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

Several people have specifically come out on SharperIron and said that they support ‘conservative’ music but they aren’t even sure why their’s better. So how can they be convinced that their position is pleasing to the Lord, or try to convince others that it is, when they aren’t even sure why it is ‘better’ than where I fall?

If this were really a matter of doctrinal teaching, there should be no disagreement on this. Instead, it’s all about the lines and where to draw them.

Regarding this version of Bonar’s text, it isn’t very singable. There’s no sense of direction to the tune that makes the next note anticipated; there seems no real connection. To me it sounds almost random at times. Kevin Twit’s rendition is a much more singable version, IMO. It’s the one that we use.

Regarding the length of it and omitted verses, it is common to omit verses, and sometimes that’s necessary or good. But that is not always good. We should take care not to ruin a song by omitting key parts for length. Most people can endure a longer song if it is well written and not tiring.

[Larry]

Regarding this version of Bonar’s text, it isn’t very singable. There’s no sense of direction to the tune that makes the next note anticipated; there seems no real connection. To me it sounds almost random at times. Kevin Twit’s rendition is a much more singable version, IMO. It’s the one that we use.

Regarding the length of it and omitted verses, it is common to omit verses, and sometimes that’s necessary or good. But that is not always good. We should take care not to ruin a song by omitting key parts for length. Most people can endure a longer song if it is well written and not tiring.

I’ve not heard Kevin Twit’s rendition, and by way of full disclosure, we’ve never sung this song in our church. In fact, I came across the posted rendition only a week ago by way of a friend’s Facebook post.

So, as I listened to it I immediately thought to myself, “I would love for our church to sing this song.” And, I believe that in our context it would be very singable. Now, it would take a couple of weeks for our people to learn it. Probably we would introduce it as a special one week and follow that up by singing it congregationally the following couple of weeks. Historically, this has always worked well when we are attempting to teach the congregation a new song.

If this were really a matter of doctrinal teaching, there should be no disagreement on this. Instead, it’s all about the lines and where to draw them.

Jay, there are all kinds of doctrinal teachings about which there is dispute and even separation among true believers of good conscience, so that’s not really the way to judge this. And remember, the lack of unity or agreement does not mean all sides are correct, or even partially correct.

As has been pointed out, you too draw lines, though we are still not exactly sure why you draw them where you do. If you recall, I pointed out in the previous thread some problems or difficulties with the support you put forth. So you (and I and most others) agree with Aniol/Harding/Bauder that a line should be drawn. The question is whether the arguments about where to draw it are coherent.

I put “worship school” in quotes because that is the title of Keyes’ ministry and it’s proper to either quote or italicize the title of something — that’s all there was to that. I mentioned “hands thrown up in the air” because those are the types of pictures Keyes uses as advertising on his website. Go here and look at the bottom of the page.

Greg, I’m not going to tell song leaders how many stanzas to sing. I made it clear in my initial comment that I was not telling anyone what to do at their church.

So, much of what I’ve written has been refuted only on the basis that it is simply “my opinion.” That doesn’t bother or offend me, but it is confusing. What types of responses (or perhaps which people could post a response) that you would not disregard as simply being an opinion? The “that’s your opinion” trump card has been played too many times — in my opinion (get it? that’s my attempt at ironical humor — give me a courtesy chuckle, o.k.? or maybe a smirk — something, anything).

And, as for this:

Beethoven crowd to continually promote, preach, and practice separation (causing division) among the people of God over matters of preference and personal opinion.

I thought I had read the writings of the so-called Beethoven crowd. Where did I miss the articles or books that they wrote stating it was appropriate to separate and cause division over preference and personal opinion only?

Larry, do you have a link to the tune you are referencing? I’d like to hear it. Thanks.

Brenda, I’m perfectly aware that people on his web site have their hands in the air. But you are judging that his motive is simply to produce worship leaders to get people to raise their hands in the air. Do you really think that why he does what he does? What if his real motive is, as I said, to help people to worship God more effectively in spirit and in truth? What if his motive is to encourage people to worship more passionately and expressively in order to honor God? And you do realize, don’t you, that raising hands in worship is a biblical posture?

[Larry]

Regarding this version of Bonar’s text, it isn’t very singable. There’s no sense of direction to the tune that makes the next note anticipated; there seems no real connection. To me it sounds almost random at times. Kevin Twit’s rendition is a much more singable version, IMO. It’s the one that we use.

