Aniol; The Beethoven Group & the promotion of music over doctrine and separation

Why do you presume that one of the most ubiquitous form of communication in our culture suddenly is exempt from this need to know what it means in order to determine its propriety for anything?

I’m not saying that. I’ve never said that.

We are called to bring all things under the Lordship of Christ. Music, dress, politics, speech - all of it. Yet so often we treat music differently from the way we would anything else. Would we have this discussion if we were talking about acceptable dress standards for church? Or for the appropriate order of service?

As for your Bible illustration - it’s one thing for a translator with specific knowledge of language, with an aim to taking Greek and translating it to English, to do that. It’s another thing for someone to get up and tell believers that they can’t discern that which is pleasing to the Lord because they haven’t read or understood ______________ resource in addition to their Bible.

Either the Bible is totally sufficient for believers, or it’s not. Don’t say that it is and then steer people away from what it teaches in favor of __________________ because that’s the ‘holy’, ‘godly’ or ‘right’ position. Any instructor must be measured against what the Bible says, and any instructor that finds himself in disagreement with the Bible should not be leading a church.

DavidO - I believe that I’d asked you those very questions a few weeks ago. Turnabout? ;)

Would we have this discussion if we were talking about acceptable dress standards for church?

Happens frequently. That’s what the debate is about suit and ties, casual, shorts, jeans, dresses on women, dress your best like you would if you were going to see the president, what to wear if you are on the platform or in the choir, etc, There are some even here who appear to believe that a casual approach to church is sin.

Or for the appropriate order of service?

Happens less frequently, but still happens, such as the place for announcements, pastoral prayer, prayer of confession, place of the sermon, proper response to the sermon (come forward invitation vs. something else), when to take the offering, how to take the offering (pass plates vs. boxes in the back vs. online giving, etc.), etc.

But both of those miss the point. I don’t know anyone who believes that all matters of church practice are governed by the Bible. I don’t know of any who think it’s a sin to start at 10:30 instead of 11, or to start Sunday evening at 6 instead of 5. I don’t know of any who think its a sin to have the auditorium doors open (or closed) prior to the service. These things are matters of culture and preference.

But you appear to think music in the church is more similar to starting times than to curse words. Therefore you assign it to preference. But that’s a case you actually have to make. You can’t simply declare it to be preference and then operate on that declaration as if you have answered it conclusively.

As for your Bible illustration - it’s one thing for a translator with specific knowledge of language, with an aim to taking Greek and translating it to English, to do that. It’s another thing for someone to get up and tell believers that they can’t discern that which is pleasing to the Lord because they haven’t read or understood ______________ resource in addition to their Bible.

But this is exactly what is happening. The difference appears to be you think its okay for someone with a specific knowledge of language of words and grammar and syntax to do this, but not someone with specific knowledge of the language of music. That seems inconsistent to me.

But more to the point, once you admit that someone with specific knowledge of language is needed in addition to the Bible, you have given away your definition of sufficiency. I don’t see how you can continue to use it only for the things that are convenient, while denying it for other things. As you say, it’s either totally sufficient or it isn’t.

Either the Bible is totally sufficient for believers, or it’s not. Don’t say that it is and then steer people away from what it teaches in favor of __________________ because that’s the ‘holy’, ‘godly’ or ‘right’ position.

It is sufficient. The question is over what that means. Your definition is not workable, and has never been accepted even today. You don’t accept it for most things. You acknowledge that it’s not totally sufficient for things like translations, and that has a definite moral component to it inasmuch as inaccurate translations are wrong; they are misleading.

But notice how you subtly frame the question in a prejudical way. You say, “Don’t say that it is and then steer people away from what it teaches.” Do you know anyone in this debate who thinks we should do this? Of course you don’t. What you mean is “Don’t say that it is and then steer people away from what I [Jay] think it teaches.” You see, the debate is over what it teaches, and how we determine that. I haven’t seen you give any explanation of that. You say you don’t accept all music for corporate worship, but I haven’t seen you say why or how you determine that. Your previous lists of verses and the “exegesis” you claim they provide hasn’t helped with that.

Any instructor must be measured against what the Bible says, and any instructor that finds himself in disagreement with the Bible should not be leading a church.

I am pretty sure this is exactly what Scott, Kevin, and Mike would say. So this isn’t really helpful to move the conversation forward.

Here’s some questions you have to answer, IMO: Does the Bible teach that there are inappropriate ways of talking to and about God? If so, how do you determine what is the appropriate way or ways to speak to and about God in the 21st century?

Hi Jay,

Perhaps you did. Here are my answers.

