An Examination of Sovereign Grace Ministries and Getty-Townend For Use in Fundamental Christian Churches (Part 2)

[DavidO]

[Joel Shaffer]

Marsilius,

The reason that jcoleman can infer that Don Johnson’s views lean towards dualism and Gnosticism is because of Don’s denial of the goodness of Creation (except for food and marriage) from I Timothy 4:1-5. Orthodox Christians interpret this passage that God created the world and everything in it as good (not just the food and marriage). Everything means Everything. Of course, the fall corrupted all of creation, but Paul still affirms its goodness. Paul calls those that deny God’s goodness in creation as teaching “doctrines of demons”.

Joel,

I don’t think this holds up. You would say language is good but can be used improperly, sinfully even. Don would say music is good but can be used improperly, sinfully even. Hardly gnostic.

David,

But we all agree that music can be used improperly. (In fact, that’s the whole thing I’ve been arguing—that the misuse/abuse of something is the issue, not the thing itself.) But that’s not what I termed Gnostic. What I termed Gnostic (or, rather, called similar to Gnostic teaching) is the idea that some emotions (which all agree can be used in good ways) such as anger, sexual desire, etc., are somehow more base than others. Since the emotions that are called base tend to be more physical while the less base tend to be less physical, certainly it shouldn’t be that hard to see the similarities between that dichotomy and the physical/non-physical dualism of the Gnostics.

Marsilius,

I’m not saying that only Don has a problem with this. I think that modern evangelicalism (including fundamentalism—intentionally painting with a very broad stroke here) actually has been touched quite a bit with this kind of thinking. And I include myself in that: I tend to want to think of “spiritual” conversation etc. (meaning often, the more intellectual/non-physical) as being higher than enjoying the physical parts of life. But God says it’s all good. And Paul corrects that type of thinking. So I have to correct my own thinking—imitating Paul’s teaching.

And I do believe it has bearing on this thread. As Joel pointed out, we absolutely must affirm that all things are good. Not just the things we want to be good. As soon as we get off that rail, we head down some pretty odd paths.

Friends,

Please forgive my tardiness in responding to postings about the last two parts of my and Ryan Weberg’s article. I am afraid the beauty of tropical mountains and ocean and family have kept me from my computer for the past week. I will respond to some of the posts directly and write up a more formal response to some issues, which the Proclaim and Defend editor (http://www.proclaimanddefend.org/) has generously promised to publish on that site.

DB

Friends,

After looking briefly over the debate above, I think it will be more profitable for me to re-read the comments, come up with a list of the significant issues and questions, and then try to address then as completely as I can. I will attempt to do so in the next 5 days. I rest on the readers’ patience.

I will attempt to answer some of the questions in the postings for Part 3 of the article, as they come, unless they will be covered in the formal response.

If I could, let me just make a couple general comments about the discussion above, as I have skimmed it:

• Neither I nor my co-author had no ulterior or dark motives in writing the Examination. We take seriously the injunction of I Thess. 5.20-22: “Do not despise prophecies, but test everything; hold fast what is good. Abstain from every form of evil.” (ESV), and this was our only motive.
• We undertook this examination because we have both been asked frequently about these particular ministries. We recognize (and even discuss in the article) the differences between SGM and GTM.
• I will not engage in a discussion about past discussions about music (see the numerous comments about 1970s and Garlock, et al.). My focus will remain specifically on the article posted, while delving into some of the ideas behind it. I hope readers will do the same.
• The article began with a series of presuppositions. Could I remind the readers of these:

1. new music and lyrics are something to be desired and sought after
2. musical sound is a mode of communication, not a neutral aural backdrop
3. Christians must test all forms of communication created for worship and edification, accepting that which is true and beneficial, while rejecting that which is not
4. Christians are capable of propagating untruth (both propositional teaching and engendering of inappropriate emotions), as well as truth, through art
5. congregational music is the most important musical activity in a local church
6. decisions about music are to be governed by both music-specific passages and other ‘universal principles’ of the Scriptures, and
7. such decisions should be made by local churches, as well as individuals

Could I suggest that the article be read in light of these presuppositions? Could I also suggest that readers cross-reference the Examination article with my article on Music and Missions. Keeping such contexts would clarify a few issues. (May I also suggest that any interested reader take a look at NEW HEART, NEW SPIRIT, NEW SONG for presentation of most of these presuppositions, written in an informal, ‘popular’ form?)