Regarding the length of it and omitted verses, it is common to omit verses, and sometimes that’s necessary or good. But that is not always good. We should take care not to ruin a song by omitting key parts for length. Most people can endure a longer song if it is well written and not tiring.

Here’s what I wrote:

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.

If anyone, I was referring to the people attending, not Aaron Keyes. I can see how my statement could be impugning their motives, but not Aaron Keyes’. That was not my intent or motive. Huh, what do you know. My motives were impugned here on this comment thread for a comment that looked like it was impugning motives. If I could, I’d withdraw my initial statement that appeared to speak to motives, because it’s a distraction from the main theme of this thread. I apologize for the distraction and the poor choice in words that lead you to think I was referring to Keyes’ motives. I’ll be more careful next time.

And you do realize, don’t you, that raising hands in worship is a biblical posture?

Without looking up the references, I can think of some mention in Psalms of people praising with hands uplifted and also in 1 Timothy, I believe, about people praying with hands uplifted. I also know there are many references to people bowing or falling down in worship. I think there might be more of those mentions than there are about hands raised. Also, there are many mentions of worship in the Bible that have nothing to do with music.

Thanks for the push-back. We’re all being sharpened here, right?

[Mark_Smith]

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.

How many of you would pay $15 for a hymnbook to sing hymns in a large church, not knowing at all the theology of the author/composer or their motives? I’ve read quite a bit of hymn history and disagree with a lot of the theology of many, if not most, of the hymn writers and I feel pretty certain you would as well. We need to be consistent in the application of our reasoning.

[Mark_Smith]

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

If you aren’t saying it is required, then why are you saying it??? Quite a few of the hymn writers were not ordained or were not pastors. However, I do believe that there were many more theologians writing songs “back in the day” as compared to today. Yet the occupation of the person writing the song is less important than the song itself…what does the song say and is it theologically correct?

[Mark_Smith]

Do they have a pastor?

Who was Fanny Crosby’s pastor? How about Isaac Watts? Phillip Bliss? William Bradbury? William Cushing? Frances Havergal? And did they have a pastor at the time they wrote the hymns that we sing? Or do we judge they hymn/song by what it actually says? I’m not criticizing here, just trying to make us think about the consistent application of our “approving” of songs.

[Mark_Smith]

Have they been divorced?

That’s easy to tell….just look for the scarlet “A” on their chest! Honestly, what does this have to do with the discussion. Can a divorced person not be forgiven and used by God???

[Mark_Smith]

What are their motives?

I suggest you contact them and ask. I’ve personally contacted Mark Hall of Casting Crowns to ask about the influence that their record label has over their lyrics. Have a question? Ask? There is a distinct advantage with current music in the fact that they are alive and can be contacted. Phillip Bliss died in a train wreck some years ago, so it would be tough to find out what his motives were.

[Mark_Smith]

How much money do they make?

Once again, what does this have to do with the discussion? Money isn’t evil. Are there people in Scripture that had a lot of money but were held up to us as examples of what we should strive to become? Does Scripture say that we should work for nothing? If you are saying that they just have a love for money and that is their motive, then you are simply broad-brushing and making claims that you do not know to be true. In other words, you are judging motives when you have not talked with anyone to try and understand their motivation (unless you have contacted them). Once again, I go back to the hymnwriters….some of them wrote for a living. Was that wrong, or does it depend on the amount of money they made?

[Mark_Smith]

Are the back-up musicians even Christian???

I do not know.

With all respect due to you, the reasoning used here is exactly why many people run from some churches today. Even children look at some of these arguments against music and can see the inconsistencies. I know this is true because I was one of them. Believe me when I say that the kids (and adults) really do want to see Scripture based reasoning. I for one have no problem with someone preferring hymns or whatever style of music you prefer…I love good hymns but also love CCM that is Biblical and good. The problem comes when preference is presented as doctrine with no Biblical support. This is extremely confusing to kids that are told that we must base our lives on Scripture and then the same church leaders violate that principle. It is simply dangerous to go outside of Scripture to form a doctrine. [I’m not saying you are trying to form doctrine here, I’m just talking about my experience with others concerning music…you can be the judge of whether it applies to yourself or not.]