1. There is no specific passage that expressly says that forms matter.

2. Same reason you do. (I hope.)

I’m not sure it matters though because Larry’s way ahead of me on this same track. :D

[Larry] But both of those miss the point. I don’t know anyone who believes that all matters of church practice are governed by the Bible.

Larry,

Actually, almost all fundamentalists/conservatives believe this. Look at doctrinal statements. They uniformly say something along the lines of scripture be sufficient to guide men in all matters of faith and practice. In other words, every choice in life is guided, either directly or indirectly, by principles laid out in scripture. I think this might be a problem with word precision. I think you are trying to say no one believes every detail of church practice is explicitly spelled out in scripture. That is different.

Actually, almost all fundamentalists/conservatives believe this. Look at doctrinal statements. They uniformly say something along the lines of scripture be sufficient to guide men in all matters of faith and practice. In other words, every choice in life is guided, either directly or indirectly, by principles laid out in scripture.

You know a lot of churches who believe that the time the service starts is governed by the Bible? Or the state of the auditorium doors prior to the service? Can you post links to any of these churches so we can see the biblical arguments they make?

DavidO - you and I are on the same page.

But you appear to think music in the church is more similar to starting times than to curse words. Therefore you assign it to preference. But that’s a case you actually have to make. You can’t simply declare it to be preference and then operate on that declaration as if you have answered it conclusively.

Uh…no, I don’t.

My point about starting times or dress standards is that is something that individual churches are free to alter for whatever reason they see fit because there is no clear argument that church must begin at, say, 11:00 AM on a Sunday. Forever. My argument is that I’m presenting a biblical case that the use of modern music is governed by Scripture, but as I read and interpret (and then ask others on the site to criticize or critique), I do not see the same case that Aniol and others put forth. I am also concerned because as I just noted on the new Imposing Preferences thread, I see a lot of deficiencies with the ‘conservative’ argument, especially because most of their argument is occuring outside of the Bible. That’s a problem for me, since worship is governed by the Bible (even though God doesn’t, again, give us the explicit structures to use, as he did in OT Israel.)

I think I’ve been fairly transparent with my underlying principles for music. I know that I’ve posted some of them twice. So maybe that will be helpful.

Jay,

I’d say that we’re not on the same page and here’s why. I’d say that even though there is no express verse spelling out that forms matter, it is the necessary implication of a number of passages. And I’d go farther, saying that while there are no verses specifying sounds that represent a reverent, humble, loving approach to a holy and terrible God, that we can judge it based on the principles of scripture, music and church history, musicology, culture, and philosophy. I’d go so far as to say the the approach I just described violates sola scriptura not one whit.

[Jay]

I think I’ve been fairly transparent with my underlying principles for music. I know that I’ve posted some of them twice. So maybe that will be helpful.

Jay, I’ll join with Larry on pressing you on this point. I don’t think you have ever answered the question “How do you determine some music is not appropriate for church?” I have asked it in other places. You claim there is a standard and that some music is not appropriate. You claim that you don’t believe “anything goes.” I’ve asked you to explain how you make that distinction, but you have NEVER answered the question. I follow these threads pretty closely, but I’m still waiting to see you answer the question.

I need to move on, but let me respond here.

My point about starting times or dress standards is that is something that individual churches are free to alter for whatever reason they see fit because there is no clear argument that church must begin at, say, 11:00 AM on a Sunday.

But your point appears to be the same for music, that individual churches are free to alter music styles for whatever reason they see fit because there is no clear argument about styles. In order to say that, I think you have to assert that the way we talk to God and about God is the same kind of issue as starting times or dress (which themselves are not even the same kinds of issues).

But as I said before, once you say that not everything is permissible (as I think you have said), you agree with Aniol/Bauder/Harding. You just draw the lines in different places for different reasons. The question is whether your arguments about where to draw the line (whatever they may be) stand up to evaluation.

My argument is that I’m presenting a biblical case that the use of modern music is governed by Scripture

So then why talk about preference? If Scripture governs it in any meaningful way it is not a matter of mere preference. There may be preference involved, but it is not the only consideration. And I think you agree when you say that not all styles are appropriate for corporate worship. Is that just your preference? Or is there something biblical behind it?

I am also concerned because as I just noted on the new Imposing Preferences thread, I see a lot of deficiencies with the ‘conservative’ argument, especially because most of their argument is occuring outside of the Bible.

But that doesn’t mean they are deficient. And I say that without intending support or not support them. We may be poorly equipped to judge a particular argument, so we see deficiencies simply because of ourselves, not because the argument is bad. Which is only to say that this may be more a statement about you than them.

