Q & A: What About the Arguments against CCM?

103 thoughts on “Q & A: What About the Arguments against CCM?”

1. Bob, should I even try to give a rebuttal?

   “Tchaikovsky’s music was described as ‘vulgar’ and ‘supersensous’. But that stigma hasn’t survived to this day.” You don’t go to hear concerts much do you? Went this past spring to a local concert and attended a before the concert lecture by our conductor about a piece to be played. The piece was by Debussy, by both the conductor and some in attendance commenting on the music, “sensous” was a word along with other similar words used to describe the music. Yes, I know I am not comparing the same composer to composer. I give this example to show you that the emotions that the late 19th century composers evoked with their music is still being evoked in today’s generation.
   “So the association that rock and roll had with sex is something that can change over time. There was an association with free love and rebellion, too. But today it is just an art form.” Do you live cloistered away in some monastic compound away from the world? Obviously you are unaware of the current rock culture; free love, rebellion is still alive and well.

   What relativistic drivel. what utter nonsense. So, will we see from you at some point down the road that Playboy is an artistic journal instead of porn? Maybe such strong statements will strike a chord.

   This article would be laughable but you honestly believe what you have written which causes me to pity you instead.

   1. Brian,

      I’m not saying it cannot communicate sensuously today, but that it doesn’t have to by definition. Just as rap music 20 years ago was all about rebellion, but today it has become mainstream and doesn’t carry that connotation exclusively. Same for rock and roll. And Tchaikovsky too. Maybe the musicians who study his music say “sensuous” but most who listen to it today enjoy the 1812 overture for completely different reasons than sensuality.

      When you can go to the dentist’s office and listen to rock and roll, that level of familiarity with it and normalcy of it minimizes the shock effect and the power of its sensuous form. It has become just an art form for the most part. Now it is still coupled with sensuous lyrics to create sensuous songs. But it is also coupled with lyrics like “You lift me up” to create completely different moods.

      Musical patterns and their ability to communicate is to a great extent, culturally-bound. And after 20+ years CCM is now its own genre of music too. It borrows from other forms, yes, but the end result is unique.

      In my opinion, and I’ve read a lot on this issue but don’t confess to being an expert, there is no objective standard by which you can judge music as to its morality.

      1. Bob, why is it that it is only Christians who make the statement that music is amoral? You said, “In my opinion, and I’ve read a lot on this issue but don’t confess to being an expert, there is no objective standard by which you can judge music as to its morality.” Right?!
         I will state it again, the concert presession I attended was attended by non-musician to hear the conductor. The statements I referenced were by the rank and file population of my city, lost people who understand that music conveys a message regardless of its age and it doesn’t become just an art form, as you suggest.
         Your’s is just another attempt to legitimize bringing in the world’s music to the church.

      2. Brian,

         Perhaps only Christians speak in terms of morality anyway. Again, musical experts think some classical music is sensual. That’s fine, I’m sure some of it is. But the genre as a whole isn’t. And the same can be said in the reverse of rock and roll as a musical genre. Some songs and artists are very sensual, but many aren’t. Just hearing Tchaikovsky or music like that, doesn’t bring sensuous thoughts into my mind or most other people’s. Neither does listening to most rock and roll that’s played in the dentist’s office, either.

   2. Brian,

      By your own reasoning and logic you should not be driving cars because people speed in them and people have road rage in them and a lot of teenagers have sex in them. You should also not be wearing clothes at all because there are people who use those clothes to seduce others and to draw attention to themselves. Or perhaps you could consider that the way you are approaching the argument is just not right. This list could go on and it does to most who would use your line of arguing.

