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.
27 comments:
Interesting opinion on a volatile subject. Here is an analogy to consider:
Was this opinion written with a Microsoft program? Do not Bill and Melinda Gates, who profit from Microsoft sales, use that money to fund the Gates Foundation? And is not the Gates Foundation promoting leftest social agendas around the world? Or perhaps this was written on an Apple product. Gasp. To think of the problems that come from trying to make sure that things are not only "sanitized" but also "pure as the driven 'my-brand-of-fundamentalism' snow."
Are we sure that the electric guitar and the drum set are always worldly in every situation? Who says? and who is to determine how it is worldly? I have heard the trumpet, trombone and piano played in a worldly manner also, but I do not hear a call for banning them from worship. My uncle played an electric steel guitar in church in the 1940's and 50's but since you note that CCM did not originate until the 1960's evidently his playing was acceptable until CCM came on the scene.
Do you agree with all of the theological positions and lifestyle practices of Charles Wesley? of Agustus Toplady? of J.W. Peterson? of Homer Rodehaver? Do you subscribe to all of the beliefs and practices of Fanny Crosby? In each case, I think not. How about some of the hidden heresies in the hymnal? Should not these be identified and removed as well?
Using your criteria, we would need to reduce our hymnal to a size of a chorus book.
How about Chris Anderson? or Jay Penner? or Joan Pinkston? or Dwight Gustafson. All have written hymns - do they check out with the scrutiny which you demand? And how do we know what all goes on in their lives?
What if one of my favorite music composers goes to a theater to see a movie which I would not watch. Is his or her music then banned from use in our churches? And how would I know that bit of information unless someone passed on the gossip to me?
Let the words be doctrinally sound, the music edifying. Beyond that, let each be convinced in his own mind.
Thanks for stopping by Bro. Ubben. As I noted in the beginning of the article, emotions run when music is mentioned.
How about getting rid of the extremism and dealing with the issue at hand. As an example of possible reverse extremism, I would take from your comments that you would be approving of Perry Nobles using the song Highway to Hell in his church service a while ago. Somehow I don't think you would but your extreme pokes do not contribute anything valid to this conversation.
Let's deal with the matters at hand. As I noted in the beginning, we will try to deal with the emotional element. I will not continue to publish such unconstructive words to the issue.
Wow. Great article. You are to be congratulated for addressing a hot topic and for being very unpolitically correct in your answer. Many will not like your answer because they have already bought into this music and are weary of anyone who is critical of it. What they fail to realize is that something has indeed changed in many fundamental churches.
When I was a child, the controversial music was by Bill Gaither. Then it was Sandi Patti and Steve Green. The Gettys and Stuart Townend are just the new faces on a very old problem. Unfortunately, the sticky issue is now even stickier because many of these "hymns" have strong lyrics and tunes that can be sung in a reverent way. Before, the music itself was at issue; now the issue is more complex than that.
But instead of avoiding the issue that could only open the gates to all sorts of new music from other artists (beyond the Gettys), even some of our fundamental colleges and universities are recording these songs and promoting them in their services. Then many laymen simply buy the "well, if they do it, it must be okay" rationale and have forgotten that we are supposed to be Bereans: searching the Scriptures to see if this is something we should embrace. Lazy thinking has prevailed, unfortunately. Then we have a good number of evangelistic teams journeying the USA and promoting all things Getty and Sovereign Grace as well. Doing music by Getty/Townened/Sovereign Grace is apparently now the new cool. Heaven help the church that doesn't do AT LEAST one or two of these new songs in their services. How can they even worship without Getty?
So what's next? Hymnlike songs from Amy Grant or DC Talk? We let the Gettys and Townend in. How can we say no to other artists who write "new hymns"?
The association issue has been jettisoned for so many now. They are tired of the battle apparently and seem to forget that a new sound creeps in when you let in music from artists who INTEND that sound. Yep, disaster is just waiting to happen. The flood gates have been opened. Will we be surprised by the music many fundamental churches are doing in a decade?
Again, thanks for speaking boldly on this topic. I think you're spot on.
