UPDATE: For those who have been following this, I want to provide a brief update. You others, read the original post first and then come up here for more!
I should point out the comments under Bixby’s post (linked to below) are worth reading. Also, Scott Aniol gives a post differentiating his beliefs from the philosophical position mentioned in Bixby’s post—it is worth reading to understand Scott’s position more. I stumbled across a good summary post by Rick Pidcock which does a better job of chronicling the debate than I did (there are some good comments by Tom Pryde, Ken Fields, and Rick in the comment section). And no less than Scott Aniol, pointed my attention to a really good, Christ-honoring take (by Phillip Gons) on all of this (although Phillip doesn’t really take sides with respect to the music debate).
Most worth reading, is Ken Fields’ newest post, where he reproduces the thoughts of Christian hip-hop artist named Shai Linne. Shai originally posted his thoughts in the first SI thread on this issue. I read them and appreciated them then, but forgot about them when making this post. Ken got Shai’s permission to repost them here. It is worth a read, as Shai responds in a helpful and gracious way. Shai sheds more light on the whole issue of Christian rap in his comments in the discussion under Ken’s post. Definitely, well worth the read—so thanks again Ken! (Sorry, I’m too strapped to fork out a shirt!)
Ryan Debarr gives some further thoughts about this whole controversy—his post is definitely not a “cookie cutter” argument defending CCM. He makes some good observations and expresses some proper concern over the flippant use of terms like “blasphemy and apostasy”.
Finally, Bixby chimes in again (we are still waiting for his “alternative” springing from the post linked to of his below) stressing a need to remember a Gospel Centered approach to worship. Worship is not primarily us giving back to God, but rather us experiencing the benefits of Christ’s vicarious humanity (and his death). Bixby helpfully points us to Parts One and Two of Dan Cruver’s Gospel-Centered Worship series. Do go check those posts out!
Ken Fields will have to forgive me for using a line from his recent post for my title. There has been quite the blog storm recently, and those words were the best description I have found.Last Sunday, my church had Curtis Allen (a Christian rapper aka “Voice”) come to perform for our Aeropagus—a culture club of sorts—after the Saturday evening service at our downtown site. Since Curtis was present for the worship service, Pastor John Piper invited him to sing for the service, and he sang one song as a special number—a testimonial song that was quite tame as far as rap songs go. Well, as Ken said, “the people clapped, he sat down…and the fundamentalists went wild!”
Justin Taylor posted a video-clip of that service, and Sharper Iron linked to it. One of the most heated (non KJV only) discussions in SI’s history followed (it grew to over 30 pages in near record time). Other fundamentalist blogs joined the many SI posters in a loud disgust over Piper and any fundamentalists which would condone the use of rap music in worship (see here and here). More discussions were held on SI (here and here), and an incredibly harsh post was given by Scott Aniol. Other fundamentalist bloggers joined SI posters in expressing surprise at the mean attitude apparent in some who were so vocal in their bashing of rap or CCM type music, see here and here and here. There was even an apology and a retraction. Lastly, Bob Bixby offered a really good analogy regarding the future “movement” of some fundamentalists which stresses a “high view” of music. I really recommend reading his post, even if you skip all the other links above. [Note my listing of these links is not necessarily in chronological order–they all were from 10/31 through 11/2, however.]
I linked to all of these discussions on purpose. Some of my readers may not be privy to all the “young fundamentalist” blogs out there (and I am sure I missed some posts, too) and may have missed this whole discussion. But beyond that, I think this whole discussion is instructive. It reveals the sometimes shameful attitudes of some fundamentalists—I particularly was shocked by the willingness for many to just write off Piper completely because of this “wrong” decision. It also shows how so many refuse to let music be a matter of personal conviction. They prefer to make judgments on those who do not agree with their position, or worse to mandate a certain musical style—all this and yet no Scripture directly bears on musical style. Yes, we can apply Scriptural principles and we should, but such application is not equivalent to a direct command. Our interpretation and application of them is important for us but is not universally binding. And lastly, this discussion informs us concerning the musical debate. There were interesting arguments on both sides, and they may prove enlightening to some of my readers.
I would like to shift the discussion now from the recent brouhaha to the music debate. And I would like to make three points. [Just in case you were interested, you can see my comments in the initial SI thread about this whole thing here.]
1) The “high” art vs. “low” art (or “pop” art) distinction.
Not everyone who has been involved in the recent music debate makes use of this argument. But many do (see Bixby’s post where he suggests that many who do major on this argument are part of a “movement”). This view posits that classical music styles are “high” art and thus more becoming of the worship of our God, than the crass “low” art styles.
Recently I came across some great articles by Kevin Twit (of Indelible Grace) where he argues that such a distinction is artificial and a relatively recent innovation. Let me provide a few quotes from him, as I think they bear directly on this point.
The dichotomy between high art and pop art is, at best, both unhelpful and musically and historically rather naive. Actually the historical basis of this is a rather racist argument. This distinction is really only about 150 years old, emerges during the 19th century as people try to separate themselves from the massive influx of Eastern European immigrants, and falls prey to a classic logical fallacy: just because something is popular does not mean it is of inferior quality! It may mean that it is of great quality and has connected with a large number of people for really good reasons! In addition, the attempt to make a big distinction between folk art and pop art fails to understand how popular art functions. (see William Romanowski’s recent book Eyes Wide Open pg. 72-75 for a wonderful discussion of this issue! Or if you want to study this even more in depth, track down Lawrence Levine’s “Highbrow, Lowbrow: The Emergence Of Cultural Hierarchy In America”) — from this article (see my recent post for a more legible version).
…the high art/ low art dichotomy….has become such a part of our vocabulary that it seems like a self-evident truth. Low art is said to be inherently inferior to high art. This is the crux of the arguments of people like Allan Bloom and Ken Myers. However there are a number of serious problems with this simplistic reduction.
First of all it is musically naive. As Lawrence Levine points out in an insightful study, most discussions regarding high and low art can’t define where the dividing line is. I would suggest that this is because the line is largely arbitrarily drawn….Music is cultural activity, as William Edgar points out….The attempt to find a universal music that is a-cultural is misguided. Yet this is often what traditional, elitist, Classical musicologists attempt to do….