• Lastly, could I ask readers/commentators to carefully read what Ryan Weberg and I actually wrote? We attempted to take great care to be as specific and as nuanced as the discussion warrants. I look forward to dealing with the substantive issues raised, but am sorry that several writers seemed to read their own prejudices and assumptions about our positions into our article and proceeded to make superfluous or inaccurate statements.
• Lastly (“this time I’m sincere!”), let me affirm my own commitment to the authority and sufficiency of the Scriptures in all areas of life. I firmly believe these propositions and much of my teaching here in Asia dealing with music focuses on helping pastors and musicians develop a sound theology (biblical musicology) of music. However, we must wrestle both with what the Scriptures reveal about the nature of music, as well as the mechanics of that nature (thus the foray into musical ‘technicalities’). I will try to say more about this in my formal response.

I wish a wonderful start to the new year to all who have read and responded. My hope is that we each may grow more like our Saviour and deepen our love for Him, and that both may be reflected in every area of our lives.

DB

2. musical sound is a mode of communication, not a neutral aural backdrop
3. Christians must test all forms of communication created for worship and edification, accepting that which is true and beneficial, while rejecting that which is not.

This is what confuses me. Against what standard are we supposed to “test” musical sound? Is there a clear biblical standard or are we going to spend our days redefining “worldliness”?

[GregH]

[Don Johnson]

[Dan McGhee]

We do know for a fact from Psalm 150 that Temple worship in early NT times would have included, but was not limited to:

“praise him with trumpet sound” (3)

“praise him with lute and harp!” (3) … etc. …

The scholars I have read on this subject say that the worship of the early church was modeled off the synagogue, not the Temple.

My impression is that synagogue worship was quite different from that of the Temple.

I appreciate you actually trying to deal with the text of Ps 150, but more work needs to be done to demonstrate that this actually became a model for the church.

Lol. Love how Don keeps propping up his strawman, twisting our argument into one he can actually debate against. No one here has suggested that Psalm 150 is a mandate or model for anything. Don keeps pretending that is our argument because it he knows he can’t defend against the argument we are actually making.

[Ron Bean]

2. musical sound is a mode of communication, not a neutral aural backdrop
3. Christians must test all forms of communication created for worship and edification, accepting that which is true and beneficial, while rejecting that which is not.

This is what confuses me. Against what standard are we supposed to “test” musical sound? Is there a clear biblical standard or are we going to spend our days redefining “worldliness”?

[jcoleman] What I termed Gnostic (or, rather, called similar to Gnostic teaching) is the idea that some emotions (which all agree can be used in good ways) such as anger, sexual desire, etc., are somehow more base than others. Since the emotions that are called base tend to be more physical while the less base tend to be less physical, certainly it shouldn’t be that hard to see the similarities between that dichotomy and the physical/non-physical dualism of the Gnostics.

This is helpful, thanks for the clarity. I’d have to go back and read through everything Don’s written to see if this is what he said, but point taken.

However, would you not agree that any affection which ought not be directed towards God (are there any?) would, because of the object in view, be considered base over against the proper affectional response to Him and His deeds?

If so, the gnostic charge may be moot.

Doug, glad you came back. I will wait for your new article rather than responding to your post here.

[Alex Guggenheim]

[GregH]

[Don Johnson]

[Dan McGhee]

We do know for a fact from Psalm 150 that Temple worship in early NT times would have included, but was not limited to:

“praise him with trumpet sound” (3)

“praise him with lute and harp!” (3) … etc. …

The scholars I have read on this subject say that the worship of the early church was modeled off the synagogue, not the Temple.

My impression is that synagogue worship was quite different from that of the Temple.

I appreciate you actually trying to deal with the text of Ps 150, but more work needs to be done to demonstrate that this actually became a model for the church.

Lol. Love how Don keeps propping up his strawman, twisting our argument into one he can actually debate against. No one here has suggested that Psalm 150 is a mandate or model for anything. Don keeps pretending that is our argument because it he knows he can’t defend against the argument we are actually making.