Anonymous,
Thanks for stopping by and adding to the conversation. I would encourage you in the future please add your name to the comments so that you can be addressed properly. We should be willing to identify ourselves with our comments.
All modern clothing styles are influenced by clothing designers. Those same clothing designers design some clothing that should not be worn in church. How do you propose ensuring that the clothing worn in church can't be traced back to a designer that also designed clothing that you might find unclean or unsuitable. There is currently a popular worldly book with a gray tie on the cover. Have you banned gray ties from your congregations? If not, why not. Can't the association be made? What of believers who work in restaurants or other food service industries and sell unhealthy food? Are they contributing to defiling the body of others by helping to make them fat? As Ubben said, what do you propose to do about he fact that you are enriching people who use your money to support projects you don't support? Why do you use technology that provides the revenue stream for people to do worldly things? Speaking of the slippery slope...... If you find CCM unsuitable due to its influence by worldly alternatives, your use of clothing, food and technology surely should fall under the same separation theology.
Todd, thanks for stopping by.
In answer to your inquiry, you have followed Arlyn Ubben’s flawed analogy. Both of you have erroneously have sought to use the principles of separation between brethren with the believer’s relationship with the world. You both have used for the world (Microsoft, Apple by Arlyn and clothes, etc. by you) and equated them with SGM/Getty/Townend. Sorry that doesn’t work. SGM/Getty/Townend have stated they are believers ministering to believers and as such there are different Scriptural precepts and principles which apply to them (which were stated in the article).
Here are some passages for your attention: James 4:4; I John 2:15-17; I Cor. 5:9-11; John 17. God tells us we not to be friends with the world, nor are we to love the world in the first two passages. For the flawed analogy and your follow up, we have I Cor. 5:9-11 which sets straight flawed analogy. “I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.”
Christ in His prayer of John 17 clearly gives us our relationship with the world. In verse 6 He tells us that as believers we have been taken out of the world’s family in salvation, yet we are still “in” the world, v. 11. However, while we are “in” the world, we are “not of” the world, v. 14. In v. 15 Christ petitions the Father that we would be kept while we are “in” the world rather than taking is out of the world. Christ reiterates in v. 16 that we are “not of” the world, but we are sent “into” the world, v. 18. Christ has clearly stated that as believers that while we are still in this world the world should no longer be in us. These musicians I have referenced have sought to bring the world into the body of believers through the medium of music. This is wrong. As noted in the I Cor. 5, I am not to be separated from the sinners of the world like I am to separate from sinning believers.
I was given this link by a friend and so I pass it along to you. This is an article by Scott Aniol at his website that is dated June 2009. So do note that this is three years old. The thrust of his article is a three prong approach touching on the same areas I have, though with a bit more detail. Where Bro. Aniol and I differ is that he is more conciliatory of those accepting the music than I am. Here is the link if you would some further reading. http://religiousaffections.org/editors-picks/the-sovereign-gracegetty-music-question/
I will give this disclaimer: I am not familiar with Scott Aniol, I only know him by name.
It is interesting to note that many (obviously not all) churches who refuse to use SGM/Getty music even in its "sanctified version" would listen to music from Soundforth, Galkin, Rejoice Hymns (update of Majesty Hymns) and/or Steve Pettit.
Soundforth has the "sanctified version" of many SGM/Getty music like "Before the Throne." Their latest CD "Steadfast Faith" has a song by Getty in there too. Ron Hamilton's Rejoice Hymnal has several songs from the Gettys (arranged in a conservative fashion) Steve Pettit and Galkin musica are filled with SGM/Getty music!!
I am not against using these music. In fact, I am blessed with the message of the song and even the music behind it (which helps communicate the lyrics, in my opinion). I especially enjoy singing from Fred Coleman's "Hymns Modern and Ancient" at Hampton Park.
I, however, respect the decision of those who refuse to use them. But I just plead for consistency. If they are going to refuse to use these songs because of their "convictions", they should be consistent enough not to use Soundforth, Majesty Hymns, and Steve Pettit (and Galkin) music because it has the same music that they refuse to use.
Thanks for stopping by youngkerux.