The second problem with the elitist view is that it constitutes a misuse of language. Levine argues (I believe rightly so) that we shouldn’t use “pop” as an aesthetic judgment, rather we should use it literally to mean that a piece of music has popular appeal. But who says that popular art is necessarily bad art? We must be very careful about automatically equating high art with tradition and intelligence, and low art with the poor, ignorant masses. Levine shows how in the 19th century in America, Shakespeare was pop art! The shift in America took place around the turn of the century and is closely connected with racism and the attempt of one segment of the culture to gain control. William Edgar also picks up on this historical phenomena. The high / low dichotomy in art is not an eternal fact it is a cultural development.
Thirdly, as Edgar points out, this elitist view actually lowers the standards of pop music because pop isn’t taken seriously. Do we send the message that all fields are worthy of our best effort except pop music?….Surely we would be better off to take pop seriously and encourage talented men and women to invest their energy in this field, than to simply dismiss it as unredeemable. —from this article (underline emphasis was italic in original).
2) A Eurocentric Bias.
There is another bias besides the one which views its music style of choice intrinsically “higher” than others. There is a racist bent toward claiming that eurocentric music is the pinnacle of music form. I was surprised that so many people reacted so strongly against this claim. It is often easy to be blind to our racism, I guess. But seriously, a eurocentric music style is what people are defending, and the music styles they are objecting to stem from non eurocentric cultures. The charge of racism is not really all that painful. It merely points out that one particular culture is being preferred to others, there is a racist bent to this eurocentric bias. I believe it is fairly clear. People who hold to that view might not be meaning to be racist, but their is an inherent racism in the argument that “white” music is always best.
Now Ryan Debarr helped by pointing out that there is a point to be raised in favor of such cultural bias. He mentioned that the eurocentric culture has arguably been most influenced by the Gospel. However, as even he admits, to argue from this point that any aspect of eurocentric culture (like music for instance) is invariably better than that of non eurocentric cultures is to say too much. And along these lines, in a recent article that I quoted, there is a strong case made that much of the music (not lyrics, but music styles and even poetic structures) used for worship in the eurocentric culture has been borrowed from the pop (and non Christian) culture of that era.
At this point, I would like to reproduce a comment that was made over at Zach Nielsen’s blog in a series of posts he has made critiquing the book Can We Rock the Gospel? by John Blanchard and Dan Lucarini. The comment was placed at the end of this post on chapter 7, and I will reproduce it here below.
At the root of these arguments is an air of ethnocentricity. In other words, there is a core assumption that ones own preference and cultural heritage (i.e. conventional western harmony) is the most evolved form of music. Seldom do the writers of these kinds of books acknowledge that the ancient music forms in the scriptures preceded conventional harmony and tuning. To do so would be to admit that they would hate the music that David danced to.
3) A Matter of Taste.
Finally, I would like to talk about taste. Some speak as if taste does not matter at all—classical style music is just always better and should be singularly used in praise to God. And yet some speak as if music is only a matter of taste. Taste is definitely a factor, but it does not have to be the exclusive factor.
I was really blessed by a helpful analogy I found made by “Keith” over at NeoFundamentalist. I want to reproduce Keith’s thoughts since they were so helpful to me. They may be worth discussing in more length in the comments here. The following comments can be seen in their original context here. They are so good, that I fear I will take away from them unless I reproduce them in full. I hope this will not be breaking blogging etiquette to do so.
The recent debates between the various types of fundamentalists over music leave me confused.
I think I would be called a musical and cultural elitist by some, but I also see no reason to hyperventilate over John Piper allowing a rap.
But to the bloggers and commenters, it all seems so either/or, why?
How is it not self evident that some music is better, as music, than other music?
Similarly, how is it not self evident that, while we should respect and properly use the best, we are not required to always participate in the best?
Food is just one example. The food at a fine French Restaurant is beyond question better, as food, than the food at McDonald’s. Trying to deny that is to deny meaning and objectivity and absolutes. Even so, does that mean that McDonald’s must be forbidden?
The fundamentalists of various types SEEM (I’m trying to understand here) to think that I must either (A) Say the French food is better and therefore never eat anything else (the elitists) or (B) Say that there is no such thing as “better” there is only preference you like French, I like McDonald’s (the “young” crowd).
Why can’t I say that the French food must be considered better even though I might eat McDonald’s more often and properly so for a variety of reasons?
Bob,
Thanks for posting on this. I read a few pages over on sharperIron, and Aniol’s post as well. It is utterly tragic to see such shameful, arrogant hatred spewed out against those who proclaim the true gospel, passionately and reverently, by those who claim as well to be followers of Christ. I would say that this sort of hatred should not be vented against pagans, let alone brothers in Christ.
By the way, I enjoyed the clip of Curtis Allan (sp.?). I’m glad Piper had him in, notwithstanding the wild ravings that he probably knew would follow.
No breaking of blog etiquette in quoting my comment. In fact, thanks for the compliment.
At a later date, I might, if I can ever find the time, interact more with your post here.
For now, however, I would encourage you to use the terms “preference” and “taste” for distinct things. I think that taste should refer to objectivity (the French restauarant’s FOOD is BETTER than McDonalds) while preference should refer to subjectivity (I LIKE McDonalds more). Pay close attention to the subjects and verbs in the parenthetical sentences.
I would also like to think and discuss more about High, folk, and pop culture/art.
But, I gotta go.
Thanks again.
Keith
The SI posts quickly reminded me of why I have chosen to take a long break from Sharper Iron. I have a hard time interracting with the arguments without losing control of a Christ-honoring spirit.
The rap message was great. And I appreciate your take on it.
Great post, Bob.
As for using my line … I wear an XL in “homeboy” t-shirts! I can even give you my address so you can have it shipped directly to me! 😉
I have become quite dismayed at the attacks on Piper and your church … from people who claim to be independents!
As for the music discussion, much of what is being bantered about is mere regurgitation of what people have been taught by the “musical elitists” and not by Scripture.
I believe it all comes down to this (as has been admitted by the right-wing elitists on our blog) … Scripture mandates no musical style. None. Nada. Zilch.
‘Nuff said.
Good work, my brother!
Bob, you’ll be hard-pressed to get anyone to come over here and contradict what you’ve said, but I will. I think it is too bad that we never discussed this just a few short years ago when you were in our church, especially since I’ve written a book on the subject. I’m going to attempt to be brief by making just a few comments.