We need to teach our kids (and adults) how to look into Scripture to form the principles that guide their lives and choices. Broad generalizations, extra-Biblical doctrine, and inconsistent applications are confusing and dangerous. And this applies to both sides of the discussion!!!!

Mod note: I added link to the Ashtabula River Railroad Disaster above [Jim Peet]

I don’t go to concerts of any kind except kid musicals…don’t have the time. My point is, once again, THE ASSOCIATION of using music from artists that DO PERFORM CONCERTS where thousands of people come and listen to these people, paying LOTS OF MONEY to do so. EVEN IF YOU DON’T, if you use their music you are bringing that into your church.

But I know you’ll blow that off as baseless, pointless, etc…have a great day.

[Larry]

If this were really a matter of doctrinal teaching, there should be no disagreement on this. Instead, it’s all about the lines and where to draw them.

Jay, there are all kinds of doctrinal teachings about which there is dispute and even separation among true believers of good conscience, so that’s not really the way to judge this. And remember, the lack of unity or agreement does not mean all sides are correct, or even partially correct.

As has been pointed out, you too draw lines, though we are still not exactly sure why you draw them where you do. If you recall, I pointed out in the previous thread some problems or difficulties with the support you put forth. So you (and I and most others) agree with Aniol/Harding/Bauder that a line should be drawn. The question is whether the arguments about where to draw it are coherent.

Hey Larry -

I agree with you that this argument is based on doctrinal principles and how we “outwork” them, but when I was learning about this, the issue of listening to modern / CCM music was argued as a clear violation of doctrine that necessitates separation and that’s where the conversation started and stopped. I could probably document that if I wanted to, but don’t feel up to it right now.

Again - I’m not saying that it’s wrong to disagree or to try and get people to agree with you. I’m not saying that everyone reading this thread must start using modern music and stop using conservative music. I’m saying that it’s wrong to say that brothers in the Lord need to separate from each other over the type of music that they play, listen to, or use in church.

[Dan McGhee]

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

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

I think the words are good, but find both this tune and the one in Brenda’s PDF at least a bit lacking. I think “Carlisle” would be a good tune for it, but only if played like this. :)

Ok a little humor there, but I do think “Carlisle” (another performance) would better than the other two.

Greg, Dan, Jay, whomever—how do you find “Carlisle”? A tune that would be useful to you?

David, thanks for the alternate tune.

By the way, your first example just won’t fly — he’s wearing shorts and a t-shirt! (That’s a joke everyone. Which reminds me, where in the world is that smiley buffet we used to have as a comment option? I sure could use it.)

[DavidO]

[Dan McGhee]

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

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

I think the words are good, but find both this tune and the one in Brenda’s PDF at least a bit lacking. I think “Carlisle” would be a good tune for it, but only if played like this. :)

Ok a little humor there, but I do think “Carlisle” (another performance) would better than the other two.

Greg, Dan, Jay, whomever—how do you find “Carlisle”? A tune that would be useful to you?

Also, I didn’t find Carlisle to be very singable. :)

Brenda, let me agree with you that I am being sharpened. These interactions are causing me to think through my positions. (Keep in mind that I was raised and educated in the conservative music environment, so most of those arguments are not unfamiliar to me, but I am still being challenged.) Larry’s example about tone of voice, for example, was thought-provoking. It hasn’t led me to a wholesale change in music philosophy, but does give me pause in some areas.

I agree with Aaron that I think we all agree on more than we realize, it’s just the edges of the disagreement that result in so much heat rather than light.

Just FYI, here is my own personal music philosophy. I say “personal” because I am not in a position of leadership in the worship ministries of our church, but my philosophy is in accord in a general sense with what we do here.

****************************

Worship, in the broadest sense, is giving God all that I am because of all that He is. It is ascribing greatness to Him and honoring Him with every aspect of my life (Rom. 12:1-2; 1 Cor. 10:31). All aspects of the church’s ministries should be done for God’s glory, and are therefore acts of worship.

I recognize, though, that “worship” is often used to refer to time when the church gathers together for corporate worship on Sunday mornings. Again, every aspect of the “worship service” is an act of worship—greeting one another in the Lord, giving of our finances, prayer, and the preaching of the Word. But even more narrowly, “worship” is used to refer to corporate worship in song. I appreciate one writer’s description of corporate worship as “[magnifying] the greatness of God in Jesus Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit, skillfully combining God’s Word with music, thereby motivating the gathered church to proclaim the Gospel, cherish God’s presence, and live for God’s glory” (Bob Kauflin, Worship Matters [Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2008] , 55).