I cannot speak for Don but I can speak to your errant hermeneutic and ecclesiology. The text has a context, it is being prescribed to the Theocracy of Israel. In order for you to take it out of context and claim because it was done in one context it can be done in another requires a hermeneutically and theologically based argument, not simply because it was done there it may be done here. Many believers built altars to God to worship him in the OT and because there is no prohibition for this I guess we should start building altars with rocks? The prohibition is built into the NT phenomenon that your heart is now God’ s altar and to build another one apart from that is to deny this divine reality and its explicated and implicated protocols. You have a long way to go beyond “it was done there so it can be done here because no explicit prohibitionexists” to argue this is acceptable ecclesiastical liturgy. In fact, these were sanctuary based dances and the shadow or type of the OT sanctuary is just that, a type, of something to come which is God dwelling in us individually and corporately and has not only implications with regard to this change but explicit ecclesiastical forms of expression with unique and limited protocols which do not include any form of dance. Your wish to climb over this formidable mountain with ” well it was done there so we can do it here” might make you believe you indeed are on the other side but you have not even met the challenge of justifying the taking it out of context, never mind everything else.

Those were sanctuary dances? We now have explicit ecclesiastical forms of expressions with unique and limited protocols?

OK, I am going to let this drop now…

[GregH]

Those were sanctuary dances? We now have explicit ecclesiastical forms of expressions with unique and limited protocols?

OK, I am going to let this drop now…

The fact that you cannot justify taking Psalm 150 out of context nor understand the history and context of its imperative and occurrence leaves you with just what you are doing, departing with postured exasperation. You have no argument other than, “It was done there so we can do it here”, hence you are offended at every turn when rebuttals to your inadequate argument are made.

That is not a process of discovery, it is just posturing which leads me to believe it is better for you to depart here. Discovery is the treatment of the points of others for which you have none at this point.

[Alex Guggenheim]

[GregH]

Those were sanctuary dances? We now have explicit ecclesiastical forms of expressions with unique and limited protocols?

OK, I am going to let this drop now…

Well whether you have been informed or not, yes there were sanctuary dances (not exclusively but since Psalm 150 begins with the context of the sanctuary it is quite contextual to understand these were in view with the writer) with specific forms. And whether you know it or not we do have some explicit ecclesiastical forms of expression and limited protocols given in the NT.

The fact that you cannot justify taking Psalm 150 out of context nor understand the history and context of its imperative and occurrence leaves you with just what you are doing, departing with postured exasperation. You have no argument other than, “It was done there so we can do it here”, hence you are offended at every turn when rebuttals to your inadequate argument are made.

That is not a process of discovery, it is just posturing which leads me to believe it is better for you to depart here. Discovery is the treatment of the points of others for which you have none at this point.

No Alex, I am not exasperated or offended at all. Just letting you do your thing while everyone watches…

BTW Doug, I should mention that I appreciate you interacting here. That is a positive thing in itself and a bit rare. I said I was going to wait for your new article, but only because this thread has become impossible to follow in a lot of ways.

Joel and Coleman, thank you both for responding, and responding reasonably. I still have my doubts about whether either of you understand what Gnosticism is. If you want to say that people have heretical thinking, then you need to understand the heresy. Otherwise, you simply paint good people as bad.

Joel, because Don does not include all of creation in his exegesis of 1 Timothy 4:1-5, this means he employs Gnostic thinking? I disagree with Don’s view on this verse. But we really overshoot the mark by calling his view Gnostic. Get serious. Don is limiting “every creature” to food on the basis of verse 3. I disagree with him, but he isn’t Gnostic. A Gnostic would have so much difficulty with the passage that he wouldn’t even give it the time of day. Yes, I did call Don Bible puritan. I think I added that everyone in the discussion is the same. Now let me be more plain spoken: YOU also are too Bible puritan to ever be Gnostic. In every comment I have read that you have made, you accept the Bible as truth, and place no other writing on equal plane. Just like Don, you are immediately disqualified as a Gnostic thinker.