First, people talk about the gospel here like it is disconnected to worship. I expect that now they will say, “Oh yes, it is connected to worship.” Jesus connected it eternally in John 4:23, 24. People do disconnect the two here, so please no spin on it in hindsight.
Second, we don’t worship God our own way–our way and worship are mutually exclusive. Several that defend the rap person introduced by Dr. Piper use the “gospel” argument, when nowhere in Scripture is music used for evangelism—that alone is regulated by Scripture, so violates Scripture.
Third, we are to judge culture using Scripture. We can judge crack pipes even though we have no “thou shalt not smoke crack pipes.” “The world” in Rom. 12:2 is the spirit of the age, the zeigeist, so all culture, ways of behavior and living, including art, music, entertainment, and dress, should be proven by Scripture, and either received or rejected. We are not to conform to it, fashion ourselves according to it; we are to put a difference between the common and the sacred, the profane and the sacred.
Fourth, I don’t believe you would have ever used the elitism argument (subtle racism argument) until your drastic world view change recently. When we judge culture, it has nothing to do with skin color. I reject the welfare state—is that racism? I reject illegal immigration—is that racism? It’s interesting to hear that argument used so freely. You say someone is elite, and yet you say that Bethlehem uses it only at its special urban meeting and not the main (“corporate”) meeting. Why just at the urban meeting? What’s wrong with having this “acceptable” worship everywhere? The double standard seems elitist. I reject Euro culture. I reject 10th to 15th century Euro culture. I reject present American culture. I reject Asian culture. I reject African culture. I accept essentially 16th to 18th century Euro culture and 19th century English culture. Why? The Bible. You seem to be a multiculturalist, or someone who lacks in discernment. When the maniac of Gadera was converted, he put on clothes and was in his right mind. What is having a right mind? Hmmmm. Can we even know that?
Fifth, Brother Voice smacks of Finneyism. That you won’t point that out shows a poor bias on your part. You should be dependable and consistent in your judgment of Finneyism, Mr. Finney’s Not My Homeboy.
Sixth, Calvinists cry much characteristically for arguing from inferences for their points of Calvin (i.e. so-called doctrines of grace). You argue that you can’t make all arguments from a chapter and verse, but here, oh boy, a chapter and verse is required. Think about that one.
Seventh, we can say rap is wrong for worship at least. When someone is filled with the Spirit, they make melody to the Lord. There is no melody in rap. Psallo means to pluck on a stringed instrument, which would mean a melody, Bob. See Eph. 5:19. I can give you several more reasons, but only if you seem interested in a legitimate discussion.
The generation that preceded Isaac Watts wasn’t thrilled when he rocked the boat with his cutting edge, contemporary musical style, why should we expect complete serenity from this generation? The old cliche is true: if you don’t want to be criticized, try nothing, do nothing, be nothing.
I often ponder what difference there may be when fundamentalist missionaries occaisionally visit a supporting church with a delegation of converts from the field who attempt to “bless” the supporting church with a hymn performed in the music of their culture. When the beat seems to parallel American contemporary music, they seem to be better able to compartmentalize and grant them the liberty to express their worship in the music of their culture. Is that kind of a condescending elitism? Oh, those poor (fill in the blank)–“I thank thee, Father, that I’m not like these poor (fill in the blank) who must settle for THAT kind of music in their worship . . . ”
Although I definitely love traditional Western church music, and certainly prefer it, I at least have the advantage of having come of age on this side of the Jesus People movement where contemporary Christian music has always been a part of my life. And while I agree Christ didn’t commission the Apostles to establish the first generation of the Church by preaching a gospel packaged in the art forms of the various cultures to which they carried the gospel for the first time, I do assent to the fact that fruit can and sometimes is borne when God’s Word is accurately conveyed even in the artistic forms of contemporary American culture. I personally live in a world where God creates different people with differing abilities to reach people via differing methodologies, but I do believe those differing methodologies ought to be under the supervision of some form of local church-oriented doctrinal standard. There may not be nearly enough of that going on, and many of the doctrinal standards may leave plenty to be desired, but, when it comes to performing contemporary music during corporate worship, I’ve got bigger and better things to critique–like the SERMON! 🙂
Tracts aren’t mentioned in the Bible either, I guess we shouldn’t use them.
I’m trying to find where it says what God’s style of music is… can someone help me out?
My head hurts.
Also did anyone mention that Kent Brandenburg argued that we shouldn’t do anything that isn’t mentioned in Scripture, only to turn around and assert that we have to use our brains and fill in where Scripture is silent?
Thank you!!
I’d say that I’ve followed the discussions over at SharperIron, and a new thread has started over at SharperIron that I believe is far better than that earlier music thread that Bob brought up at the beginning of this thread. Essentially, people there are commenting on the attitudes and beliefs of some (older) fundamentalists in contrast with the attitudes and beliefs of the newer sect of fundamentalists. The link to this new thread at SharperIron is: http://www.sharperiron.org/showthread.php?t=3821 The title is “Bewildered and disappointed”. It’s worth the read, and it’s not at all filled with the vitriol and caustic arguments that filled the earlier (and controversial) thread at SharperIron that started it all.
It’s kinda late for me to be online, but I commend Bob for bringing this to the attention of readers, especially those of us fundamentalists who want to shed the forced uniformity to be considered ‘united’ with fellow fundamentalists. Dave Barnhart had this to say on the thread that I linked to above (it’s on page three of that thread on SharperIron):
” On the other hand, many pastors of the older generation that I have come in contact with seem to expect that their views be accepted (not just respected) because of the fact that they are older, rather than because those views are necessarily biblical. Any disagreement is seen as lack of humility and disrespect for the elder. You can’t humbly disagree with them, because to them you don’t have the standing to disagree with them at all. That is wrong. The Bible is the standard, and those of us who are younger have a right to expect that pastors use the Bible as the authority for their positions, rather than their personal experience, just as they have a right to expect that from us. Where those men go beyond biblical teaching, I not only do not need to accept their views, I am commanded to use the Bible to guide my conscience and my actions. We are not to be men-pleasers, even of Christian men, and even when those men are older and presumably wiser than we are.