      Steve Saint, the son of Nate Saint shared an interesting story about the Waodani people that lends information to the argument. He share how little the Waodani women wear. He said that one day the American Women on his mission trip wanted to spend the day with the Waodani women. The American looked at them and said is that all they are going to wear? (They were topless and had very little on to cover their lower half) Steve explained that it was their normal dress. Later that day the Americans asked if the Waodani women wanted to go swimming with them? The Waodani women agreed and when the American women came back out with their swimsuits on the waodani women said “is that all they are going to wear?” His point in telling this story is that each culture and even generation has their idea of what is modest. The bible teaches that women are to dress modestly, it does not however give specifics that are meant to regulative today. If they are then if your wife ever braids her hair she is immodest. If she ever wear jewelry she is flaunting her wealth. Our job as believers is to read the bible and understand how it deals with our culture today. Our job is not to try to maintain the same standards as the previous culture.

      Bob’s argument for Music is similar. We are to “sing to the lord a new song” and we are to praise him with our lips out of the love in our hearts.

      I will give you one caveat and that is that I believe much of CCM is about making money and not as much about praising God but even then I believe it’s a great way to sing worship to God.

      When someone plays a famous classical piece of music on a violin and no words are uttered but they play it to God is that somehow more holy than someone playing an amazing guitar riff in a song they wrote and playing it to God. No.

      When someone self-righteously declares that a certain type and style of music is what the WORLD should be using to sing worship to God then that person is no less than a pharisee.

2. Well said

   Good luck on Sharper Iron 🙂

   1. Thanks, Glenn.

3. You lost me from the very beginning and therefor your post makes no logical sense at all and is not one to be taken seriously. :’ve experienced fundamentalist churches that utilize CCM music, or close to it, in their services” That statement is an oxymoron and makes no sense whatsoever. If they use CCM then they are not fundamentalists.

   And what’s with this urge in today’s culture to feminize everything and to get all emotional over every last thing!? I am sick of that aspect of modern culture and that it’s crept into our churches! Emotions are effeminate and have deluded the message of the church.

   1. Mjones,

      I’m not alone in recognizing self-avowed, fundamentalist churches that use CCM music. Kevin Bauder, formerly president of Central Baptist Theological Seminary, has publicly commented on this strange trend. I would say it’s not too surprising, given the love of many fundamentalists for Southern Gospel music. Even West Coast Baptist College and Paul Chappell, have been using CCM choruses for years (albeit cleaned up a bit to be more fundyesque).

      Emotions aren’t effeminate. Read the book of Psalms, and study the life of David, for instance. There is value in an emotional response to God’s salvation. Sometimes today’s masculinity is just chauvinism and a culturally bound affinity for a certain kind of manliness. Truth be told, we’re uncomfortable with Jesus letting John lean on his breast, or David kissing Jonathan. We’ve allowed a stoic-ness to rob us of expressing genuine emotions in a godly way.

   2. “If they use CCM then they are not fundamentalists.”

      Your narrow definition of a fundamentalist has clouded your view, unless you truly believe that banning CCM from a fundy church is dogma like the actual ‘fundamentals’ of the faith. But that would be pitiful.

      “Emotions are effeminate and have deluded the message of the church.”

      One, please provide some type of support for this claim as it seems very subjective. Two, please explain David and his writing many strongly emotional psalms. Three, please explain that Jesus being ‘moved with compassion’ when he saw helpless people as not an emotion and, by your definition, effeminate.

4. Well said, Bob. Some of the songs the cultural fundies use on a regular basis are definitely thimble deep. I get a kick out of churches that love the Majesty Hymnal and will sing the heck out of Majesty CCM but not any of the really solid stuff out there by Tomlin or Maher just to name a couple.

   I also agree that there are plenty of cultural fundies who use Southern Gospel CCM as part of their regular rotation and see nothing wrong with that. Some of the same would never consider a non-southern flavored CCM for corporate worship. It is an interesting study and there are definitely few churches that have the same exact “standards”.

   I am one who views music as an art form–and of course we as Christians are to be discerning in our music. Of course that would be too difficult to enforce so it never gets much traction in many circles…sigh

   Matthew Richards

5. Bob,

   There are a number of issues that cannot be hashed out in detail here including:

   Meaning – what does the music itself mean – how does it mean, and does that meaning ever change?