But to the point that most of their argument is occurring outside the Bible, I am not convinced that’s the problem you think it is. It’s the way the Bible works, and you already acknowledged that with other things. It also seems to be what you practice, since you aren’t using the Bible to show that music is merely preferential, or even merely cultural. And you aren’t using the Bible to show that we must never interact with culture to determine applications. Yet you do this because of how you think the Bible interacts with culture. Again, I don’t think your position is workable, practically or theologically.

You don’t like the way that they use the Bible and relate it to cultural forms. And they don’t like the way that you use the Bible and relate it to culture. But again, your definition of sufficiency is, well, insufficient I think.

That’s a problem for me, since worship is governed by the Bible (even though God doesn’t, again, give us the explicit structures to use, as he did in OT Israel.)

Here you acknowledge the point, that God governs worship and music, but does not do so explicitly. That means that we must make applications of what God does say, and that requires knowledge from outside the Bible to apply the governance of God. As you go from culture to culture, it requires more knowledge of individual cultures, hence your comment about not working in non-English speaking countries. You can’t really know that from the Bible, can you? You have to know something about English from outside the Bible, and something about other cultures and languages from outside the Bible.

I think I’ve been fairly transparent with my underlying principles for music. I know that I’ve posted some of them twice. So maybe that will be helpful.

No, as I said, I don’t find those helpful for the points you are trying to make. Many of your statements are not disputed. Others just don’t seem helpful. Take, for instance, this:

Proper music will communicate clearly a message. Our responsibility is to ensure that it communicates the gospel, Biblical truth or praise to God. Proper music can and will be governed by Scripture alone, because languages and cultures vary widely from age to age and throughout the centuries.

By what biblical standard do you define “proper” with regards to music? By what biblical methodology do you “ensure that it communicates the gospel, biblical truth or praise to God”? Since God doesn’t give explicit directions on this (as you have acknowledged), are you not required to rely on something outside the Bible to decide propriety?

These are essentially the same questions I asked several times, and I see Don concurs (probably much to his chagrin).

Or consider this:

Arguments for a music’s style based on the culture that it “came from” or “sound like” are specious because the associations with those sounds can and do change.

The fact that something may change in the future does not mean that such an argument is specious. That is a non sequitur. I don’t see how that is helpful at all.

[Larry]

Actually, almost all fundamentalists/conservatives believe this. Look at doctrinal statements. They uniformly say something along the lines of scripture be sufficient to guide men in all matters of faith and practice. In other words, every choice in life is guided, either directly or indirectly, by principles laid out in scripture.

You know a lot of churches who believe that the time the service starts is governed by the Bible? Or the state of the auditorium doors prior to the service? Can you post links to any of these churches so we can see the biblical arguments they make?

Yes, Chip, I read your whole post, and my question stands: Can you post links to the churches that believe that starting times or doors are a matter of biblical governance? I don’t know of any. You claim they exist. I would be interested to know which ones and now how they get there.

Remember, in my original post, I defined exactly what I was talking about.

I don’t know anyone who believes that all matters of church practice are governed by the Bible. I don’t know of any who think it’s a sin to start at 10:30 instead of 11, or to start Sunday evening at 6 instead of 5. I don’t know of any who think its a sin to have the auditorium doors open (or closed) prior to the service. These things are matters of culture and preference.

I think you are misunderstanding the claim being made by the statement you are appealing to. Perhaps there are some churches who do as you say … But I think that is typically not what is included in that statement.

Ok, I’m not going to play this game Larry. I was trying to point out an issue of clarity, nothing more. Every church I have ever belonged to or worked with has included something similar to what I posted (the Bible is sufficient to guide the believer in all areas of life and practice), and, yes, we have always taught that it indicated Biblical principles apply to (govern) every area of life. If you want to have meaningful discussions, precision is imperative. You are not asking if people believe the Bible governs every area of life, but if it explicitly commands every area of life - two entirely different issues.

the only standard by which all human conduct, creeds and opinions should be tried. - the church where I was a principal

the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creed, and opinion will be tried - one of the churches where I served as an elder

they were intended to be the supreme guide and standard in faith and practice - the church where I served as senior pastor

constitutes the only infallible rule of faith and practice - John MacArthur doctrinal statement

There’s no game going on from my end, Chip, and “deliberately obtuse” seems a bit strong. Perhaps you didn’t follow the whole conversation that I had with Jay that produced the comment you jumped on.

You want clarity; I think I was clear. In my original paragraph, which I cut and pasted for my response, I was very clear about what I was talking about, and I think my question to you was clear as well.

Do you believe that the statements you cite are intended to address the things (or the types of things) I mentioned?

I can tell you that we have that statement in our constitution:

The Bible is the inspired and inerrant Word of God, and therefore is the final authority in all matters of faith and practice.

