality, but I am aware of no decent argument that would outright eliminate entire genre, vocal techniques, or instruments.

I’m just going to make popcorn and watch this thread.

Actually, I will note that one of the first responses to this article was to link our mythical ‘convergent’ brethren with ‘bad’ musical style. Again. It’s like Pavlov and his dogs or something.

Bert:

It is clear to everybody that God only approves of Victorian-era hymns with piano accompaniment. You have betrayed the faith and I will now separate from you … neo-convergent.

[Jay]

I’m just going to make popcorn and watch this thread.

Actually, I will note that one of the first responses to this article was to link our mythical ‘convergent’ brethren with ‘bad’ musical style. Again. It’s like Pavlov and his dogs or something.

Music styles is such a BIG deal to some and I confess I have never been able to understand why. It is always one of the first things that a certain crowd wants to fight about. Bonhoeffer fought Nazis. They fight contemporary music.

[TylerR]

Bert:

It is clear to everybody that God only approves of Victorian-era hymns with piano accompaniment. You have betrayed the faith and I will now separate from you … neo-convergent.

At least you didn’t say camp meeting songs or revival meeting songs….and at least we’re not talking about cheap electric organs (why are they OK, but a guitar with electric pickups is not? It’s not like rock & roll bands are strangers to electric organs! )…and I take it you’re walking in the garden, then?

Seriously, I understand the desire to sit the whole thing out, but it strikes me that the kind of logical transgressions I see in this area are found really in every area of cultural fundamentalism, and quite frankly it’s splitting churches for no good reason. In this area, quite frankly I also see about the same behavior on the “modern music” side, to be fair, and I’d love to do a little part to help people view these things Biblically. We really ought to be sobered, and ashamed, by how many areas have half-dead churches of both the “old tunes” and “new tunes” varieties where both sides are throwing these fallacious arguments, but where nobody is really using either set of genre properly to convey the Word of God to the people of God in poetic form.

And so I find myself as one who loves much of the old music—even back to Gregorian chant and Psalmnody—who understands much of the weakness of modern music lyrically and musically, but who nonetheless is not willing to say that we ought to reject entire genre and instrumentation. To draw a picture, I’d personally love to hear “When I survey the wondrous cross” done with flute and electric guitar, heavy on the reverberation., and I’d love to hear some newer music rewritten with a decent set of harmonies for ATB and eliminating the “Air Supply” vibe one hears with so many “Jesus is my boyfriend” songs.

I guess that makes me a convergent.

Scott Aniol on many of the typical Straw Men arguments that plague the “traditional” vs. “contemporary” debate:

http://religiousaffections.org/articles/articles-on-music/ill-huff-and-ill-puff-and-ill-blow-my-imaginary-argument-down-2/

I think he makes numerous fair, balanced points here:

––––––––––––––––––—

“Straw Men in the Music/Worship Debate

One of the most dangerous, yet easy pitfalls one can fall into when discussing music/worship issues is to misrepresent the opposing view (most likely unintentionally). This is easy to fall into because it’s always easier to blow down an opponent’s position if you get to invent a pretty weak caricature of his actual view!

I’d like to just briefly list some of the straw man arguments I’ve heard on either side of the debate. I’m doing this largely for my own benefit since I’ve certainly been guilty of this from time to time. I think discussion and debate over these issues is important, but we must fairly represent the positions of our opponents for there to be any profitable discussion.

In each of the cases I’ll mention, I’m sure there has been someone somewhere who has held positions like these, or with some of these they may have even been positions held by a group of people in the past. But to represent either side of the debate today in any of the following ways is, in my opinion, unhelpful in these discussions. I’ll list these with little comment, just in order to stimulate some thought.

Straw Men Used Against a More Progressive Philosophy

1. “Contemporary Christian songs are written by theological novices.” Perhaps in some cases, but to say this universally is incorrect. There are many contemporary Christian songs being written today by men who have a deep love and respect for biblical theology.

2. “The lyrics of contemporary Christian songs are shallow.” Again, some certainly are. But there are many Christian songs written in a contemporary idiom that contain lyrics just as profound as those of Watts or Wesley. To make this kind of general statement is unhelpful.

3. “Contemporary Christian music is just entertainment-oriented.” The CCM industry was probably very much a commercial endeavor and interested in entertainment. But to apply this criticism to all sacred music written in a pop style is simply unfounded. In fact, such a charge could just as easily be levied against some churches that use “traditional” music. In reality, the Praise & Worship Movement and much of today’s contemporary sacred music is fueled by a particular theology of worship, not a desire to entertain.

4. “They just want to impress the world or be like the world.” Entering the realm of heart-motivation is always dangerous (something I’ve failed by doing more times than I would like to admit). But even if this charge is correct about some individuals or groups, there are certainly plenty of contemporary Christian musicians who are godly, humble, and motivated by a desire to serve the Church rather than attract the world.

5. “Contemporary Christian music always communicates sexuality and/or rebellion.” I will be the first to argue that much of the pop/rock genre communicates sexuality and rebellion, but not all of it does. Therefore, if conservatives are going to make this kind of charge, they must be very specific about what they are referencing since not all pop music communicates these kinds of messages.

6. “CCM artists are all worldly, ungodly, and often commit adultery.” Unfortunately, this kind of description could apply to any number of individuals, progressive and conservative alike. But it does not accurately describe a great majority of those who perform contemporary Christian music.

7. “Those who use pop music in church are just trying to attract unbelievers.” This is probably true about Seeker-Sensitive kinds of churches. But it is not at all true of most churches who use pop forms in church. I would suggest that most of those who use these styles of music are more motivated by a honorable desire to allow Christian people to sing to God in forms with which they are comfortable.