Where the Bible is less clear, and an older and wiser man disagrees with me, I will certainly give his views consideration and respect. That does not mean, however, that he then has carte blanche to dictate what my views should be. Only God has that right. If the older man is distressed that the younger generation is not following in his footsteps, he should be able to demonstrate (not just declare) that his view is absolutely biblical (not just a personal conviction) before he has a right to be disenchanted with the younger believers, many of whom are seeking to be Berean and are not going to just blindly follow what he says just because the hoary head says it.”
I came back to check for Bob and I see a few arguments have come:
1) Captain Headknowledge contributes this one: Isaac Watts music made people’s head spin. This is a historical argument that holds no authority. He also talks about trying something new. Has God changed? Has His nature changed? “New” song in Scripture isn’t chronologically new, Captain Headknowledge, so you should go and study that out. The word is “new” as in “different.” God’s music is different, just like when a believer is converted, he is a “new creature,” i.e. different. He is different than the world.
2) Ryan Debarr comes with the “tracts weren’t in the Bible.” It is interesting, but that was an argument against what? I don’t get a point from that. And then the “my head hurts” argument—the tylenol argument? Ryan argues a strawman by misrepresenting me. I didn’t say that I did not believe we should argue from inferences. I said that Bob looks for the chapter and verse selectively. He knows arguments are made from inferences by reformed. I have read dozens of the Puritans, and they argue inferences regularly. I’m pointing out the double standard, so your straw man does not work.
Larry, I don’t have hair on top, but as a hoary head relative to Bob, and likely Ryan, I wait for the answers to the actual arguments from Scripture I made. This weak stuff reinforces what I think about these young guys, that they walk after their own lusts, and their theology comes later to support the lust.
And the characteristic that distinguishes a “new” song from an old song? The world can write music that resembles the sort of traditional sound of which an opponent of CCM would approve in the context of worhsip, yet . . . ready or not, here comes a wild argument from out of left field . . . the distinction ultimately lies in the lyrical content.
Thus “Voice” can and does sings a new song as distinguished from an “old” song of the world.
Thanks for taking the time to address my feeble “bloviating,” Kent. As for the “authority” of historical arguments, J. Frank Norris is attributed to have pointed out that knowledge of history is second only to knowledge of the Bible. Sorry, but, my Bible isn’t interpreted in a vacuum like so many fundamentalists’ Bibles are.
Capt. HK,
The Bible was complete before Isaac Watts wrote his hymns, so you can’t get anything for interpreting the Bible from that century. I’m all for knowing history better, but for interpretation, you’ll need to go back to no later than the 1st century.
Song and singing, the same word used for “new song” in the NT are found in Eph. 5:19, and those refer to more than just the words, Capt. HK, there. The history of the word goes back to a usage of a song sung by a rooster. Since you like history to be used in interpretation, I thought you would want to know that. What is described is more than lyrics, but the tune or composition as well. Psalm 150 among other places also confirms that the songs presented to God can also be instrumental music.
Keith,
Thanks for making that distinction. I do want to avoid a binary type of thinking on this, and your comments helped me in that regard. I would appreciate further interaction as we talk through and think through this whole debate.
Thanks for commenting and letting me use your comments here.
God bless you richly in Christ Jesus,
Bob Hayton
All,
Check out the UPDATE at the top of this post now.
Oh, and Ken. Thanks for understanding, but unfortunately I’m broke bro. And no, I didn’t even order a T-shirt for myself!
Larry,
Thanks for pointing that discussion out. Actually I thought I was linking to it (as one of the “here”s re: SI discussions), but accidentally linked to one comment on that thread. I have fixed that link now. The thread started off okay but has degenerated a bit since then, actually. Also thanks for the quote, there are definitely some worthwhile comments over there. And you are right there is much less vitriol.
Pastor Brandenburg,
I will try to respond to your points, some of them are not exactly clear to me, so I hope I will cover everything adequately. If not let me know.
First, I agree that evangelism is not a proper use of music. Music should be directed toward God in praise, and can have an edificational use as well (Eph. 5:19). I also believe that music can have entertainment value as art, and need not always thus be sacred.
Second, I agree that saved people will be characterized by proper worship—worship involving their whole being/emotions and worship according to truth (Jn. 4). I’m not sure what point you were trying to make in your “first” comment about the gospel. I did not catch that.
Third, I agree that we should judge culture by Scripture. Just because something is cultural does not mean it should be permissable. And yes worldliness refers to the “spirit of the age” the anti-God, unchristian spirit. But there are many neutral aspects to the world and we are called to be “in” the world. Not conforming to the world does not mean refusing to dwell in houses or use cars or wear ties or look decent (according to the cultural expectations). We do not expect that Christians should eat a distinctly Christian food, or that they should only shop at distinctly Christian stores, so why do we think they should listen to distinctly Christian music? And for that matter, many Christians listen to classical music stations which pump out distinctly a-Christian music. It is of the world and for the world, and we have no problem with listening to that. Some of it is produced intentionally for specific operas which include specifically immoral things that Christians do not condone. Yet we often cannot tell that since we are clueless as to that particular context. In fact some of the composers of the baroque style intentionally were trying to change the norms and produce gaudier music, but again it largely gets a pass.
Fourth, regarding the racist/elitist argument: when every culture’s music except one—your own—is rejected, we should pause to make sure that racism/elitism is not the cause. It may not be, then again it may be an inadvertant elitism. What Scriptural passages or even inferences demand that eurocentric music be seen inherently better than native Cuban music for instance? The laws of harmony adhered to in classical music were not developed yet when Scripture was written. And they apply most pointedly to that style of music, the rock genre of music is a very different kind of music and has its own set of rules. You say you reject all cultures except 16-18th Euro & 19th century English culture—reason the Bible. How exactly do you come to this conclusion?
Fifth, Bethlehem would not use rap in worship as a normal thing. They had it for a special culture club event. And since he was at the Saturday night service they asked him to sing a special. I do not personally think Christian rap style should be used in every worship service universally, but I can think of special occasions where it could. To admit it should not always be used is not to say that it is blasphemy against God, or heresy or some such thing. I have a slightly different standard of music which I will allow to minister to me in an edifying way than that which I think is helpful in a coorporate praise context.