   Church tradition – do we do well to leave the hymnic tradition for the tradition of popular music (I would put your category of music 100+ years ago in this category as well – Crosby, Bliss, Sankey, etc.)? Or should we simply improve upon the tradition?

   Style – Can a style in and of itself be wrong?

   Aesthetics – Is beauty objective or subjective?

   Emotions – I would agree that we should express genuine emotions in a godly way. Are there ungodly emotions – or a way to emote (love) in an improper manner towards God? Does music express those emotions – and what music expresses what emotions properly?

   I don’t expect you to answer these questions on the blog – but each question (there are more) deals with a specific issue within the discussion. It is not “do I like CCM?” or “Do I feel comfortable with CCM?”

   1. I agree, Chris. It is more than “do I like CCM”? But the answers to what you list are going to vary. As I showed in my post, I’m not for leaving songs like Holy, Holy, Holy in the dust either. Recovering Psalmody and Hymnody are both a worthy cause. But the new songs of today shouldn’t be left because they are “popular” vs. some supposed objectively pure form. Are we sure our standards of judgment don’t stem from our culture to the extent that we disdain non-Western music and frown on it in favor of our own, because ours follows logical progression and a 7 note scale?

      I agree meaning is important to hone in on, but I’ve not yet been convinced that music apart from lyrics has a specific enough meaning to be immoral and carry morality by itself… But that is a discussion for another day, probably…

      Thanks for chiming in.

      1. Bob,

         I’m glad to see that you are trying to conserve some of the better (if not best) hymnody. However, you are, admittedly, progressing past the tradition of the church. Such is the fundamental difference between conservatives and progressives. Conservatives want to take the tradition that we have and improve upon it – and then to pass it down to the next generation. Progressives are willing to move forward (some, rejecting the previous tradition, some trying to bring it with them).

         Concerning your questions of the disdain of non-Western music – I do not have enough first hand knowledge on Ethnomusicology to answer the question fully. However, the history of Western music is essentially the history of music within the church. With music theory, Western music peaked at Bach (considered as perfection by those who taught me theory), who wrote all of his music SDG.

         On another note – I recently got a hold of this book from the public library (Hennepin): http://uncpress.unc.edu/browse/book_detail?title_id=1907 . Perhaps you can get a sample copy and review it – if not, I recommend the reading of it. It is simply the history of CCM with relation to the Reagan revolution (essentially, how Christian music was the binding force of the Jesus people, and how the Jesus people became the evangelicals who got Reagan elected). Fascinating read. Completely honest, and sympathetic to the CCM movement (although the author is far from evangelical).

      2. Chris,

         That doesn’t quite work, though. Isaac Watts wasn’t a conservative, he was a progressive. Yet his hymnody is what we’re now supposed to conserve. This all ultimately breaks down. And where the conservative position really falls and lays battered on the rocks is when we consider your admission that only about 6 churches that you know of are true conservatives when it comes to music.

         Whatever God is doing through the church, is not the conservative renewal or principally that. We do have to look at His promises to preserve truth through preserving His body the Church….

   2. Bob,

      What you say about Watts simply isn’t true. Watts was in an established tradition of English hymnody. Remember that Hymn singing had just reentered the church (with Luther) through the Reformation. The Reformation was not an invention of new doctrines, but a rediscovery of what had been lost – and a fresh articulation. They located themselves with the tradition of the gospel that had been handed down from the time of Paul – they were conserving the gospel. With hymnody reentering in the church with Luther, and the English church with Keats, Bunyan, etc., the poetry of the early English hymns was poor. Watts desired to improve upon what hymnody the church had – not to change the tradition of hymnody. Read Watts’ autobiography – or any biography written about him.

      There may be more than six churches or so (Lutherans are notorious for conserving good hymnody – even if they don’t conserve good theology). And I ask about CCM – is it something worth conserving now? Will it be worth conserving fifty years from now (no longer being CCM) or 1-200 years from now?