I am sure that here at least it does not refer to starting times and the position of the doors to the auditorium.

You are not asking if people believe the Bible governs every area of life, but if it explicitly commands every area of life - two entirely different issues.

No. I am plainly on record as saying that it does not explicitly command every area of life, so that was not my question. I was asking if the Bible governs things like starting times such as 10:30 vs. 11:00 on Sunday morning, or things like whether you leave the auditorium doors open or closed before the service and during the service.

So again I say, I would like to see the argument of someone who believes that the Bible addresses something like the starting time of a service or the position of the doors. I have never seen it. And you, having made two posts, have not showed it to me.

I don’t want to sidetrack this, but we need to recognize what the conversation was actually about and why I brought that up. It was in response to a series of exchanges Jay and I were having. But let’s try not to sidetrack this further.

Larry wrote: Do you believe that the statements you cite are intended to address the things (or the types of things) I mentioned?

I can tell you that we have that statement in our constitution:

The Bible is the inspired and inerrant Word of God, and therefore is the final authority in all matters of faith and practice.

I am sure that here at least it does not refer to starting times and the position of the doors to the auditorium.

That’s what I have been saying - repeatedly - Larry. The sufficiency of scripture indicates God’s Divine direction from scripture provides instruction pertaining to every area of life. Even if it is a general principle like, “Do all things decently and in order,” it still provides direction to everything, even making decisions about starting times for worship services. This is at the heart of 2 Timothy 3:17 where we are told scripture equips the believer for every good work. Not some, or most, or the really big things in life but every good work.

Dan,

I think there have been some positive changes in the national level of the SBC over the years. I previously mentioned the positive changes at Southern as an example while still noting the serious problems. The various state conventions still have some extremely serious problems. The colleges in some cases are abominable. Dever has separated from the state convention (as has Scott and his church) and Dever personally told my staff that the only reason he remains in the SBC at all is because of the unusual amount of money he uses from the cooperative program to support his numerous church planters and missionaries. Most SBC churches never send out even one church planter. Whereas, Dever sends out a ton. Dever identifies himself as a fundamentalist within the SBC and as a separatist from within. These are his words at a Weekender. There are many things I admire about Dever and his nine-marks program. However, we differ on eschatology substantially, the necessity of affirming young-earth creationism, and some aspects of church government. Because of those substantive differences between us (and there may be more), he and I don’t speak for each other or endorse each other’s church, but we still have some appreciation for each other’s ministry. I am sure that there are other pastors in the SBC that are even to the right of Dever. Greg Gilbert comes to mind. Nevertheless, I cannot personally endorse the SBC or their theologically conservative seminaries. I thought it was sufficient to drop Scott’s financial support once he became a full-time professor of music at SW while at the same time not personally breaking with him on account of the fact that Scott and I do not differ doctrinally or philosophically and that we have had a long-standing 20 year relationship. Scott is way to the right of even separatistic men like Dever. I admit that Scott’s scenario it is a highly unusual situation—exceptional comes to mind. For one, I was shocked that Paige Patterson wanted Scott’s viewpoint on music and worship to be taught to the ministerial students at Southwestern. Other than Maranatha, I did not see Scott being embraced by the fundamental colleges, seminaries or many of the churches. Also, SWBTS is highly unusual in that it is one of the few seminaries, if not the only one, that actually has a Ph.D. program in music. Most seminaries don’t even touch the subject. Scott is essentially a gifted teacher with a specialty in the area of music. I sincerely respect the position of my colleagues who choose not use Scott any longer as a speaker; nevertheless, I hope that they will avail themselves of his materials and future books that will be published. Practically speaking, I am glad that he will finally be able to support his family and will have an avenue to influence thousands of pastors in good doctrine and philosophy. Nevertheless, I am grieved that a position at one of the colleges or seminaries that I endorse never opened up for him. On a more personal level, Dan, I think the experience that you had at FBC Lake Orion under Pastor Moreno was far superior to what you experienced previously. We have a few differences, but we count you as a good friend and fellow-servant of the Lord.

I recall hearing Al Mohler at the 2009 Shepherd’s Conference (I think) talk about how he gained the Presidency. Essentially, he had to rebuild the board committee charged with overseeing the offices of the SBC, then they had to rebuild the committee on something else to do that, which I don’t recall right now. It took twenty years to do just those two things (due to term limits and by-laws and such) in order to move the SBC to a position where he could begin to effect serious change for the better.