Sixth, let me stress that I believe music is very cultural in nature. Each culture develops its own personal style of music. And since God desires a multi cultural group of redeeemed believers, I think He would appreciate a varied and ethnically diverse combination of worship styles. This is not to say any aspect of culture passes, and there are certain kinds of music which due to certain associations should not be used. For instance if a culture has a vodoo music always used for that, I can’t imagine it would be very redeemable for quite some time.
Seventh, Voice is not Finneyish. He personally is a member and a pastoral candidate in a group of churches which is committed wholeheartedly to the “doctrines of grace”. “Unstoppable” refers to God’s irresistable grace. I have not been convinced that his song is clearly teaching an Armnian message. We need God’s help to get saved, everyone admits that. And his use of the term “help” was not intended to be a theologically precise term.
Eighth, I am all for making valid inferences. But there are no inferences which can validly be made which select one music style over another. Instead there are some principles which must be mixed with one’s own personal evaluation of a music style and applied in one’s own personal judgment to conclude whether or not to utilize a particular song or music genre. There is too much distance between those judgments and the strict text of Scripture to have a universally binding weight. I have yet to see you provide anything which settles the matter from Scripture. We must be honest that it is not patently clear from Scripture, and that there is no patently obvious cultural norms that should be so clear that we must therefore conclude that your way is best. Why can’t we agree to disagree and each apply Scriptural principles for ourselves and our ministries and not insist on claiming that those who don’t accept my application are sinning and blaspheming God (a term you used, I think, in a recent post).
Ninth, I think it is stretching it to say Eph. 5:19 must refer to melody. IT is talking about music. And there is a basic melody of sorts with rap. There are other cultural music styles with little melody, and I am sure that Paul was unaware of them. His use of psallo does not mean that those cultural music styles cannot be employed in worship.
Tenth, regarding “new”. Check out this post by Brian McCrorie where he deals with the “new” argument. Suffice it to say that “new” can mean “fresh” and that a “new” rope means an unused/fresh rope and does not mean a wholly different kind of rope. So “new” song does not have to mean wholly different kind of song.
I have some reasons above, in the post, and elsewhere on this blog for my positition. And I hope to hash it out more. I welcome discussion if it is conducted charitably. This is my blog, you know. You don’t have to be harsh to make a point. You don’t have to read ulterior motives into our comments. You can say I’m being all postmodern and everything, but the spirit of your posts recently in this comment thread is not reflective of the tone I prefer to have in this blog.
I do hope Christ is honored in this discussion. I do hope He will help us as we think through these things. I hope that I am not just making room for my own desires. Let us present our positions in a merciful and Godly way, please.
Bob
Bob,
This is a good discussion. Thanks for the hard work of laying it out.
Bob
Pastor Brandenburg, you cannot even see your own contradictions. You think music shouldn’t be used for evangelism, because it’s not in the Bible. Then you turn around and say that although crack pipes aren’t in the Bible, you can still be against them. You are the one who uses selective arguments.
And for that matter, I think you operate from certain presuppositions and piece together statements that when spoken loudly and with enough insult sound persuasive to the easily led.
I should have spoken less sarcastically to you. I apologize for that. But the “I’m older than you” argument isn’t going to work with me. I get along very well with about 90% of my elders, and the only people who’ve ever accused me of disrepecting my elders have been a very small handful of strong-willed preachers who handle disagreement by hurling insults.
Bob,
1) Music is edification only as a byproduct. It is directed to God. The teaching and admonishing of Eph. 5:19 are participles, but the lyric and music are directed to God. The sole criterion is “will He like it?” Rap wasn’t invented for God, but for man’s gratification. This does not enter into paper and ink and tracts, of the Ryan Debarr argument. The Voice rap was a performance nature. Rap itself is a flesh-oriented music with its dominant, pounding rhythm.
2) Music is not for evangelism, so trying to get the urban crowd or “relate” to them with rap perverts the purpose of songs, i.e., worship. Does that bother you? To cover two bases here; this is what is Finneyism—using a worldly form to attract an unsaved crowd, depending on a non-scriptural method to do so. This is Rick Warrenesque.
3) You say that we are to judge cultures and you proceed to lay out a multi-cultural presentation, and you miss the judgment of cultures. The lack of discerning cultures is a major feature of the degradation of our own culture in the U.S., which was once more influenced by the Bible. Paper is neutral, celluloid is neutral, carpet is neutral, pinto beans are neutral—that is all a smoke screen—music, art, entertainment, drama, etc. are not neutral. Your argument that they are is the absolutely new one (as in fresh). The last part of this section is no argument—you attack some baroque music as gaudy. If it does anything, it makes my point, that is that you can judge music. You basically shoot yourself in the foot with that one.
4) You really did not deal with the Bethlehem hypocrisy of leaving rap out of the corporate worship. If rap is good, it should be good for the older white folks at the main congregation. You explain your own elitism, but only make an accusation about others, a false accusation. You were on attack and you left your own queen open. Look at history and look at the places and times where the Bible affected the culture—you are left with those times I gave you—16th-18th century Europe (reformation) and 19th century England (Europe had gotten sucked into humanism), but England was affected greatly by the Bible in that Victorian era. I do include England in at least 17th century when her reformation had taken hold. The U.S. culture until the 20th century, I also believe represents something influenced greatly by the Bible. In the 20th century, the Christian music matched these cultures until the world’s culture began infiltrating the churches. I reject non-Scriptural culture. (Imagine Amazing grace to 17th century American Indian chants. Their music was affected by their culture.)
5) Again, you betray your skewed understanding of music in the Bible. It does not have the purpose of being “allowed to minister to me.” Those were the words you used. The music is not about me, but about God, and it won’t minister to me at all unless it pleases God. We might feel good when we hear it, but we reject our feelings for faith. Not doing so is existentialism, which is what it is to you, making you the measure of all things.
5) Most cultures have developed a music style that fits their view of the world, their own philosophies, and feelings. The Bible has not been dominant in Cuba, Asia, etc. Their music reflects the fleshliness, the hopelessness, etc. To take that music, written with that philosophy, and placing Christian words with it, is contradictory to the words, and thus, because it is worship, blasphemes God. Do you get why we use the word “blaspheme?”