To state that certain musical chords are not good or spiritually unedifying: this is Gnosticism? Please give me chapter and verse from Gnostic writings. Otherwise you simply are saying that if you find someone’s spiritual statements about music off base, they qualify as an heretical thinker. Do you see my point? We go much too far with those kinds of statements. Aristotle in his Politics defined certain kinds of music (which he named) as base, and certain kinds of dancing as base, worthy only of slaves, but not of decent persons. How is this different than what Don is saying about certain types of music (in fact Don is not that harsh)? OK, now we call Aristotle a Gnostic. It gets kind of absurd (for those who do not know, Aristotle predated Gnosticism by more than 400 years).

Gnostic belief is highly complex and varied, but nearly all Gnostics believed and continue to believe that the existence of evil preceded the creation of the world. Human souls are celestial and good. They are trapped in an evil material world (“do not touch, do not taste, do not handle”). But even if human souls do evil, evil will be overcome and they will one day be freed from the earthly realm to the pure celestial realm. And of course, Jesus did not really die on a cross. He could not in such a thought-system. Salvation comes through knowledge, not through atonement. Gnostics did not and do not believe the Bible as you and I do, they simply have used it to develop their own stories, myths, ideas, and theologies. This is the way of thinking both of you tell us that not only Don, but lots of believers are caught in. For this is indeed Gnosticism. Quite honestly, I have never heard anyone but living Gnostics talk this way.

Are Christians who are extra strict infected with Gnostic thought? Is this how you explain the early Methodists? or the Mennonites or Amish? Is this how you explain the Puritans? Read the writings of Tertullian and you will find he preaches a strictness almost unbearable for American believers of our day. This man is known by historians and theologians as one of the most deadly foes of Gnosticism who ever lived. Let me help you: strictness may be asceticism; it may be just plain strictness, but that is not the same as Gnosticism at all.

So I appeal to you again, please leave off charges of Gnosticism, or Gnostic thinking. I haven’t read any yet in 160 posts.

[GregH]

No Alex, I am not exasperated or offended at all. Just letting you do your thing while everyone watches…

So all of your huffing and haranguing still leaves you with 2 errant elements and an unsustainable position:

• You have offered no reason beyond the rationalism that because it was done in the OT it is acceptable to be practiced in the NT due to no direct prohibition being stated
• You are protesting without a theologically or hermeneutically ( refusing to deal with the context and asserting it can be taken out of context without qualification) based argument

Maybe you have never been taught principles of Bible interpretation, hence your arguments are the way they are. Or maybe none of that means anything to you, I do not know in either case but thus far you have failed to follow any rules of Biblical interpretation starting with context.

I can’t speak to GregH’s thoughts, but it’s clear to me that the Psalms present patterns of worship which have both continuity and discontinuity with New Covenant worship. Some expressions of psalmic worship clearly have Mosaic covenant specificity and are discontinuitous with New Covenant worship (e.g., the altar processions and liturgies of Psalm 118). But other expressions of psalmic worship clearly have continuity with New Covenant worship. The NT not only quotes and alludes to many psalms as having direct Christian application but also encourages the use of psalms in Christian worship (Eph. 5:19). Whatever is not bound explicitly with the expired aspects of Mosaic legislation might well be practiced under the New Covenant, all things considered. The New Testament affirms the Old Testament practice of “sacrifices of praise.”

But the specific psalmic commands to worship in various ways (e.g., “praise him with the trumpet”) would not necessarily be binding. We are not disobedient Christians if we never have trumpets sounding in our meetings. Nonetheless, those old commands are instructive and suggestive of the potential grandness of corporate worship when the church gathers.

On a side note, the Psalter developed not only within the context of the Mosaic Covenant, but also within the Davidic Covenant (note particularly many of the royal psalms). The Mosaic Covenant has expired, but not the Davidic Covenant, All that to say, we shouldn’t think that the Psalter has only a Sinaiatic orientation.

On another side note, I’ve often mused that much of the public worship of the tabernacle/temple would have been outdoors. The multitudes could not enter into the sanctums, so the loudness of the music might have been somewhat diffused. Depends on where the Levitical musicians were stationed, I guess, but it would still be loud at times. And there’s certainly no NT prohibition against indoor volume apart perhaps from temperance derived from being considerate of one another.