I say that because I think it’s worth supporting Dr. Mohler and Dr. Dever’s efforts to rebuild and reclaim the SBC. Support them, but don’t support the liberal or problematic aspects of the org (or, as I read somewhere in a book on counseling - feed the white dog, not the black one). I think that standing aside the SBC and screaming at the amount of compromise and liberalism is not only wasteful, but counterproductive in that it attacks the men who are trying to ‘do right’ for God.

This is not intended to be a blanket statement of cooperation with either men, but I felt like I should say something to point out that the work that is done (or is being done) is not, and can not, be something as quick and easy as just firing all the bad people in one shot. Mohler had to swing the ‘indifferantists’ back to agree with him as well.

The sufficiency of scripture indicates God’s Divine direction from scripture provides instruction pertaining to every area of life.

Okay, then. In line with my original desire to see the argumentation, would you mind laying out the biblical case for why it is right to start at 11 am and wrong to start at 10:30am. And then lay out the biblical case for the doors to the auditorium being opened or closed prior to the service and during it.

Perhaps that will help me understand what you are saying.

Larry,

I didn’t say anything about right or wrong; I said scripture gives us principles to guide our decision making process. Same as deciding whether to have a double cheese burger or a salad at lunch - no right or wrong, but guided by principles.

Mike Harding said regarding Dever:

However, we differ on eschatology substantially, the necessity of affirming young-earth creationism, and some aspects of church government.

I don’t think that points one and three (and maybe two) were grounds for separation among the early fundamentalists. Regarding point two, I remember using E. J. Young’s book on Biblical inerrancy in seminary at BJU in which he stated that belief in young earth creationism was not essential to inerrancy. Have the grounds for separation from brethren got tighter?

I didn’t say anything about right or wrong; I said scripture gives us principles to guide our decision making process. Same as deciding whether to have a double cheese burger or a salad at lunch - no right or wrong, but guided by principles.

Then, I would suggest that, with all due respect, I think you were having the wrong conversation for this thread. Early on, Jay and established clearly (I think) what we were talking about, namely the rightness or wrongness of particular things (music, dress, order of service) to which I added starting time and doors, and how the Bible applies to things it does not directly speak about.

Ron,

I don’t know how familiar you are with the plethora of literature now available on this issue. I have taken two seminary classes on the subject including one on the Th.M. level with Dr. McCabe at DBTS. Actually the issue is quite serious. Let me encourage you to go to Dr. Robert McCabe’s personal website through dbts.edu where he has posted a ton of information and resources on the subject. Reading Genesis 1 and 2 in a literal, normal, historical-gramatical context is foundational to the gospel. Once we start putting forth theories of creationism that cannot exegetically or systematically be supported by the text on account of the fact that many today consider modern-day evolutionary science as the “67th” book of the Bible, then there are serious implications for other doctrines of Scripture including the words of Christ in the gospels. The best book on the subject is “Coming to Grips with Genesis,” edited by Dr. Terry Mortenson. After you read that very scholarly treatise of the subject, I think you will understand where I am coming from. We include in all our church and school doctrinal statements a literal view of Genesis 1-11, including a six, 24-hour, day creation, which by necessity means a young earth. Why would I ever bring someone into preach who advocates something significantly different other than the fact that I did not consider the issue that important.

Let me close out my participation here by saying this: My point is mainly about methdology, not about conclusions. The sufficiency of Scripture does not mean that nothing else outside of Scripture informs us as to propriety. My main concern is not where people come down on music. I really don’t care. My main concern is that we exercise a proper method of decision making.

For the record I’m a young earth creationist. The first “old earth” people I encountered were strict Scofield dispensationalists who held to the gap theory as an explanation for the apparent age of the earth, fossils, etc.. It could be possible for someone to not hold to a young earth position and still believe in creation and not hold to evolution.

I also think that the mother two points are not and, historically speaking, weren’t cause for separation within fundamentalism.

Joel and Ron,

F.D.E. Schleiermacher attempted to make religion relevant to the modernists of his age and thus ushered in theological liberalism. The Old Earth creationist positions do the exact same thing. After 1800, to the best of my knowledge and reading (I’ve taken McCabe’s class on the PhD level as well, and I’m planning on doing my dissertation on the historical Adam) every position that deviated from the young earth position did so with the “scientific evidence” in view. The earlier positions (day-age and gap theories) explicitly did so in their argumentation. The later positions were more clandestine in their appropriation and elevation of “general revelation” (i.e. science). The problem is one of presuppositions about authority - does a scientific consensus (if indeed one exists) come near the level of authority of Scripture - so much so that we change our reading of Scripture so that it fits the science? Some theologians have been honest about how their understanding of science affects their view of biblical revelation (i.e. Peter Enns and Tremper Longman III) - and called out other theologians to be more honest with how their interpretations of Genesis 1 reflects their understanding of Scripture (see Enns’ review of John Walton on Enns’ website).