6) “Music is cultural in nature;” sorry Bob, but that is an inane statement. Almost everything is cultural in nature. Culture is nothing more than a way of living. You slip something in there that is absolutely false. You make the judgment of music based solely upon “associations.” Associations are part of it, but the music itself that these cultures produce and produced has characteristics of their pagan culture. The way the music is written does not honor God. It is more than associations.
7) I believe you know what I’m talking about with Finneyish, and it fits write into your constant “preaching style” bombardment, Finneyesque preaching style, on your own blog. If you can discern one, Bob, you can discern the other. It was the way he said the words, because that poetry is a syntax in fitting with an urban dialect (perverted culture again), and it was in a rap performance style. The mood, style, presentation was Finneyesque.
8] Typical of guys arguing what you do, you use words like “patently,” “settles it,” “universally binding weight,” and “valid”—loaded adjectives and verbs to attempt to make a standard of proof impossible. I don’t believe the standard is impossible for someone who cares, but I get it what you are doing when I read your prose. I have made Scriptural arguments in this already, and you ignore them for your strawman (gaudy baroque) style arguments. We know what God doesn’t like and we know what He likes and we can discern what music is specifically doing with melody, harmony, and rhythm. Associations also come in, but aspects of resolution, sensuality, and fleshliness, the priority of spirit and mind over body, etc. I wrote a whole book on it that you never argued when you were with us. We are talking about worship and what God wants. Cultures should be giving Him what He wants. The true elitism is when we subject God to our culture instead of vice-versa, which is what you do.
9) I want to assume that you have a high view of inspiration. When Paul wrote Eph. 5:19, he wrote out of inspiration by God, so when he said “making melody” to describe a Spirit-filled song, he didn’t have to know about all other kinds of music. God knows everything and He inspired it. God said “making melody,” according to inspiration. Spirit-controlled people will have a song with a melody. It will also be spiritual. Without a melody and solely rhythm, rap isn’t spiritual. Rhythm is the physical aspect of music. All music has it, but it should be in the background, and it should not syncopate in a lustful fashion. This is not a personal thing, but something scientific and already proven about music. The “artists” themselves testify that they understand it and use it. If you don’t get it, consider the “hooked-on classics” genre in which a rock beat was added to the classics to attract a new audience. These are valid inferences. I gave you an example. The maniac was in his right mind. Here’s another one: dressed as a harlot. It doesn’t tell us what that is because the inference is that we can judge that. And we can!! (if we are justified and we care)
10)You really pulled out the big gun when you pulled out the Greek scholar, Brian Mccrorie, and his blog as a basis for your view of “new.” Why not look at BDAG? Why not look at how the word is used? He doesn’t even differentiate between the Hebrew and Greek words for “new.” So the idea of “New Covenant” as opposed to “Old” is fresh? This “new song” is a “fresh song” is a new interpretation. The number one feature of someone redeemed is that his song changes. This is in no way about writing a brand new, fresh composition. That is total revisionism. The song of the world is different. And then when you study “song,” you find it is more than just the words. You never dealt with any of that. Yes, the word “new” is used as in a “new rope,” but it is an exegetical fallacy to apply that usage to “new song.” Why not apply it to “new creature” if you are going to do that? You don’t. Why? You know why.
I think that when it comes to style, guys that take my position like my style and the guys that take yours like your style. Did you like the comments of Ryan and Capt. Headknowledge? Were they of the style you prefer? Let’s just discuss and let style go by the wayside. I like that I use exegesis, unlike you on this issue. I’m waiting for yours. Are you attempting to sort out Scripture for your worship, or are you attempting explain Scripture away?
Interesting discussion, for sure. I’m not so sure of the charity of some, though.
Sigh………..I don’t agree with all music. I do agree with gracious and charitable discussion instead of vitriol.
Bob, you’ve opened a big one on this one.
http://www.hwy777.com/plog/blog/a_ministers_musings/general/2006/11/04/music_in_the_church
Ryan,
We argue against crack pipes from inferences. We dogmatically say that music is directed to God and is for praise because this is how it stated in every instance in the NT. That particular point, unlike crack pipes, is regulated by Scriptural statements, not inferences. I can develop this further, but many good articles have been written on it. So what I said stands.
Ryan, I’m writing, so I can’t say anything loud. I’m not a screaming preacher. I haven’t made any personal insults at all. I have pointed out the poor quality of arguments, but what else would you expect me to do? I don’t mind you using sarcasm, but use it in the employment of an actual argument. I wasn’t offended with you to begin with.
On the age factor, I was just commenting on the post by Larry. Read his post and you’ll see what I was saying about age. It was not intended as an “I’m older” argument.
Regarding charity and vitriol. I reject the rap, etc. as false worship; if it comes across like I do, I won’t apologize for that. Charity, IMO, is speaking the truth. I don’t back off what I say.
All,
Thanks for joining the discussion, or at least tuning in. This has turned into quite the debate. But I am encouraged in the turns it has taken recently. We are making headway in presenting our postions and interacting with opposing sides’ arguments.
Right now, I am getting ready to go to my overnight job again, and so I won’t be able to come up with a response for two hours or so. Saturday nights are fairly slow at my job and I have time to be online, so I will respond in time. Just wanted you to know I have not abandoned the discussion.
Thanks again,
Bob Hayton
Do check out Jason’s (JLS) thoughts on the topic as given at the link he left. They are pretty good.
Also, I haven’t yet read it all yet, but Rick Pidcock has another post on this issue which brings the issue in line with a discussion of God-centered worship. Great food for thought over there, too, I am sure.
As I am putting together my thoughts, I also thought I’d redirect you to Ken Fields’ post where Shai Linne is interacting. There is some helpful discussion in the comments about this very music debate.
In advance of Bob’s thoughts–which hopefully are considering the truth of what I am saying, as opposed to stubbornly holding onto an ungodly and unScriptural position–we would understand that pointing out error is not vitriol, elitism, or racism. I’m guessing that, per capita, our church is as or more racially diverse than most churches in the United States. I would like to point out, however, that living and ministering in an urban area, I have found that there many forms of racism. We don’t cater at all to race. The Scriptural standard is the same for everyone; catering to it, I believe, is also racism, and I believe equally as evil as any other kind of racism. No one should be getting a different version of the ministry because they have a different skin color. That itself is pragmatism. People should be treated equally—no respect of persons either way. The Gospel is the power of God unto salvation and salvation is a miracle that does not depend on fashioning the message to fit a focus group.