      1. Chris,

         Watts was challenged as a progressive. His license that he took with his poetry deviating from the Psalter was not welcomed by all. The conservatives of his day would have labelled him a progressive, musically.

         This kind of bickering about changing hymn lyrics, using new tunes or what have you, has been going on since the 1700s, at least. Of course the other half of the Reformation didn’t side with Luther and focused just on psalmody so there was bickering even back then.

         As for CCM, I fully expect we’ll be singing the best of their songs 1-200 years from now. Getty’s work included.

      2. I’m referring to the controversy mentioned here:

         http://songsandhymns.org/people/detail/isaac-watts

      3. Bob,

         There is a fundamental difference between “change” and “improve” (for a non sacred example, just look at the two political parties). What Watts did was to improve the tradition that he had been handed – in English hymnody, it was pretty poor. “Ye monsters of the bubbling deep| Your Maker’s praise spout out| Up from the sands ye coddlings peep| And wag your tails about.”

         What Finney (and his followers who used Vaudeville style music as their form) and Norman (and his contemporaries) did was to fundamentally leave the tradition of hymnody and to change the music of the church. Such actions are much different than what Watts did.

         Now I must admit, that SGM’s music is an attempt at blending two worlds – hymnody with CCM. I think that some of their hymnody is decent, and will probably last.

      4. Still not buying that, Chris. If you’re saying Watts was in the tradition and just improving things, why can’t that be said of the Wesleys too. And also of those writing songs in the 1800s, too? The Gospel Songs, and then “Southern Gospel” and finally CCM — all of these are improving and working from within a tradition which is growing and developing over time. We may agree or disagree with certain parts in this chain more so than others, but that doesn’t mean they weren’t actually improving tradition that went before them….

      5. Bob,

         Your arguments have been made before by the likes of Charles Finney (see Lectures on Revivals of Religion, chapter 14 – available on Google books). The roots of change happened within the Wesleys (although hymn-wise, they were still within the tradition). The change was furthered by New Divinity (being completed in the theology of Finney). With the invention of popular culture (and the vaudeville theatre), CCM entered into the church in the mid-to-late 1800s. Popular music within the church was a departure from the hymnic tradition. Now to be fair, not all of the music through the years has been CCM – the tradition still lives on. But to be truly reformed – we need to return to one of the principles of the Calvinistic side of the Reformation – the regulative principle – which places us squarely in a tradition of psalmnody and hymnody – a tradition which I don’t believe that we have a right to leave.

      6. Chris,

         So even the Wesleys were bad, too, huh? If they’re in the tradition and just starting the drift, then why couldn’t that be said of Watts too? Many of his own day said as much. Who gets to make these declarations that you don’t have the right to leave the tradition? Someone had to leave it to start it. You may disagree, but at least you have accepted that the roots of CCM start in the 1800s and are intricately tied back to the Wesleys who stand in the tradition. So there is a connection to the tradition.

6. Hi Bob,

   I appreciate your insightful comments.

   I did not come from a fundamentalist background, so I cannot provide any meaningful insight from that mind set. I did ‘grow up’ in the music heyday of the 60’s & 70’s. I became a Christian in 1973 at the age of 19, so that influenced my choices in music from that point forward.

   As a non-Christian, my preference for music was whatever was the most melodic. For this reason, I preferred the Beatles and the Moody Blues over the Rolling Stones and Jimi Hendrix. Still, I did have a deeply rebellious side that embraced Led Zeppelin and Black Sabbath (thank God for deliverance!). Once I became a Christian, I left all that music behind along with smoking, partying, drinking, etc. I embraced the hymns with a passion, as they contained not only soothing and exalting music, but great theology as well. I did discover Love Song and others, who were decidedly contemporary, yet were filled with messages of deep spiritual truth. To me, this is the essence of a hymn – a song that assists the Christian to worship God in spirit and in truth.