So is six-day creationism fundamental? Perhaps not, but perhaps a denial of six-day creationism signifies a denial of other fundamentals.

Appropriate for worship at your church or not? Why or why not?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ogV7Xpn0-3Y

Absolutely, Dan! Great both lyrically and musically!

I’m not a spokesperson for my church nor am I in a position at my church to decide what is appropriate or not, but I’ll be interested in hearing the different responses on here.

Greg, could you give a little more depth to your answer to Dan’s “why” question other than that it’s “great.” Hey, that kind of sounds like Tony the Tiger — “They’re Great!”

For those in a position to and inclined to answer Dan’s question, maybe you’d like multiple choice. Would you choose Dan’s suggested rendition or this one?

[Brenda T]

I’m not a spokesperson for my church nor am I in a position at my church to decide what is appropriate or not, but I’ll be interested in hearing the different responses on here.

Greg, could you give a little more depth to your answer to Dan’s “why” question other than that it’s “great.” Hey, that kind of sounds like Tony the Tiger — “They’re Great!”

For those in a position to and inclined to answer Dan’s question, maybe you’d like multiple choice. Would you choose Dan’s suggested rendition or this one?

Brenda,

Was the “Oh a quiz - how fun” comment meant to be sarcastic? Just wondering…

Which of the two choices do you prefer? The youtube version I posted or the sheet music version you posted? Why?

1- Why does nearly every CCM artist or CCM “worship leader” dress and primp themselves up like Justin Bieber (don’t know many other contemporary artists to list…sorry)? There is about 2 fist-fulls of gel in Aaron’s hair and a fashionable wardrobe! Are they trying to mimic the world and “coolness”? Are they trying to be hip?

2- If CCM music is just about using contemporary music to worship the LORD, why is it such a huge business, with concerts (I mean worship gatherings), CD sales, press releases, entourages, just like all of the completely secular musicians do? Maybe SGM isn’t like that but most are.

3-As for this particular version, I personally have no problem with the arrangement FOR PERSONAL USE for about the first 2/3 of the song. It is just a man singing with stringed instruments and piano in the background. Late in the song they add in a drum and an electric guitar (especially around the 4:00 minute mark)…why?

I wouldn’t use it in a church service because we don’t have a stringed section on call. Also it features the repetition common in CCM music. It also strikes me more as a “special” type song rather than a corporate worship song as arranged.

[Mark_Smith]

1- Why does nearly every CCM artist or CCM “worship leader” dress and primp themselves up like Justin Bieber (don’t know many other contemporary artists to list…sorry)? There is about 2 fist-fulls of gel in Aaron’s hair and a fashionable wardrobe! Are they trying to mimic the world and “coolness”? Are they trying to be hip?

2- If CCM music is just about using contemporary music to worship the LORD, why is it such a huge business, with concerts (I mean worship gatherings), CD sales, press releases, entourages, just like all of the completely secular musicians do? Maybe SGM isn’t like that but most are.

3-As for this particular version, I personally have no problem with the arrangement FOR PERSONAL USE for about the first 2/3 of the song. It is just a man singing with stringed instruments and piano in the background. Late in the song they add in a drum and an electric guitar (especially around the 4:00 minute mark)…why?

I wouldn’t use it in a church service because we don’t have a stringed section on call. Also it features the repetition common in CCM music. It also strikes me more as a “special” type song rather than a corporate worship song as arranged.

I haven’t seen the video, but I will comment about the points made.

1. What’s wrong with hair gel? I’d love to have the hair for that! :)

2. CCM music may have those things listed, but conservative music outlets have CD sales, press releases, “concerts”, etc.; places like the WILDS, SoundForth, certain evangelistic teams, Majesty, etc., do the same thing (except the entourages - I wouldn’t know about that).

3. How long will it be before we stop thinking that drums and electric guitars are automatically evil?

As for the repetition argument, it ain’t just in the CCM. Lots of gospel songs have repetition, too.

Well, hello Dan, we meet again. I trust you had a good Lord’s Day yesterday.

Quizzes are helpful. You can see by my comments here, here, and here that I, too, like to pose quiz-type questions in order to understand other people’s points of view. And here I answered a question that Jay posed about a particular song. I was beginning to think I was the only one who asked for input about songs, but then, lo and behold, you did it, too. Thanks for helping me not feel left out by posting a quiz of your own.

With your last comment, you changed the question. Previously it was “what is appropriate?” then it became “what do you prefer?” I’ll answer your first question about appropriateness, keeping in mind that I’m not a spokesperson for my church nor am I telling anyone else what they should do in their church.

