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

[Larry Nelson]

Craig wrote:

Larry Nelson wrote:

Craig wrote:

…. so …. music is the ingredient for growing churches …. and not preaching

It’s both…..and more.

Historically, I can think of many churches and/or evangelists known for their evangelistic prowess that recognized that music is a powerful, allied evangelistic tool. Think of D. L. Moody, and the great song leader Ira D. Sankey immediately comes to mind. Billy Sunday had Homer Rodeheaver. Bob Jones Sr. utilized music greatly in his early evangelism. Billy Graham (whatever your opinion is of him) had Cliff Barrows and George Beverly Shea. Spurgeon famously deplored much of the contemporary hymnody of his day (which ironically is what we today so often idolize), yet he didn’t seek to oust it from the Met Tab–he recognized its evangelistic value.

what are the Biblical instructions to the church for music? …

…..it’s a broad enough question that I could write volumes, and yet probably still not address what you’re looking for.

How about one volume using the Pauline epistles.

[RickyHorton]

Craig wrote:

.. the primary context of 1 Corinthians 14 is tongues versus prophecy so I’d be hesitant about building too much doctrinal teaching concerning singing with this passage except to say the song must be understandable…

But the apostle Paul under inspiration of the Holy Spirit brought in music as an illustration so you can’t throw it out. You agree with me that the song must be understandable. Doesn’t that mean you have to consider those that will hear it in order to be sure they understand it???

I didn’t throw it out. The application from that passage concerning singing is that it must be understandable (which I previously stated). Go through Paul’s epistles and look what he says about music/singing versus what he says about preaching and teaching the word of God. He’s certainly for singing, but it doesn’t dominate his writings like it does the modern church.

[Craig]

I didn’t throw it out. The application from that passage concerning singing is that it must be understandable (which I previously stated). Go through Paul’s epistles and look what he says about music/singing versus what he says about preaching and teaching the word of God. He’s certainly for singing, but it doesn’t dominate his writings like it does the modern church.

Ok, so if you are agreeing that we need to make music understandable to those that are in the service, what is the point you are trying to make then? You started trying to make the point that music shouldn’t be used evangelistically, now you’re talking about something totally different (singing vs. preaching/teaching in Pauline epistles).

[Craig]

Larry Nelson wrote:

Craig wrote:

… not saying there is not application here, but neither of these circumstances are in the context of a local church meeting of the body of Christ …

…..but if so, I think it misses the broader point. You’re looking for a biblical commandment to use music–in church–for evangelistic purposes. I don’t think I can point to precisely that in the Bible; merely the examples through inference and implication that I’ve already mentioned.

I think the broader point is this though: is there any place where evangelism should not be permissible? If you think that evangelistic intent is out of bounds within the walls of a church because the Bible apparently doesn’t explicitly command such (at least to your satisfaction), well, I reject that. Such a notion is utterly incongruous with the earthly mission of the church. Furthermore, church history has a long, proven track record of effectively rejecting such a notion.

Such a disputable notion focuses on the relatively trivial, at the expense of the vital. It requires disregarding actual Biblical commandments, or at least a misguided prioritization of them (see Matthew 23:23 ESV).

I don’t know the situation at your church, but we’re of a size at which we have unsaved guests and visitors at every service. Are we to ignore their presence and the opportunity to lead them to Christ? That isn’t to say that our main purpose as a gathered body of believers is to reach the lost in our midst. No, our main purpose in gathering as a local church is to worship God and to edify the believers present (and that’s clearly a N.T. teaching).

We can’t (and won’t) disregard the fact that God leads unbelievers through our doors though. Here’s a principle: If we did, God would no longer lead so many of them our way (a principle for which there is ample Biblical precedent).

The earlier posts give the perception that churches with the greater numbers use contemporary music thus setting off a debate about music and music styles. I’m asking for Biblical instructions to the church concerning music. Paul speaks about singing, but it certainly doesn’t dominate his epistles like music seems to in the American church. Again read through his epistles and note his instructions concerning music versus his instructions concerning preaching and praying.

“For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.” (1 Corinthians 1:21)

You’re saying that, while music does have a Biblical place in worship services, it is not the most important element, and moreover it must never be the most prominent or dominant element.

I unreservedly agree.

On the other hand, if you’re saying that music, to the extent that it should be used in a worship service, must be of one particular style: that’s where you lose me.