I would agree with you on the consistency point as does Aniol in his article. The people/ministries you have mentioned are what prompted this article. I would encourage you to reread the article and understand the implications for acceptance of this "sanitized" music. Personally, as I note in the article I wish to stay away from any entanglement or providing opportunity for weaker brethren to stumble. This "santized" version does provide for both, entanglement and stumbling.
Here's a link to a related article on music that contains pertinent information to this topic:
http://www.proclaimanddefend.org/2012/08/14/as-goes-the-music-so-goes-the-ministry/#more-933
I am reading a sermon by John A. Broadus titled Worship and was struck by this paragraph,
"It is easy to talk nonsense on the subject of church music. It is very difficult to talk wisely. But I think we sometimes forget in our time that there is a distinction between secular and sacred music. I have seen places where they did not seem to know there was such a distinction. They seem to have obliterated it by using so much purely secular music in sacred worship. It is a distinction not easy to define, I know, but easy enough to comprehend on the part of one who is cultivated and has an ear for music and a heart for devotion. It is a distinction that ought always to be heedfully regarded. Beautiful church music, I delight in; but we must learn to use it as a help to devotion, or else we are using it wrong, and it will do us harm. We must not only cultivate the use and enjoyment of artistic music for the sake of enjoyment, but what is far more than enjoyment, we must cultivate the power of making it a help to religious worship. We must learn to do that, or we must refuse to have it." (taken from, Favorite Sermons of John A. Broadus)
This, from a man who lived from 1827 to 1895. The old cliched statement, "when Lucifer fell from heaven he landed in the church choir loft" tends to have some validity behind it. Music has been for a long time a matter of concern within the church and it will continue to be so until the Lord returns to claim His own.
This is a bit thought provoking. I wonder just how much influence the sanitized music of Steve Pettit had on the NIU graduates who Dr. Matt Olson highly commended in his July 2, 2012 post after attending an SGM church in Philadelphia where the alumni attend? I mean, surely there are sound, Baptist, Fundamental churches in the Philly area where these alumni could have attended. Instead, they chose a church which was positionally in opposition to the doctrinal stand they learned and heard at NIU.
Please follow the link to a recently posted article on music in general by Doug Bachorik at Proclaim & Defend.
http://www.proclaimanddefend.org/2012/08/29/a-biblical-foundation-for-music/#more-974
Brian, I wonder if you might entertain a few questions for clarification of your views here.
1. You say this is a separation issue. Are you saying that we should separate from people, churches, and ministries who use any of this music from the modern hymn movement, or SGM, and that to failure to separate from them is sin that would warrant separation itself?
2. Your article questions, "If we would not have them come because of our doctrinal differences, then why accept the sanitized version of their music?" Isn't it true many of the songs that we sing regularly are written by those that we have significant doctrinal disagreement with? In other words, is this standard we have ever applied in our music?
3. Your article also questions, "why is the sanitized to be received without question?" which seems to indicate that you believe that those who use this music have not questioned it. Is it possible, in your mind, that these songs are being used by fundamentalists only after having asked these questions and arriving at a different conclusion than you?
4. How do you handle songs like Amazing Grace, How Great Thou Art, The Old Rugged Cross, Blessed Assurance, and scores of others songs that are constant staples of fundamentalist churches that have been recorded and popularized by people such as Elvis, Johnny Cash, Dolly Parton, Sandy Patty, Carrie Underwood, Alan Jackson, George Jones, and many others? These songs seem seem to meet the standard of this post (sung in a worldly way, as well as the fact that someone who likes a song might search for it and find it in this worldly style and begin to think it's okay to listen to).
Thanks
Thanks for stopping by Larry.
I do not wish to sound discourteous nor sidestepping your questions but I do acknowledge, you must answer these questions for yourself and the ministry you shepherd just as I have to. I am not here telling you or anyone else what to do. I am bringing up questions which we must all answer in our respective ministries. Sure, we may very well answer them differently, as seems to be the case with your counter questions. Where we draw our lines of separation are to be driven by the precepts and principles of Scriptures. Some of those precepts and principles have been stated here with subsequent questions that have come to my mind as I ponder the current state of affairs within fundamentalism as it concerns our music choices. As I have posted in other comments, music in the church has been an issue for well over hundred years and will in all likelihood continue to be an issue till our Lord calls or comes for us.