8. “They’re just a bunch of 7-11 songs; 7 word repeated 11 times.” Again, this may be true about some songs, but many songs written with pop idioms contain rich development and robust theological lyrics.

9. “Contemporary churches are all about what happens on the stage.” This is another charge that could just as easily apply to some churches that use conservative music, and quite a few contemporary churches are very much congregation oriented. Often far more so than many “traditional” churches.

Straw Men Used Against a More Conservative Philosophy

1. “They’re against anything new.” This whole debate really isn’t at all a new vs. old issue. It’s not about when a song was written, but the characteristics of the song. Of course, the term “contemporary” certainly adds to the confusion, but this kind of charge is simply untrue of the conservative position.

2. “They think the Bible tells us what music pleases God.” Certainly some people have done hermeneutical gymnastics to make Scripture say what it does not when it comes to music philosophy, but to broadly characterize conservatism this way is untrue. Conservatives simply want to correctly apply the Bible to musical choices just like the Progressives do.

3. “They think that rhythm is bad.” While conservatives do discuss what certain rhythms communicate in certain contexts, no thinking person would ever say that rhythm is bad. Music doesn’t exist without rhythm, and everyone knows that. I’ve heard Progressives quote a conservative discussion about what certain rhythms communicate and then summarize it with this charge. It’s simply untrue.

4. “They think that syncopation is sinful.” As discussions of the nature of syncopation have filtered down into the pew, perhaps some naive individuals believe that all syncopation is evil. However, no one intelligently engaged in the music debate has ever claimed that syncopation is sinful. It is certain kinds of syncopation used in certain contexts that are under consideration in intelligent discussions of music philosophy.

5. “They think that if a song wasn’t written by an independent Fundamentalist, we can’t use it in corporate worship.” This is perhaps the silliest straw man I have heard (and I’ve quoted this word for word from a real sermon). No conservative argues this or practices this.

6. “They elevate music standards to the level of Scripture.” Some conservative may view their music standards as pretty important, but is it really honest to say that they raise their standards to the level of Scripture? I would suggest that this is simply another straw man, ad hominem attack that is simply untrue. Again, we are all trying to correctly apply the Bible’s principles to our musical choices in worship.

7. “They think that music is the most important thing we have in our worship.” Again, this kind of charge is unfounded. There may be some who believe this, but I think you would be hard pressed to prove that any majority of people consider this to be true. In fact, I would suggest that those who prefer contemporary styles of music could fall under this charge just as easily, if not more so. Stereotypically, it is usually more conservative people who view music as merely “prelude to the preaching,” and more progressive people who view the music part of the service as “worship,” and the preaching separate.

8. “They think that biblical music is classical music.” Again, I’m quoting this charge word for word from a sermon, and again, it is a completely unfounded charge. Some conservatives may argue that classical forms have the best capacity to support biblical truth today, but no one is going to argue that David played Mozart on his harp!

9. “They think that certain instruments are bad.” Those who make this charge point to drums, for instance, and claim that conservative insist that drums are always bad. Yes again, this charge is silly. Any conservative would agree right along with the progressive that it is how an instrument is used that matters. It is not that drums are used but how they are used. Plenty of conservative churches have orchestras with percussion instruments. What is even more silly with this straw man argument is when the one making it exclaims, “Don’t they know that the piano is a percussion instrument? Maybe they should get rid of that too!”

10. “They think that repetition is bad.” Again, as with the syncopation straw man, making a universal statement like this does not in any way accurately reflect the arguments of conservatives. It is how repetition is used, in what kind of musical context, etc., that matters. Again, a common silly statement made with this kind of charge is, “If they don’t like repetition, maybe they should read the Psalms some time,” or “They’d have to get rid of Handel’s Messiah, because that sure has a lot of repetition.” It’s easy to blow down straw men of our own creation, isn’t it?

11. “They think it’s dangerous to allow emotions in music.” I feel like I’m repeating myself, but again, no Christian conservative thinks that emotion itself is bad. Emotion is at the heart of biblical religious and worship, and conservatives themselves call music the “language of emotion.” What concerns conservatives is certain kinds of emotions or emotionalism.

12. “They think the music issue is black and white.” Some may have implied this with how they have set up certain standards, but in reality, no one would say this. Everyone on either side of the debate recognizes that music is a very complex issues with lots of factors involved. They wouldn’t be involved in the debate if they thought it were black and white.

When we set up these kinds of straw men in order to discredit opposing positions, it is usually because we are unwilling to take the time and effort to intelligently engage with the deeper philosophical issues underlying each position. Now admittedly, on both sides of the debate, there are plenty of arguments being made that are unworthy of engaging. But to characterize everyone on a given side of the debate by one or more of the sillier arguments is dishonest.

Again, I truly believe that having discussions and debates about music is a healthy and important practice. But as we discuss these issues, let’s be sure that we are charitably and accurately representing our opponent’s positions.

What kinds of straw man arguments have you heard on either side of the debate?”

––––––––––––––––––—

Pass the popcorn …

Scott’s article extremely helpful. Fair and balanced!

9. “They think that certain instruments are bad.” Those who make this charge point to drums, for instance, and claim that conservative insist that drums are always bad. Yes again, this charge is silly. Any conservative would agree right along with the progressive that it is how an instrument is used that matters. It is not that drums are used but how they are used. Plenty of conservative churches have orchestras with percussion instruments. What is even more silly with this straw man argument is when the one making it exclaims, “Don’t they know that the piano is a percussion instrument? Maybe they should get rid of that too!”

I’m sorry, this is not necessarily a straw man argument. I’ve personally seen how adding a drum set (not drums in general) or an electric guitar can immediately solicit objections because “those instruments don’t belong in the church.”