   Some Christian music is simply mind numbing, as it is simplistic and repetitious. It does not lift one’s spirit melodically or intellectually. Some Christian music delivers a deep message, but leaves me in the dust musically because it is too: intense, boring, sensual, staid, etc. In other words, the music may or may not resonate with me. With these songs, I choose to say that they do not help me to worship. If they help someone else to worship, Glory to God! Then there are the songs that move me to tears musically, but are bankrupt lyrically – no deep, moving, or even correct message. I can’t think of a Christian music example, so I will use a secular one as an analogy: “I Don’t Know How to Love Him,” from Jesus Christ Superstar. The message is blasphemous, yet the music is so intensely moving – a combination by the way that is deadly to the soul!

   Finally, there are those items that are profound musically and theologically. There are so many hymns that fall into this category that I tend to prefer them. Still, I have found MANY contemporary Christian songs that are equal to hymns in theological content and as well God honoring and exalting musically. There are too many to mention, and I am going to clearly reveal my age bias here, but songs by the Gaithers, Chuck Girard, Michael W. Smith, Jars of Clay, Selah, Keith Green… so many more. So many Christian artists have clearly been used by God to provide profound music to this generation.

   Some final thoughts about music in general: Everything in this world has been subjected to the corruption in mankind. Fire that he used to warm himself and bake his bread was also used to sacrifice his children to demons. The pigments and bristles that he used to paint wild animals on cave walls also became the tools of creating wicked images. The language and writing he used to create profound literary works became in his hands tools to create sordid and blasphemous tales. Medicine is used both for healing the sick child, and for enabling the impenitent sinner to lead a more licentious life with fewer temporal consequences. The same with art, music, poetry: these have all been used to glorify God, and also to create sensual diversions to lead men away from God.

   My conclusion is that whatever leads me closer to God, a deeper understanding and more reverent worship of Him, I will gladly and thankfully embrace. Whatever attempts to seduce me, to lead me away from Him and to embrace the world, I will flee and avoid as the deadliest poison.

   Rick Morgan

7. Oh, and I forgot… Steve Campp!!!

8. Thanks, Rick. Your comment brings up so much. As someone said earlier, I think, it is so much more than just CCM or non-CCM. You evaluate songs on many different levels and you test them to see if they produce godly fruit. Many of the groups you mention are my favorites as well, and I agree a lot of CCM is just fluff and does nothing for me. There are some secular songs which are riveting and moving for me. I think part of this is generational too, and culturally bound. But music is emotive and a powerful tool that can do much good.

   Oh and Steve Camp commented on this post via Twitter today, I’ve appreciated his blogging over the years, but haven’t listened much to his music — mainly because I don’t have any and I only started listening to CCM and its like in the last ten years or so.

   Thanks for sharing!

9. What is “Revolution Song”?

10. Revelation not Revolution. See the lyrics and music here.

11. Thanks for answering my question. Your response is helpful as well as reading the comments.

    1. My pleasure. I thought I’d make the reply serve others as well, thanks for not minding!

       Blessings to you in Christ,

       Bob Hayton

12. Ok, sorry for some reason I kept reading it as revolution. The thing about the music is if we are to judge the intent then shouldn’t that be the case with hymns as well? I mean look at the beloved song “It Is Well With My Soul”. Horratio Spafford after writing this song eventually went with his wife to Israel and started a cultish sect of christianity. I always refer to Mark 7 when asked this question. But what do I know I am new to correctly studying the Word of God.

13. What’s with all the vomitous reaction-posts? Reading those things makes me thrilled not to be a fundamentalist.

    This is an area where sola scriptura takes on a razor edge, and where fundamentalists rebel against God’s Word most openly. Due to the absence of an authoritative standard on music style, they are forced to create specious, faux-musicological claims about rock music. They usually don’t even take the first step in constructing an argument, which is to accurately define the term. When you have no Scripture, substitute some ranting.