With this in mind, some of the Shai Linne comments are blatantly unscriptural, and I would hope that his “friends” would point that out instead of sitting quietly by just because he has a different skin color than them. Jesus was the Divine truth-teller, and we are sanctified by the truth, not by fuzzy sentimentalism. I would wonder, for instance, how accepting something that is unscriptural and worldly could be considered “helpful discussion.” This smacks of at least one of three things:
1) Freudian Psychology
2) Ignorance
3) Cowardice
Pastor B.,
I think the discussion we are having is over whether things are “unscriptural and worldly”. Scripture teaches that racial barriers are wiped away in Christ, but it also states that multiple cultures will be redeemed and worship Christ together. Paul became as a Greek to reach Greeks, and became as a Jew to reach Jews, so a missiological stance is clearly advocated in Scripture. We can argue the finer points of how best to avoid racism, but to just conclude that Shai’s comments are unscriptural does not seem to help matters. To me that smacks of one of three things (this is somewhat tongue in cheek):
1) Pride
2) Arrogance
3) Lack of Christian love and forbearance
I am in the middle of drafting my response to you, but I can’t let this slide. Please don’t prejudge people and condemn them as unscriptural when we are still discussing that point.
It is accurate to say that the “traditionalist” (for lack of a better word) position is Euro-centric. I do not say racist or bigoted, but Euro-centric.
By that I mean it’s all very much rooted in Plato’s ideas of what sounds provoke what emotions.
Let no one think that the “traditionalists” are all ignorant people. Most are, but some are not. Some are very, very literate people- far more literate than most of their critics.
However, Plato is not inspired and the Bible does not say what is and isn’t a God-honoring sound. Furthermore, Plato’s theories on speech don’t adequately explain languages such as Chinese. His views on music have been shown to not be universally true: non-Western cultures are affected differently by sounds than we are. What we think is a sad mode might seem celebratory to a tribesman in some dark corner of the globe.
The argument that Platonism can inform us as to what is and isn’t Godly music only holds water if we completely ignore all non-Western cultures.
I think that the Western mind has been unsettled by its discovery of Eastern and Meso-American cultures. Their language, philosophy, and music don’t fit our paradigms. As a result, many have abandoned all culture and we as a society we are becoming more and more primitive even as our technology becomes more advanced. This is a serious, serious mistake in my opinion.
At the same time, however, we need to be honest and admit that Western philosophy doesn’t have all the answers. I’m conservative by nature and prefer tradition and order to chaos, but at the same time I recognize my way isn’t the only way. And I don’t think it’s just to throw around words like “ungodly” and “lusts” on such highly subjective and debatable subjects.
Great thoughts, Ryan. I agree with you. Thanks for making those points here.
Kent,
Just one short question. You said, “The sole criterion is ‘will He like it?'” Could you or anyone else give a concise description of what musical style God likes and the corresponding Scripture verses? I’m sure some of this would be found in all the comments, but I might have missed it. If I am to live up to God’s standards I would like to know exactly what He expects of me from the Bible.
1) Our discussion on psallo centered on whether rap was Spirit-controlled. Everything that you wrote about it says that “no,” rap doesn’t fit Eph. 5:19, so my point was made. You ended up going off on something different, that is, whether psallo specifically meant “melody” versus “music.”
2) You proved to yourself that “new song” was not chronological by actually looking it up and baking your cake from scratch instead of using a mix. Look up the words and find their meaning. Kittel goes back to the original usages of the word in literature, as does BDAG, and every time they translated in the Septuagint, it was different. You changed in midstream to something from chronological to something different. My point is that a new song would be something different than the music of paganism, which is what these other forms of music are. The music of just, of the redeemed, of the delivered, changes.
3) The culture of a redeemer is redeemed. His old culture is transformed. He has a new way of behavior that affects everything.
4) This is a worship issue and a moral issue—to take the forms of the world to communicate a Christian message is to dirty or pervert the message. All message has context—the medium is the message. You have argued this over and over with preaching styles, so again you are shooting yourself in the foot. Except here we are not talking about something that is being offered to people, but to God.
5) You are dead wrong on your music for performance. The singing is “among believers” (see Eph. 5:19), but it is directed to God, and that includes the non-congregational skillful praise of the small group.
6) I’m only going to say that you should be as strong in evaluating your own side (Shai) and his comments if you want to have credibility on this.
7) Since this is about God, Who He is, His identity, and about worship, and making a difference between the profane and sacred and the common and sacred, which is what God told us to do, I will continue judging in this area as God told me to do in His Word, and I will surely influence others.
So much Scripture weighs upon me in this discussion, but I can’t take the time to comment on all of it, and I did mention that I wrote a book where I do deal with most of the typical arguments in depth. The book is Sound Music or Sounding Brass, and you can see it on Amazon or B & N.
The sacred is made profane by not making a difference between the sacred and the common. This is very serious.
Leviticus 10:10 And that ye may put difference between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean;
The seriousness of this difference is seen in this verse. Zephaniah 1:8 And it shall come to pass in the day of the LORD’S sacrifice, that I will punish the princes, and the king’s children, and all such as are clothed with strange apparel.
The clothes of Israel were to be different than everyone else’s. God wants us different. The world’s clothes, music, entertainment, art have a philosophy. You are not recognizing that. The Puritans did recognize that in many of their writings, but it seems that in this day, where things are far worse, we don’t show that kind of carefulness, and often use “liberty” as a reason. This is a terrible misuse of Rom. 14, 1 Cor. 8-10, and the teaching there on liberty.
Also I am not saying “Western culture,” so you misrepresent that. I reject present Western culture. We can judge these things using Biblical principles. Israel had a separate culture that made them distinct and today the church should keep a distinct culture from the world, a Christian one. Certain cultures in history were more greatly influenced by the Bible, which is why would accept those cultures more. It is not a thing of ethnicity or race, but the Bible. I think you understand what I am saying, but undermines your multiculturalism, which does not discern like Scripture teaches us.
I am done. I’ve always hoped the best for you Bob.
Leviticus 22:32 Neither shall ye profane my holy name; but I will be hallowed among the children of Israel: I am the LORD which hallow you,
Ezekiel 22:26 Her priests have violated my law, and have profaned mine holy things: they have put no difference between the holy and profane, neither have they shewed difference between the unclean and the clean, and have hid their eyes from my sabbaths, and I am profaned among them.