Music is to be used to:

• declare God’s greatness to unbelievers (Psalm 9:11; Isaiah 12:4-6; Acts 16:25),
• praise and thank God (Psalm 92:1-3; 147:1; Acts 16:25; Ephesians 5:19-20),
• express joy (James 5:13), and
• teach and admonish fellow Christians (Colossians 3:16).

Corporate worship is directed both “to one another” and “to the Lord” (Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16). Songs used in corporate worship should be

• theologically accurate (“teaching and instructing”—Colossians 3:16),
• joyful (Psalms 33:3), and
• well done for God’s glory (“skillfully”—Psalm 33:3).

There is room for a variety of kinds of songs (Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16). There is room for both rich, older songs (we will sing the “Song of Moses” in Heaven—Revelation 15:3) and fresh, newer songs (Psalm 33:3; Rev. 5:9; 14:3). There is also room for a variety of instrumental accompaniment (Psalm 33:2; 150:3-5). Because music conveys a mood (Exodus 32:6, 17-19; Psalm 6; 7; 137:1-4; James 5:13) and affects our mood (1 Samuel 16:23; Acts 16:25), music used in the church should be appropriate for the setting and the lyrics.

that fundamentalists go around quoting Charismatic authors….Bob Kauflin in this case.

I am simply incredulous about this.

[Mark_Smith]

I don’t go to concerts of any kind except kid musicals…don’t have the time. My point is, once again, THE ASSOCIATION of using music from artists that DO PERFORM CONCERTS where thousands of people come and listen to these people, paying LOTS OF MONEY to do so. EVEN IF YOU DON’T, if you use their music you are bringing that into your church.

I’m just trying to understand. You’re saying it is wrong to use music from people who make money off of their talents as a musician? Or it is wrong for musicians to have concerts of Christian music? Or is it because one of their backup singers may be unsaved? I would hope that the musician, performing at a public place, would have such a solid personal testimony of faith in Christ, and that there would be enough gospel in the songs that the sound man or the stage man or whoever would see their need for a Savior.

Again, people go to the WILDS for conferences, and pay lots of money for CDs of groups that are sent out by the camp to go out and promote their interest, hold concerts, and people give lots of money to do so.

[Mark_Smith]

that fundamentalists go around quoting Charismatic authors….Bob Kauflin in this case.

I am simply incredulous about this.

What, in particular, do you find problematic about his definition of worship?

Did you read what I wrote? Obviously not. I said of course people need to make a living. The problem is CCM artists are mostly in the secular music business. They are simply paid musicians. We, as foolish lemmings, like the sound and bring it into our churches…

The problem is people bringing WORLDLY music, principles, and ideas into the church.

What liberal did I quote?

As far as Charismatics, I stay as far away as I can, having been deceived by them for far too long. Maybe you don’t mind (obviously the case), but I know a deceived person when I see one. And that man, who routinely gives prophecies at his conferences, and trains people to sing prophetic songs, is deceived.

Again, Mark, this would be a much easier discussion if you would stop making judgments about the motives of people who use contemporary music. Although “Foolish Lemmings” would make a great name for a rock band. :)

You are real slick. I had no idea people at SharperIron were this deceived. I say that with all of the love I can muster.

I am sure most think they are doing great things, praising God, etc. That doesn’t make it right.

Mark,

Deep breath, perhaps. Bob Kauflin, mistaken as I think he is on several things, is our brother in Christ and a student of the Word. Let’s not just throw out the “genetic disqualification” (it came from Kauflin=FALSE) and deal with the substance of what he’s saying.

[DavidO]

Let’s not just throw out the “genetic disqualification” (it came from Kauflin=FALSE) and deal with the substance of what he’s saying.

Are charismatics heretical?

I’m a little fuzzy on some of my error/heresy distinctions, but I’d say Kauflinesque continuationism is error at best. That being said, error in that area does not negate everything else he says. But I’m just repeating myself now, I guess.

I also have potential problems with the actual substance of what ZodLong quoted from BK, but I’d probably have to read that whole book to make sure what he means before I’d dive into it all.