    Lyrics are the most objective means by which to evaluate a song; “what mood does it generally create” is less objective but still something we can examine/

    1. Looks like MJones below has just illustrated your point. I agree that there are objective means to evaluate songs and the further you go from the lyrics themselves, the less able we are to objectively evaluate.

       Thanks for braving the waters around here and commenting!

14. “I mean look at the beloved song “It Is Well With My Soul”. Horratio Spafford after writing this song eventually went with his wife to Israel and started a cultish sect of christianity.”

    That is an excellent point. I think if you look at any CCM “artist” you’ll find that they lead wild, desperate lives with absolutely no doctrinal founding and nothing but a desultory, shifting with the winds type of grounding. “It Is Well” may not have the bad beat associated with CCM, but it’s still a horrible song based on the hypocrisy of the author and it’s sappy, girly lyrics. I come from a German background and even the Germans in Germany during WWII didn’t get all girly once they found out what the Nazis had done. Rather, they stoically and unemotionally dealt with the issue through the world court and produced even better German cars by putting their minds to logical use instead of getting all emotional. Luther would never have liked all the emotions shown in today’s sick society.

15. While we respect your attempts at logical conversation, do you really think we should take you seriously when you make revealing comments such as this? “songs by the Gaithers, Chuck Girard, Michael W. Smith, Jars of Clay, Selah, Keith Green… so many more.”

    When you reveal your worldly attitude by actually admitting you like this groups of wild rockers, you don’t really do anything to give yourself credibility! That’s like trying to have a conversation about healthy eating with someone who says they only have donuts and soda pop in their diet. In discussing health, would you really take anyone seriously who revealed they themselves consume nothing but junk? Unfortunately with your musical choices you’ve revealed a little too much of yourself and shown that you can’t be taken seriously. Those contemporary “artists” that you mentioned are all popular with today’s worldly teens and show why teens of today are so shifting!

    1. MJones,

       Remember you are a guest here. Your snide comments and belittling of others is not Christian or welcome here.

       Whether or not all CCM is “junk” is the question here, you aren’t interacting you’re just judging and condemning.

       Please be respectful of others.

       Bob Hayton
       site owner

16. The statement about all CCM artists leading wild, degenerate lives is an ignorant slander, and calls for repentance and apologies on MJones’ part.

    1. Agreed.

17. You can’t cite Reformed principles here, since you aren’t following them yourself. There is no Scriptural definition of righteous melody, harmony, or rhythm, which refutes your case from the bottom-most level working up. By using the word “psalmnody”, you are actually referring to a man-made tradition which has no Biblical warrant (since the psaltery is a man-made cultural artifact), and the word “hymnody” also refers an uninspired cultural artifact.

    In addition, the Bible does not limit us only to that which is explicitly approved, only against that which is explicitly forbidden. And there is no one settled definition of the regulative principle among the Reformed, yet we speak of it as if it’s something that everyone agrees upon — which they do not. The notion of the regulative principle is a useful myth, just as Catholic talk about the magisterial tradition is a myth.

18. @Brian

    By your own argument you just admitted that it’s ok to attend a classical concert with sensual music but it’s not ok to attend a modern concert about sensuality. If you can’t see the hypocrisy in your own argument then you are most to be pitied.

    Bob is at least consistent in his logical progression.

    “What relativistic drivel. what utter nonsense. So, will we see from you at some point down the road that Playboy is an artistic journal instead of porn? Maybe such strong statements will strike a chord.”

    This is such a ridiculous argument since the bible is clear that “whomever looks on a woman with lust has committed adultery already in his heart.”. If you Brian have ever “checked out” a woman clothed or unclothed then you have committed adultery. If you can show me a passage that is this clear on music and what music is “ok” in the bible then you will have my ear. Sadly you dont have one. If it was clear then the majority would agree. It’s arrogant and extremely pharisaical for you to assume that Bob would ever endorse Pornography. Or that any CCM artist would endorse it. Grow up!

