Before I delve into this matter myself, I have here an article written by a pastor friend of mine, Bob Fricks, who shares with us his thoughts on this issue.
Since its inception the church has faced a concentrated effort to dilute its message and effectiveness. Sadly, we must admit that there has been a gradual, but consistent, encroachment of worldliness into the church. This may be observed in many, if not most, of today’s evangelical churches.
In recent history music has been at the forefront of this issue. Beginning in the late 1960s a new genre of music exploded on the scene known as Contemporary Christian Music (CCM). With the introduction of CCM came a damaging influx of worldliness as seen in the style of the music, the nature of the presentation, and the lifestyles of many of those who produce and perform CCM.
While many have shifted their paradigm of worship to incorporate CCM into their services, others have, to the glory of God, stood firm. There is, however, a new and potentially more insidious threat. There has been the fairly recent introduction of new compositions that include uplifting, biblically accurate words that are matched in an acceptable musical style. The concern of this writer is that some of those producing this music are not anywhere near being on the same page as the traditional, separated fundamentalist. There are applicable biblical standards to consider; let us consider two.
Consider one that has a very good friend who has built a successful business in a competitive market. Would he give him a birthday gift produced by his major competitor? One would expect that that gift would not be well received, even if given with the best of intentions; the giver of the gift did not consider the recipient in making the choice. God has set perimeters for that which is acceptable to Him in our offering of our gift of worship (music or any other aspect of worship). The standard is independent of our preferences, desires, likes/dislikes, and convenience. Anything knowingly offered that falls short is not pleasing to God and shows indifference toward Him. (Malachi 1:11-13)
There is also the principle of Haggai 2:11-13. That which is ceremonially clean becomes unclean if it comes into contact with any unclean item. This is at the heart of the matter-Music produced by those that are not submitted to God’s standards for worship, although acceptable in form and content, should not be used in our churches.
One must define his understanding of the purpose of worship to properly address this issue; purpose will determine the content of the worship. If the purpose is to entertain or to make one feel good, then chose that which is pleasing to you. If the purpose is to attract those outside the church, then choose that which appeals to the un-churched. If the purpose is to show love, dedication, honor, and glory to God then use only that which is pleasing to Him.
It is with a sad heart that the following is presented. This writer has sung and been blessed by many songs produced by those who are considered below. Had the characteristics of the composers of these songs not become known to him he would have gladly continued using them.
Let us consider one source of new music for the church, Getty Music. Among Keith and Kristyn’s credits are “In Christ Alone”, “By Faith”, “Power of the Cross”, “Speak O Lord”, and “O Church Arise”. Many of these were co-written with Stuart Townend. There are three areas that should be considered in evaluating Getty music:
1. Their philosophy of music-
The following statement is taken directly from the Getty Music web page. “Keith and Kristyn Getty have been writing hymns for more than a decade, demonstrating an ability to successfully bridge the gap between traditional and contemporary.” One might say this statement is justified by defining “contemporary” as new, but, as will be demonstrated, the definition of contemporary is that of CCM, music that is worldly. This is a gap that should not be bridged. God tells us “touch not the unclean thing”. It is a grave error to attempt to take that which is ungodly and attempt to “scrub it up” and “make it clean”. Stuart Townend has said “God loves electric guitars and drums.”(Stuart Townend: The Journey Gets Stronger, ChristianityToday.com, April 7, 2011). The bridge that would be established by Getty Music leads to a place that the Christian should not be.
2. The church’s need to maintain a clear message-
The right to speak against carelessness, casualness, and worldliness in worship is forfeited when that which is used comes from the very mindset we are speaking against.
3. The church’s obligation to separate itself from worldliness-
Keith and Kristyn Getty promote that which the church should have no part of. Let their performances speak for themselves. The link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZuIyrwSqHY will take you to a video of the Gettys performing “In Christ Alone”. Another video to review may be found at http://vimeo.com/29837709 . These two videos give a good representation of that which the Gettys promote.
Some will say that there are others opposed to anything new. That is not the motive behind this article. There is a great need for new material suitable for worship to use in our churches. Let’s not abandon our biblical time-honored standards for the sake of being “up-to date” or “with-it” in the eyes of the world.
I give a hearty amen to what our brother has said and here add my own thoughts on the use of “sanitized” CCM.
When it comes to the discussion of music within the church setting emotions tend to rule the day and an objective interaction of ideas, opinions, and facts usually gets pushed aside. I daresay the same will happen here but I will try. It is because of the emotional pull of music that I bring up this question in the first place. Like any other issue it must be addressed factually and our emotions must become subservient.
I pose this question because it is an issue that will only continue to rise in importance within the IFB community. Admittedly I am a member of the FBFI and I bring to our attention a resolution passed by that fellowship in 1997 which reads as follows:
The FBF rejects the notion that music is not a matter of separation. Clearly, we would separate from a pastor or church that used rock music either to attract a crowd or-God forbid-in worship. Therefore, we recognize that it is a separation issue. The encroachment of "CCM" or Contemporary Christian Music as a musical genre has been ignored too long. It is wrong to judge motives subjectively, but it is essential to discern the implications of methods, particularly in music. Fundamentalists should be able to agree that we must be committed to Godly, Christ-honoring music. With sufficient prayerful discussion with Fundamentalist musicians, and necessary study of the subject by our preachers we will be able to move toward a consensus of what is meant by 'Christ-honoring' music in practice. We call for Fundamentalists to cease defending tastes in music as a matter of "preference" and begin to expound the principles whereby those who need guidance on this issue can be truly helped. We assert that those who boast of their "balance' and 'objectivity" while rejecting the teaching of biblical principles concerning music are compromising the means whereby this issue can be resolved. Neither tradition nor taste is the issue. The Bible communicates principles of music that is acceptable to God that can and should be known and taught.