As far as question four is concerned, really, let’s compare apples to apples. Some worldly, secular performers butchering sound hymns is not the same as what is being addressed in the article. But to take your bait a bit, would you bring these singers you mention into your church to sing those hymns you refer to, or accept any current singers in your church to mimic these performers in singing those hymns? I wouldn’t, and for different reasons than what I have brought up here concerning the sanitizing of SGM, etc.
Thanks, Brian. You seemed to be taking a pretty strong position so I wondered if you might elucidate a bit for me to understand better how you apply this. I agree that we must separate based on the precepts and principles of Scripture, and I agree the music issue likely won't end soon. I also agree that it is very emotional, and I would apply that to both sides.
To the fourth question, I think its at least a question to be asked precisely because of your reasoning: worldly (though not secular) performers butchering sound hymns. Most seem to agree that the songs in question here are sound hymns. The article you cite says they are "uplifting, biblically accurate words that are matched in an acceptable musical style ... acceptable in form and content." You say, "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."
So it seems to me that the reasoning is exactly the same. It's a good song that has been done wrongly. I am not sure why it matters that it is Johnny Cash instead of Keith Getty. And that was my question. I think there's actually a good response. If I was trying to make your point, I would say that the songs by these other people are songs with long histories in the church and are well-known apart from their association with these performers. Time will tell whether that becomes the case with some of these other songs. But I think it is a very fair comparison for the arguments most people make about it.
I wouldn't have any of these people in (the ones I listed or SGM or Getty). In fact, the list of people I would have in is very short--missionaries we support (four), and personal friends who are missionaries (I think two or three in the past ten years). We don't have special music. But I don't know how that is a factor in this discussion. Has "having someone in" ever been a factor in the music we use? I wouldn't have Luther, Watts, or the Wesleys in either, and we sing them just about every week. Not sure about some of the others we sing.
Most people in my church wouldn't know what SGM is. They wouldn't know the Gettys, or even know that we sing some songs by these folks. That's a ministry context thing likely. Other churches might be different.
These are not easy questions, to be sure, and I am not convinced every must answer them in the same way. But we do need to give it careful, biblical thought.
Thanks Brian. Blessings to you.
Larry, as far as "elucidating" this topic, I think reading through my previous articles would help in that regard. When I search the Scriptures in regards to separation, we are driven by doctrine, for doctrine truly and rightfully divides. Doctrine dividing is a good thing. Many today are looking only at the "doctrine" of the gospel for their criterion for separation rather than a fuller understanding of "doctrine" which brings much more to bear in the discussion.
Thanks for adding to this discussion.
Music seems to be on people's minds these days. Here is a link to a recently posted article (originally the article was published in Frontline magazine back in 2000) at Proclaim & Defend.
http://www.proclaimanddefend.org/2012/09/11/why-cling-to-a-conservative-music-standard/#more-1017
A quote from Spurgeon regarding a hymnal for his own church ""The area of our researches has been as wide as the bounds of existing religious literature – American and British, protestant
and Romish, ancient and modern.
Whatever may be thought of our taste, we have exercised it without prejudice; a good hymn has not been rejected because of the character of its author, or the heresies of the church in whose hymnal it first appeared; so
long as the language and the spirit
of it commended the hymn to our heart, we included it, and we believe that we have thereby enriched our collection.
The range of subjects is very extensive, comprising
not only direct praise, but doctrine, experience,
and exhortation, thus enabling the saints according to the apostolical command, to edify one another in the spiritual songs."
This flys in the face of not using the "sanitized" version of the Getty songs which by the way usually contain more doctrine than most hymns sung in fundamental churches today.
KD,
I don't know about you, but Spurgeon is not my final authority for anything I do as a believer or as a pastor of a church. Spurgeon's statement may indeed work for Spurgeon in the later part of the 19th century but it doesn't work for the last half of the 20th and into the 21st centuries with the influence of rock n roll music.