On one hand it’s difficult to compare the two renditions, because Bonar didn’t write a tune to go along with his very lengthy text. Here’s the original text if you’re interested.

NOT WHAT THESE HANDS HAVE DONE.

Not what these hands have done

Can save this guilty soul ;

Not what this toiling flesh has borne

Can make my spirit whole.

Not what I feel or do

Can give me peace with God ;

Not all my prayers, and sighs, and tears,

Can bear my awful load.

Thy work alone, Christ,

Can ease this weight of sin

Thy blood alone, Lamb of God,

Can give me peace within.

Thy love to me, God,

Not mine, Lord, to thee

Can rid me of this dark unrest,

And set my spirit free.

Thy grace alone, God,

To me can pardon speak ;

Thy power alone, Son of God,

Can this sore bondage break.

No other work, save thine,

No meaner blood will do ;

No strength, save that which is divine,

Can bear me safely through.

I bless the Christ of God ;

I rest on love divine ;

And with unfaltering lip and heart,

I call this Saviour mine.

His cross dispels each doubt ;

I bury in his tomb

Each thought of unbelief and fear,

Each lingering shade of gloom.

I praise the God of grace ;

I trust his truth and might ;

He calls me his, I call him mine,

My God, my joy, my light.

In him is only good,

In me is only ill ;

My ill but draws his goodness forth,

And me he loveth still.

Tis he who saveth me,

And freely pardon gives ;

I love because he loveth me,

I live because he lives.

My life with him is hid,

My death has passed away,

My clouds have melted into light,

My midnight into day.

Bonar was a theologian; his focus was on the text. Aaron Keyes is a performer. He has a band and travels around and sometimes he even tweets that some of his events are “free.” Keyes is very popular. I’m sure that helps attract people to his “worship school” who want to work their audiences/crowds to a point of all hands thrown up in the air.

Bonar’s original text goes theologically deeper than the Keyes abridged version and the abridged sheet music version I posted. Poetically, the original Bonar version wins out. If we posted only the words for Keyes’ version it would feel like it’s missing something, because it relies more on the music than the words to tug at one’s emotions. He uses the quiet, intimate beginning that builds and crescendos to an ultimate climax point and then slowly releases and lets you down to end with the same quite, intimate sound with which he began. That was quite a ride.

The musical tune I posted to go along with Bonar’s text doesn’t do the things that Keyes’ tune does. The older tune serves as a support for the words, not as a competing attraction or even as necessary in order to create his intended response. The older tune is more singable for a congregation, not only because everyone has the notes to follow, but because of the timing. Keyes has a timing to his song that is suited more for a single performer not a congregation. The timing, the words he chooses to emphasize with that timing, the bridge (new fangled way of saying chorus I hear) that’s thrown in there and the unexpected repeated phrases that suddenly pop on the screen leaving me to wonder “how many times is he going to make me repeat this?”

Well, I stop for now. There’s more I could say though. Perhaps you weren’t even expecting me to answer. You likely didn’t think my response would be this lengthy. I’ll bow out now, so others can have an opportunity to give in-depth reasons for choosing the song that they chose.

1-Don’t get distracted by the specifics of hair gel. THE POINT IS that these CCM musicians are professional musicians making money. There is very little difference between them and your average secular musician. In fact, they are trying REALLY HARD to look like the hip people in GQ etc…You have no problem with that? Is that godly?

2-It is one thing to sell CDs, after all it costs money to produce them, and they can be fundraisers for ministry, and hey, people need to make money to live off of. That is NOT THE POINT. The point is most CCM is owned by completely secular music labels FOR THE PURPOSE of tapping the “Christian” music market. These guys/gals get rich just like secular musicians, and hold concerts just like secular musicians. Is that separation? Is that in the world but not of it?

3- Is a drum and electric guitar evil? probably not. But the question is with the entire style and association and intent of CCM. Is it appropriate for church worship? That is the question.

Most of you would never dream of walking into a Benny Hinn event, which is free (with an offering taken of course) because you don’t like his “ice cream” suit, think he is pimping the gospel, has bad theology, and is selling healing (even though he doesn’t charge to get in).

BUT…

How many of you would pay $30-$40 to hear a CCM band “worship” God in a large arena, not knowing at all the theology of the band, or their motives. Are they ordained to preach the gospel (not saying that is required…)? Do they have a pastor? Have they been divorced? What are their motives? How much money do they make? Are the back-up musicians even Christian???

Yes I did just dare to make this comparison!

[Brenda T] Bonar was a theologian; his focus was on the text. Aaron Keyes is a performer. He has a band and travels around and sometimes he even tweets that some of his events are “free.” Keyes is very popular. I’m sure that helps attract people to his “worship school” who want to work their audiences/crowds to a point of all hands thrown up in the air.