[Bert Perry]

Greg, I had the thought this morning that your thesis, were it to get some traction in Bible colleges, might be very helpful in helping them understand what they’re doing and how they might do things better. Any such luck?

I should add that its primary focus was to analyze the value of using the Perry Scheme “as is” in Bible college settings, not necessarily to create and test a new developmental scheme (although hopefully take a step in that direction).

I was asked an interesting question today that I’d like to pass on to those of you who hold to the traditional position. “Where and when did your tradition originate?” First century? 16th Century? 19th Century? 1950’s?

Greg, if it’s allowable, it would be interesting to take a peek. Not that I’m qualified to understand, of course. :^)

Ron: here you go. Somewhere back in time unknown in Anatevka, of course.

All the below.

[Ron Bean]

I was asked an interesting question today that I’d like to pass on to those of you who hold to the traditional position. “Where and when did your tradition originate?” First century? 16th Century? 19th Century? 1950’s?

More excerpts from his 1993 book, Reclaiming Authentic Fundamentalism:

“There has developed within certain segments of Fundamentalism a hostility to change, no matter its form or purpose. This kind of intransigence has grown out of a tendency to make non-absolutes into absolutes or to impute divine authority to human traditions.” (p. 66)

“Nor are we suggesting that the concept of tradition is intrinsically wrong. The right kind of tradition is very valuable…..However, that which has been most hurtful to urgent and effective evangelism within Fundamentalism is not tradition but traditionalism.” (p. 67)

”Tradition is the living faith of godly progenitors, passed on from generation to generation. Traditionalism is the dead faith of living Christian leaders attempting to hold on to power.” (p. 67)

“Do we dare face ourselves squarely? Some of us within Fundamentalism are practicing traditionalism. In our insistence that “my way is the only way,” we have begun to shut down authentic ministry. Unwittingly, we have embraced a posture of resistance to the will and Word of God.” (p. 67)

“What this means is that we need to begin not only living in the modern world but actually ministering in it. Few of us are driving Model T’s to church, but some of us are antiquated in our methodology…..As we have said earlier [in the book] , it is possible to make adaptation in our methodology to the culture without experiencing contamination by our culture. And from my perspective, it is not only possible, it is absolutely essential. Without it we will become ineffective in evangelism and incapable of retaining the next generation of thinking pastors within the Fundamentalist orbit.” (p. 67-68)

“When we face Jesus Christ at the Bema, the excuses of tradition or peer pressure won’t wash!” (p. 69)

––––––––––––––––––––––

How prescient were his comments 23 years ago about ineffectiveness in evangelism and about the next generation of Fundamentalists?

How much hand-wringing has been done in the years since he wrote this book about young Fundamentalists leaving the movement in droves?

Likewise (and I’m speaking from my purview here in Minnesota), effective evangelism by Fundamentalism appears to generally be virtually nonexistent.

My simple view of church music:

• Is it singable (eg for a guy like me who has very little singing giftedness)
• Is it theologically accurate & rich (it edifies)
• Is it playable (observation: some congregations have an enormous amount of talent (my church) … other churches struggle to find a faithful and gifted piano player)
• It is subordinate to the preaching / teaching ministry and complements it

I observe that much of the music debate defends the correctness of one’s own [church’s] music and criticizes other churches’ music. The beam and speck verses come to mind.

For an absolute stark contrast I observe:

• 4th Baptist’s music program is absolutely A+. It meets my 4 points above. 4th by the way has incredible talent and great leadership [Roger Killian]
• In Texas on Easter (we were in the Dallas area for 2 weeks on the occasion of my mother’s death the week before Easter), we attended a small Bible church. The music was very different than 4ths: The instruments: a couple of guitars, a keyboard, small drum set and a piano. The choir - marginally talented but they gave it their best. That church met the 4 point criteria above.

[RickyHorton]

Craig wrote:

I didn’t throw it out. The application from that passage concerning singing is that it must be understandable (which I previously stated). Go through Paul’s epistles and look what he says about music/singing versus what he says about preaching and teaching the word of God. He’s certainly for singing, but it doesn’t dominate his writings like it does the modern church.

Ok, so if you are agreeing that we need to make music understandable to those that are in the service, what is the point you are trying to make then? You started trying to make the point that music shouldn’t be used evangelistically, now you’re talking about something totally different (singing vs. preaching/teaching in Pauline epistles).