    Please contribute to the conversation.

    1. Sorry, just saw and approved your comment, Marty. Thanks for chiing in…

    2. To Marty,

       Contribute to the conversation? Really, why? The nonsense that is being posted in supposed refutation of my statements are cause enough to leave this site to its own devices. I will willingly interact with someone who actually wants to move this conversation forward. By your statements I see that you are not one who seeks to do so.

       As far as being pharisaical or arrogant, please deal with what is content and leave the ad hominem attacks. Anyone who actually knows me knows I am far from being arrogant. A Pharisee, hardly, no where in my statements is there a hint that I believe salvation is a faith plus works proposition or that I am seeking to add works or the keeping of the law or man-made traditions in order to have a right standing before God.

       1. @Brian,

          Fair enough. I was judgmental and that’s wrong.

          Please give an argument. You simply attacked Bob and said, you didn’t think you should even bother giving a rebuttal. So enlighten us all. We are ALL of this world. How can you claim that there is “worldly” music and “Churchly” music. All music is of this world. Clearly music conveys meaning no one denies that. Bob did not claim “Amorality” except to say that specific notes of music do not contain morality. No one in the secular world would claim music is Amoral because they believe we came from Apes and the morality is whatever human solidarity decided is moral. The only people who speak of Music in terms of Morality at all are Christian and rightfully so.

          So again, enlighten us. We are all ears.

19. This is one of the saddest sites I’ve seen in a long time. I come on and tell the truth and all of a sudden now I’m guilty of “slander?” Name me one spiritual person who actually endorses CCM? See, you can’t name any. No, I will not apologize for telling the truth. I’m sorry you are so caught up in worldly music and arrogance and have the audacity to tell me to “be nice.” Incredible!

20. Mr. Brooks, I suggest for you a little less condescension and a little less arrogance. You might find that life is so much easier without so much of either. The most godly show on television, Little House On The Prairie, gives us a stern example of what can happen if CCM is allowed into our churches. Take a look at this sobering example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1piBem7yzY

    1. Is this serious or a joke? I can’t quite tell if you are just trying to be funny to lighten up the tension or if you honestly meant this.

21. gotta love trolls on blogs–make things so much more fun!

22. Jack and the guy who runs this site, please don’t put words into my mouth. I said most CCM artists, not all. It’s hard to engage in serious conversation when you misquote me. I purposefully didn’t name names in order to not stir up too much controversy. The only names I mentioned were in reciting back to the poster the rock and roll groups that he mentioned. I didn’t say anything about those particular rock and roll groups; I don’t know them or anything about them. Therefore, it would be rather pompous of me to judge them. The only thing I know about them is that they are very, very popular and all the rage with today’s teens and are not examples of classical music with no beat that would be approved by Bob Jones University, whose musical values I trust. I know nothing about the personal lives of any in those groups; I just know that they play modern music that I don’t think we should approve of.

23. MJones said, “I think if you look at any CCM “artist” you’ll find that they lead wild, desperate lives with absolutely no doctrinal founding and nothing but a desultory, shifting with the winds type of grounding.”

    You did not say most but you said any…

24. MJones,

    Slow down and see what you’re doing here.

    You began with this gem:

    I think if you look at any CCM “artist” you’ll find that they lead wild, desperate lives with absolutely no doctrinal founding and nothing but a desultory, shifting with the winds type of grounding.

    So you said any CCM artist leads a wild, desperate life with no doctrinal founding.

    Then right away your next post had this:

    When you reveal your worldly attitude by actually admitting you like this groups of wild rockers, you don’t really do anything to give yourself credibility!

    So here, you assume the groups listed by my friend Rick Morgan, you assume those groups are “wild rockers” who are “worldly”.