[Brenda T] Bonar’s original text goes theologically deeper than the Keyes abridged version and the abridged sheet music version I posted. Poetically, the original Bonar version wins out. If we posted only the words for Keyes’ version it would feel like it’s missing something, because it relies more on the music than the words to tug at one’s emotions. He uses the quiet, intimate beginning that builds and crescendos to an ultimate climax point and then slowly releases and lets you down to end with the same quite, intimate sound with which he began. That was quite a ride.

[Brenda T] The musical tune I posted to go along with Bonar’s text doesn’t do the things that Keyes’ tune does. The older tune serves as a support for the words, not as a competing attraction or even as necessary in order to create his intended response. The older tune is more singable for a congregation, not only because everyone has the notes to follow, but because of the timing. Keyes has a timing to his song that is suited more for a single performer not a congregation. The timing, the words he chooses to emphasize with that timing, the bridge (new fangled way of saying chorus I hear) that’s thrown in there and the unexpected repeated phrases that suddenly pop on the screen leaving me to wonder “how many times is he going to make me repeat this?”

How many of you would pay $30-$40 to hear a CCM band “worship” God in a large arena, not knowing at all the theology of the band, or their motives.

Um….not me, because I don’t go to concerts. :)

Are they ordained to preach the gospel (not saying that is required…)?

Since when did we start ordaining people to preach the gospel? Do all musicians have to be ordained? Isn’t Christ’s command to go into all the world and preach?

Do they have a pastor?

Some of them, like Mark Hall of Casting Crowns, are pastors.

Have they been divorced?

How is this even relevant to the conversation? Amy Grant is divorced. I don’t sing or like Amy Grant. I’m sure there are others.

What are their motives?

Considering that some of them have said their motives are to praise the Lord through music (Bob Kauflin), I’d say they are OK.

How much money do they make?

How much money do you make? If I say it’s too much, will you give it to SharperIron?

Are the back-up musicians even Christian???

I’m fairly sure they ask those kinds of questions. Most of these bands that I’m aware of have known each other for a long time.

Mark, I think a lot of your problems come from being frustrated at things that we don’t participate in or endorse.

[Mark_Smith]

I wouldn’t use it in a church service because we don’t have a stringed section on call. Also it features the repetition common in CCM music. It also strikes me more as a “special” type song rather than a corporate worship song as arranged.

Mark, each of your points are issues of PREFERENCE. There is zero Biblical warrant for you to separate from or preach sermons against those who do not meet your preferences. I’m not saying that you do this, but I know many who have and continue to do so. And this is my whole point with the Beethoven crowd. Because they can offer zero Scripture to support their preferences, they have to attack a song such as the one I posted by saying it “promotes inordinate affections.” They have raised their personal preferences of worship style to such a degree that they will separate over it, and have done so for years.

[Mark_Smith]

Most of you would never dream of walking into a Benny Hinn event, which is free (with an offering taken of course) because you don’t like his “ice cream” suit, think he is pimping the gospel, has bad theology, and is selling healing (even though he doesn’t charge to get in).

BUT…

How many of you would pay $30-$40 to hear a CCM band “worship” God in a large arena, not knowing at all the theology of the band, or their motives. Are they ordained to preach the gospel (not saying that is required…)? Do they have a pastor? Have they been divorced? What are their motives? How much money do they make? Are the back-up musicians even Christian???

Yes I did just dare to make this comparison!

[Brenda T]

The musical tune I posted to go along with Bonar’s text doesn’t do the things that Keyes’ tune does. The older tune serves as a support for the words, not as a competing attraction or even as necessary in order to create his intended response.

Brenda, herein lies the problem in this whole debate… You make an assertion that “the older tune serves as a support for the words, not as a competing attraction…” To which I reply, “Really? Who said so?” What if I say, “I disagree. I believe it beautifully supports the lyrics without becoming a competing attraction?”

Culture affects these kinds of interpretations, Brenda. And because this is true, I believe that it is wrong for the Beethoven crowd to continually promote, preach, and practice separation (causing division) among the people of God over matters of preference and personal opinion.

BTW, the reason I posted the song and encouraged people to listen to it, is because I find it helpful to get something tangible on the table for discussion. It is easy for us to debate theory and ideas while remaining aloof from actual application - which is where the heart of this whole disagreement lies, IMO. Once a song like this is on the table it becomes much more evident to me that in most principles we would find a large measure of agreement, but in the application there is great distance. And it is my contention that the differences in application are driven mostly by our personal preferences, and much of these are driven by cultural experience, which greatly affects musical tastes.