The first reply to the article stated “It is in our contemporary services that we are seeing the great preponderance of visitors, new attendees, salvations, baptisms, and new members.” The statement gives the perception that their growth is the result of contemporary music rather than traditional music. My emphasis is that growth in a church should primarily be the result of the teaching and preaching of the word of God. Music, whether it is contemporary or traditional, is not going to be the primary reason for the salvation and spiritual growth of individuals. Other posts have already addressed the “contemporary versus traditional” music issue so there is no need for me to go there. I didn’t say anything about using or not using music for evangelistic purposes, though it is pretty clear that music in the church is primarily for the believers. My personal opinion is that music gets too much attention in churches. Paul labored much in fighting false teaching, yet was silent about musical issues in the church. I think the music debate is pretty much a phenomena of the modern American church. I have heard music in churches that could so easily blend in with the mysticism that has crept into the church.

[Ron Bean]

I was asked an interesting question today that I’d like to pass on to those of you who hold to the traditional position. “Where and when did your tradition originate?” First century? 16th Century? 19th Century? 1950’s?

My question (for anyone) would be when did music with a heavy beat become prominent?

My question (for anyone) would be when did music with a heavy beat become prominent?

The following answer is delivered with a smile: Probably about the time churches started using a percussion instrument in their services; that percussion instrument being the piano.

I am a traditional music guy when it comes to church services. I am blessed to be a member in a church that exclusively uses traditional music in our services. Our choir sings songs in the style of the Pettit, Galkin, and Coffey evangelistic teams. We use Getty songs and Sovereign Grace songs, but we sing them “correctly” instead of scooping, dipping, etc, like Mrs. Getty (and others) do. (for an example, here’s a song called “Across the Lands” sung by Kristyn Getty and the same song sung by the Galkin team.)

That being said, I listened to the Gaithers, Sandi Patti, Steve Green, etc when I was in high school. I even like a few Michael Card songs. And when it comes to secular music, I enjoy music from several genres so long as it does not glorify sin (I don’t listen to songs that glorify alcohol consumption, adultery, fornication, or other unbiblical themes).

But not in church. See, to me, church is a place where I go to set aside a specific time to worship God to the exclusion of all else (as opposed to the every day worship of God that I do outside of church). I do not think worldly music styles are appropriate in church. Are they then always inappropriate everywhere? I don’t think so. It is much like the idea of a bathing suit: it’s appropriate at the beach, inappropriate at church. Or wearing no clothes at all: appropriate in the shower, inappropriate almost everywhere else. So for me, I will listen to my country or whatever in my car, but not during church.

Do I begrudge my brothers and sisters who think it’s acceptable to have a drum kit on stage and have the electric guitar blaring while they sing contemporary worship choruses? No. that’s between them and God. I have visited several churches over the years where I didn’t care for the music, but the preaching was just fine (doctrinally). Would I join those churches? No. But I did direct my sister to attend a well-known contemporary music church just north of Des Moines because I know that (other than the music) the church is a good church. And I know my sister prefers contemporary music. I would rather that she come to the conclusion on her own that this type of music is not appropriate for worship.

Also, I don’t believe that pragmatism should be our standard. I believe we should study the Bible, and try to live according to the principles we believe the bible teaches in these areas, regardless of “which method gets more visitors.”

[Craig]

Ron Bean wrote:

I was asked an interesting question today that I’d like to pass on to those of you who hold to the traditional position. “Where and when did your tradition originate?” First century? 16th Century? 19th Century? 1950’s?

My question (for anyone) would be when did music with a heavy beat become prominent?

Look at the Psalms, where 149 and 150 clearly mention percussive instruments like cymbals and the practice of dancing in Temple worship. If it doesn’t have some discernable beat, good luck dancing to it, unless it’s that mushy swaying people used to do to Air Supply (airsickness bags available upon request). So the tradition—see the abduction of wives for the Benjamites as well—goes back over 3000 years. I would even argue that, given the ubiquity of drums and such in various tribal situations, it’s been worldwide for a while.

Really, the question is not whether Biblical music had a beat or not, though. It’s whether music with a beat communicates well to people today—and I’d argue it does. One other reason to move our repertoire of modern music in the church beyond what might pose as “light rock”, really. You could do “When I Survey The Wondrous Cross” as a heavy metal power ballad quite well. Similar idea to Crue’s “Home Sweet Home”….start out quiet, build to a forte/fortissimo, back off….no, power chords and drums are not inherently worldly. Yes, I am saying that it may be possible for the church to learn quite a bit, musically speaking, from hair metal bands.