Please, take time to read the article and the articles in the links. What the church is dealing with today there is nothing comparable music wise in the days of Spurgeon.
The point is if a hymn is good its source or author does not matter. Surely this is a principle that transcends time. Spurgeon probably got the same criticism in his day and had to defend himself. I understand what the church is dealing with today. Drew Conley at Hampton Park Baptist Church in Greenville SC has taken a lot of heat for his stand on music. The HPBC website has as good a statement on music as you will find. They used the Spurgeon quote and I think appropriately so. You must allow some latitude with regard to music.
KD,
I post your comment, if for no other reason than to show some incredulity.
The source or author of a hymn does not matter? Obviously you are unwilling to address the specifics of this article, for this is the heart of the matter.
I'm sure Drew is taking heat, his music man, Dr. Coleman, has edited a hymnal which has incorporated music which is being addressed in this article.
"You must allow some latitude with regard to music." I allow as much latitude as I see the Scriptures allow, no more, no less.
Now, try addresses specifics in this article.
To anonymous who has been sending a link to another blog without comment. While I appreciate your efforts, I won't post your comment with the link. I typically do not provide links to sites that are unknown to me, regardless of the site's value of contents.
You may want to correct this statement you made: "Peter Townend has said 'God loves electric guitars and drums." I assume it should be Stuart instead of Peter.
Thank you Chad for catching the name. While I proofed my friend's portion of the article, I obviously didn't catch the name.
Brian,
I believe that I understand the point that you are attempting to make and as a former member of an FBF church, specifically the one Dr. Tim Fisher attends, I understand and respect their stance. I am not sure that I agree with it, as I often feel that it is rather legalistic in it's view. I am no where close to a theologian, and therefore will leave the theological discussions to others, but from my perspective most of the lyrics of the Getty's songs appear to be pretty Biblically sound. So you are saying that churches that "sanitize" these songs by removing the drums and guitars and use them in their services are wrong? I listened to the included link of "In Christ Alone" and I hear a beautiful orchestration. Why is this so unacceptable? Because of drums and guitars? Kristen was in essence singing an accompanied solo/duet or choral arrangement that I would hear any Sunday morning in an FBF church. She wasn't showy in her performance. My opinion is that music is there to lead the worship, not be the worship. I believe that the music can include drums and guitars, but when they, any other instrument or minister of music/worship leader begins to be louder and than the other parts of the music then that is wrong.
Believe me, I love the old hymns, and feel like that they are getting left behind in many ministries. I truly believe that many of the old hymns could be sung in a contemporary format. E.g. Bart Millard's "Hymned" and "Hymned Again" or Chris Rice's "Peace like a River". Maybe these are too worldly for the FBF, but I don't think that I or anyone else that listens to them are going to go to hell because we listen to them. Christ knows my heart, I believe that I am a sinner and that he died that I might not have to. THAT is what is going to save me.
You are correct that I do not condone churches like Perry Noble's Newspring that use rock music like "Highway to Hell", but I also disagree with their music period. Again, it comes back to balance (moderation), when the music is so loud that you can't hear the corporate worship of the voices around you then you are doing it wrong. I didn't come to hear a rock concert before a sermon. I came to worship my Savior in song, in prayer and in sermon.
~In Christ,
Ed
Ed, thank you for stopping by and commenting. I believe you miss what is being addressed in the article. Neither I nor my friend who wrote the first section believes that someone who listens to CCM is going to hell, so other than trying to incite and/or mischaracterize these two authors I'm not sure why you would say such a thing.
I will not re-write the article here to answer your question of why it's unacceptable, the article lays out my reasons for it being unacceptable. As to whether or not Getty's performance was showy or not, just listen to the last few seconds. If we're worshipping our Lord in song, then why are we clapping for the performer/performance? This is a rhetorical question, I will not post an answer and sidetrack the intend of this article by delving into whether or not clapping at the end of a special in church is appropriate or a part of worship. That's for another article.
Again, thank you for stopping by even by a few years after the original posting.
Post a Comment