Now, here at the outset I do wish to state that I am in total agreement with this resolution. The use of CCM is a separation issue. But we have a twist to this in the use of “sanitized” SGM/Getty/Townend CCM. For the most part the lyrics are sound and the music has been altered to be acceptable to those who hold to a conservative, traditional style of music. This, I believe, leads us to ask yet another question, does the “sanitizing” negate the CCM moniker that said song has in its original form? I would answer, no. Sanitizing does not negate the original intent of the songwriter/musician. I think a parallel could be drawn from the literary realm with the use of euphemisms for profane language. We would agree, I trust, that profane language is unacceptable speech for the believer (Ephesians 4:29; 5:4 comes to mind). Using the euphemisms in place of the profane is still unacceptable because of the link, tie, whatever you wish to call it, the undeniable association of the words. A person says the euphemism but is really expressing the profane. Some may do it in ignorance because they have never been taught the relationship of the words but that does not excuse the understanding that euphemisms are still unacceptable in our speech.
With our seemingly inexhaustible ability to access most anything via the internet, we have the issue of a slippery slope effect with the music. We present the sanitized version in our church and our people surf the internet and discover the original artists doing their original intent which we find unacceptable. We have opened the door to have some move in the wrong direction. Now for you naysayers about the slippery slope, exceptions don’t make the rule and neither do they invalidate the rule. There is abundant evidence to validate the slippery slope effect and yes, I agree that there are a few, and I mean few, who in various situations have not succumbed to the slippery slope. They do not invalidate the reality of the scores of others who have succumbed. I for one do not wish to be the one who provided for the falling of another. I am here to build up, to edify others, not provide the possibility for their falling down. The Biblical mandates governing the weaker brother certainly are applicable here. Sure, our mature church members can recognize the difference and remove the chaff and enjoy the wheat but we have those who cannot and they are led away by our opening the door to unacceptable practices. Notice what God teaches us concerning the weaker brother scenario; the mature believer limits his own liberty in order to assist and edify the weaker brother unto maturity (Romans 14:13-21, I Corinthians 8:8-13). Under this principle how is this “sanitized” CCM to be handled? Some might say that I am the weaker brother because I am unwilling to accept the “good” in CCM. If that be the case, what should the response then be of the “mature” brother who accepts CCM? By Scriptural instruction he should abstain from use of the music to help me to maturity. Now for the flip side, what if I am the mature believer and those who accept “sanitized” CCM are the weaker brother. What is my response? Again, I still abstain from that which I find wrong and I do so for the sake of the weaker brother to help and assist them to maturity.
Now, some may be asking what about the proper principles to instruct our people concerning musical choices? Well, here are a couple of resources I am familiar with and would recommend to you: The Battle for Christian Music by Tim Fisher, Gospel Music: Blessing or Blight? by Ken Lynch, and Church Music: sense and nonsense by Danny Sweatt. I do not know how available they are but hopefully they can be found.
Now, back to our original question; is the use of sanitized music just a wisdom decision? Well, first we must decide just what constitutes a wisdom decision. Typically people will go to Acts 15:36-41 to state the case for a wisdom decision and I agree, for indeed we have such an instance between Paul and Barnabas concerning John Mark. In that issue both men are right…and God used, what was to them the most equitable solution, division, to multiply the missionary teams sent out and eventually brought about a complete reconciliation/restoration of the men involved. What is a bit disconcerting for this writer is when men today use this passage to try to justify their current departures from Biblical norms. The sanitized CCM is a case in point. There are some who cry this is a wisdom decision. Which cannot be the case, for either CCM is right or it is wrong; it cannot be both. If CCM is wrong, and it is, then it cannot be found to be acceptable at any point.
In the FBFI resolution they note that this is a separation issue which would bring the Scriptures into this discussion. A couple of verses come to mind that have bearing on this; Romans 16:17; II Thessalonians 3:6, 14, 15, to name a few. I have already commented on this in another article so I will not elaborate too much here. You can find the other article here. This brings us back to the original arrangement of the songs in question. Would we link with these ministries? Would we have these ministries come in and present this music in its original form? If we would not have them come because of our doctrinal differences, then why accept the sanitized version of their music? We know where it came from, and that source is itself to be separated from, so why is the sanitized to be received without question?
Is it easy to be 100% consistent in this issue (or any issue for that matter), answer; no, it’s not because we are all fallible human beings. With that said, that also doesn’t mean that we give up trying to be consistent.
There are others areas that could be addressed on this issue, such as the entertainment element that is prevalent within CCM, even within SGM/Getty Music and Stuart Townend form of CCM. I think there has been enough touched on to cause us to pause and consider the implications of our actions.
10.7.12 addenda
Here are links that aret in the comment section which can be accessed easier.
10.7.12 addenda
Here are links that aret in the comment section which can be accessed easier.