Last month, I posted an article at my blog that is linked to in this article. Since then, I have gotten a number of visitors from this site. However, I have decided to delete my post regarding the rap music debate. I apologize for any offense I may have caused. And I would ask for you to read my explanation at http://rickpidcock.wordpress.com/2006/11/26/living-worship-on-my-blog/. Thanks, Rick
Rick’s move gives cause to all of us to carefully consider how we blog. May we all work to exalt the Gospel in all we do.
God bless you Rick,
Bob Hayton
What’s so bad about rap? Sometimes people need to relax and enjoy themselves and not try to look up 10 verses to prove their points.
I am disappointed with the amount of ignorance being preached on this blog. I don’t mean biblical preaching, you guys are great about that. I love how biblical many of you keep these discussions. But, does anyone know a thing about rap here?? I can’t believe anyone here could say that rap is Godless. Yes, when Godless people rap, it isn’t to glorify God, but when Godless people SPEAK it doesn’t glorify God, yet that doesn’t mean speech is Godless.
Rap is an acronym (R.A.P.), literally, it stands for Rhythm and Poetry.
“Poetry is verbal composition, imaginative and concrete in matter, and emotional and rhythmic in form.”
The fact is, poetic form is used in the Bible!!
I have read poetry that has no spiritual redeeming value, conceived and created in darkness, but I have also read the book of Psalms, Proverbs, Song of Songs, which are all FILLED with Hebrew Poetry.
Those who think they know about rap, listen up:
rap DOES NOT REQUIRE A “DRUM” BEAT.
rap DOES CONTAIN MELODY.
“Spirit-controlled people will have a song with a melody. It will also be spiritual. Without a melody and solely rhythm, rap isn’t spiritual.”
by this standard, you’re saying that A LOT of Old Testament scripture isn’t spiritual.
“Rhythm (from Greek rhuthmos) in literary composition denotes that recurrence of accented and unaccented syllables in a regular order”
Proverbs is written in Hebrew poetic form. It contains rhythm without melody the SAME way rap can. By the definition of rap, Proverbs is Hebrew rap. Either the problem here is that I have no idea about the Bible, or you simply don’t know what rap actually is.
The fact is, God’s word is just a shadow of who He is. It is dangerous for ANY of us to claim to know what kinds of music please God most. I do know that God is pleased with what David wrote, and with that, I hope He is pleased with what I write to and for Him. (which is rap, in case I didn’t make that obvious)
Thanks brother for your thoughts. I’m in agreement with you. You bring a good perspective to this debate. Personally I have been able to listen to some Christian rap, and I find it very much different than what I would have expected. It is first and foremost poetry with rhythm for sure. And it is catchy and with the Christian lyrics, quite wholesome and Godly.
Blessings from Christ,
Bob Hayton
I have only today come across this thread and series of articles. Since nearly all the posts are from 2006, so I realize this is way after the fact. There is some excellent material. I found the article, “A Musical Antidote to Legalistic Thinking” to be very helpful. But on this thread here, I find a sentiment expressed that I find very objectionable in this politically correct age.
My parents both trained to be opera singers, that is how they met. I grew up in a home where Classical music was highly esteemed. I certainly can understand the objection of some to operas, some of them contain stories which Christians should avoid. But to dismiss esteeming the genre of 18th or 19th century European music as somehow elitist or racist is incredibly over the top. I see in that a manifestation of the “white guilt” syndrome that specializes in bashing Western civilization and culture. It is offensive in the extreme. Don’t buy into the pervasive contemporary heresy of political correctness. It is sterile and it is dangerous.
I was nurtured on Classical music, and find in it some of the greatest consolation and joy this earth has to offer. Those who want to bash it come across as ignorant of its true greatness. Kindly refrain from bashing that of which you know so little! How do I know that you know so little of it? Because nobody who knows the full genre of the Classical giants of the past would utter such remarks.
Having expressed that strong disagreement with some of what has been written, I would also like to point out something that I have not seen addressed here. I grew up with the classics, was nurtured on hymns in my early Christian development, then became part of a church where CCM was king. Some effort has been made in these pages to show that there are good contemporary worship songs. Perhaps. But there are great Classical pieces of which many contemporary believers are unaware, and which would greatly uplift and enrich them. Christian Classical composers of the past are part of that “great cloud of witnesses” which contemporary believers will, through the grace of Christ, one day join in a better land.
I would commend to you the cantatas and oratarios of Johann Sebastian Bach, the wonderful story of redemption told in the opera “Faust” by Charles Gounod, Felix Mendelssohn’s oratario, “Elijah,” the symphonies of Anton Bruckner, and Georg Friedrich Händel’s oratarios, “The Messiah” and “Israel in Egypt.” In the rush of some to be ‘relevant’ and ‘contemporary,’ often, the great works of the true masters of the past are often overlooked. Why reinvent the wheel? There are enormously great Classical works to lift one’s spirits. We are surrounded by rock music, in the mall, on TV, in many offices, even hold music on the telephone. Is there no escape from our culture’s overly-saturated obsession with rock music? Call it a matter of taste if you wish, but I am weary of the contemporary rock sound that surrounds and annoys me at every turn. (I loved it in college, but I want no part of it now.) There are some wonderful alternatives to 18th and 19th century hymnody (though I shall never abandon that genre). Look back to the great masterpieces of those and earlier centuries, or to some of the fine works by contemporary Classical composers such as John Rutter and Arvo Pärt. They will offer solace and refuge from the banal sound of contemporary rock. I realize that some may regard the contemporary sound as liberating from the ‘restrictions’ of hymnody. But for me, there is wonderful liberating worship that can be enhanced in the marvelous sound of the pipe organ in Joseph Rheinberger’s organ concerti, the great choral setting by Mendelssohn of Psalm 42, or a huge wealth of other sacred Classical works. I began to delve into them more deeply when my church adopted an almost exclusively contemporary format. It is one of the finest choices I could have made musically. To those for whom Classical music is entirely unfamiliar, I would urge you with enthusiasm to plunge in, the water is just fine! You will find a tremendous new ally in your worship to the true and living God!