[Mark_Smith]

Are charismatics heretical?

In case you haven’t already gotten the point (though I think you have and are just ignoring it), truth is truth, even when spoken by someone you may have disagreements with. If Kauflin says something true and says it in a good way, using that particular quote is not an endorsement of anything else he says or believes.

in his endeavors to warn people about the dangers of the Charismatic Movement.

Seems there’s a conference this coming fall called Strange Fire that is sponsored by Grace To You ministries. Part of the conference overview says:

For the last hundred years, the charismatic movement has been offering a strange fire of sorts to the third Person of the Godhead—the Holy Spirit. And evangelical churches have chosen to be silent or indifferent on the matter. This hasn’t served the church or the Spirit of the church with honor.

So what should be our response?

Strange Fire is a conference that will set forth what the Bible really says about the Holy Spirit, and how that squares with the charismatic movement. We’re going to address in a biblical, straightforward manner what many today see as a peripheral issue. On the contrary, your view of the Holy Spirit influences your relationship with God, your personal holiness, and your commitment to the church and evangelism.

These will be the speakers. Check out the media page as well.

Oh, I totally agree about the dangers of charismaticism. I agree with MacArthur’s stridency on this issue and would love to attend that conference. I taught a class at our church on spiritual gifts and presented the biblical case for cessationism (getting quite a bit of flak from at least one of my students). I disagree with those like Grudem, Piper, Mahaney, and others who are “open but cautious.”

I just don’t think that this means I can’t read anything they write or use any of their music. There are certainly some things in Kauflin’s book I disagree with (don’t have it in front of me right now), but overall it is a GREAT book on worship in the church. Again, if I were to be consistent with that standard there wouldn’t be very many books I would read or or very much music we would sing in church.

This terminology could easily be perceived as a flippant jab at a serious group of people. It carries, one might think, a pejorative quality and therefore lacks rhetorical value. Perhaps the author of the OP could propose a term which would reflect the respect and seriousness he hopes others might have for his own position? This is an argument about worship when all is said and done, and that is serious, no?

[SamH]

This terminology could easily be perceived as a flippant jab at a serious group of people. It carries, one might think, a pejorative quality and therefore lacks rhetorical value. Perhaps the author of the OP could propose a term which would reflect the respect and seriousness he hopes others might have for his own position? This is an argument about worship when all is said and done, and that is serious, no?

• There are certainly some things in Kauflin’s book I disagree with (don’t have it in front of me right now), but overall it is a GREAT book on worship in the church. Again, if I were to be consistent with that standard there wouldn’t be very many books I would read or or very much music we would sing in church.

Maybe others are/have said we shouldn’t read books or use music written by charismatics, but I don’t think I have. I know you didn’t accuse me of that; I just wanted to make sure I stated that.

Now, as far as reading books or using music written by someone who gets pneumatology wrong (and perhaps is also getting theology proper wrong as well — seeing as we believe the Holy Spirit is God) I sometimes wonder why we (including me) would need those particular books or songs. Is the book saying something I can’t find in another book? Are there not any other songs that exist with the same textual message? If the book or song is saying something brand new that I’ve never heard before, I should be leery of it, at least at first. If the book or song is providing something that is tried and true, then there are probably other books and songs that provide the same thing, but that weren’t written by someone whose doctrine is something with which I disagree.

No, Brenda, I was referring to Mark, not you.

I haven’t read a book on worship that so effectively presents a balanced case for biblical worship like Kauflin’s does. Then again, I haven’t read all such books, so if there are others that are better I am open to reading them.

Another example: I think Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology is the best one out there. It is clear, detailed yet concise, devotional, and thoroughly evangelical (and Calvinistic). In other words, it is the best systematic theology in finding a balance between being thorough and being readable. But I differ with him on the extent of the atonement, cessationism, and one or two of the finer points of eschatology. That’s why I also have Erickson, Hodge, Berkhof, Ryrie, Warfield, Akin…but I don’t agree with any of them in entirety, either! I guess I just need to write my own systematic theology…then maybe I’d agree with everything in it! :)

[Greg Long] I guess I just need to write my own systematic theology…then maybe I’d agree with everything in it! :)/quote] Probably not for very long. Eventually you’d find some detail on which you came to a different understanding, then you’d have to separate from yourself.