    Now you just admitted this:

    The only names I mentioned were in reciting back to the poster the rock and roll groups that he mentioned. I didn’t say anything about those particular rock and roll groups; I don’t know them or anything about them. Therefore, it would be rather pompous of me to judge them. The only thing I know about them is that they are very, very popular and all the rage with today’s teens

    You take it all back and admit you don’t know anything about those particular groups, all you know is they are CCM and they’re popular. Perhaps you are speaking to quickly! If you don’t know anything about them, why are you jumping up and down in your haste to judge them?

    You claim that you don’t think we should approve of modern music, but you haven’t actually given any arguments for that other than that BJU wouldn’t approve of it.

    When it comes to CCM you have no qualms in assuming the following:

    Name me one spiritual person who actually endorses CCM? See, you can’t name any.

    The only accusation of slander was from me, in the sense that you are assuming (and stating as much) that Rick is worldly and all these CCM groups are worldly too, without knowing anything about them. Now you also jump in and say no one who is spiritual would agree with me or several others here. I guess if you are privileged enough to get to define worldliness according to your own dictionary, then you can define spiritual too. So no one will be found spiritual to you, who agrees with CCM. Never mind that I could list dozens of sincere, godly leaders in various ministries and churches throughout the country who are serving the Lord and they would all agree with CCM musical styles being used in the church. Never mind that, just go ahead and assume what you want.

    It’s very hard having any sort of conversation with you, but I do thank you for dropping by. Perhaps some will be helped in seeing your strong reactions against CCM and how when it comes down to it, it’s all based on some preconceived notion you have about CCM and a judging of people that you really know nothing about. You can treasure your BJU rule-book if you want to, but we would like to discuss how to apply biblical principles in the real world around here.

25. That was a shocking video of what can happen to a church when CCM is allowed in! We need to see if we can get the producer of that video to sell us some copies so we can distribute to every church in the country as a warning against all the Toby Nolses of the world!

26. I found this site through Sharper Iron. I was mislead to believe that this is a fundamental site. Why do you people here endorse CCM? Please take away your link from SI if you are going to continually mislead and confuse us. No fundamentalist would ever listen to CCM.

    1. Mr Felner,

       You are welcome to not stick around. That’s fine. But there are many, like me, who are committed to the fundamentals of the faith, that don’t avoid CCM musical styles. I take the best of CCM and use it, because it does good for my own soul, and it is a blessing to others.

       Feel free to join the discussion, rather than just dismiss us arrogantly on your way out….

27. Mr. Felner, you are a scholar and a gentleman! I like the way you think! I have no problem with this guy’s web site, per se. It’s still somewhat of a free country (until we get Internet regulation which will end freedom as we know it) and he’s free to put out this stuff. But like you, I wish he would at least have the intellectual honesty to call himself a New Evangelical instead of pretending to be a Fundamentalist. At least in that case we could have a starting off point and a basis to try to have actual dialogue instead of this hypocrisy and self-delusion and deceit from the start. Perhaps this guy actually thinks he really is a fundamentalist and isn’t deceiving us. Then we might have to say he’s just nuts and terribly confused!

28. In not above being correct. To those of you who pointed out my mistake, I admit it. I did say “all” and not “most” CCM artists are self-deluded. For that I apologize. That was a typographical error on my part and I am sorry for the confusion. I was typing too fast and meant “most” and said “all.” Mr. Site Owner Guy, you got me. I have not even heard of any of those rock and roll groups that have been mentioned earlier in this thread. Therefore I want to say that I don’t know anything about them and wouldn’t dare presume anything about their spiritual condition.

    Readers, please accept my apologies for any haughtiness on my part for any unkind words.

29. Mr. Site Owner Guy, by the way, I did not go to Bob Jones and therefore I never did get the rulebook on music. All I know is that I have friends who went there and I appreciate their (my friends and the University’s) stance on music.

    1. MJones,

       Apology accepted. Thanks for admitting you were incorrect and also wrong to judge them.

       People don’t often make such admissions on blog sites like this, rarely anyway, in my experience. So I do appreciate it.

       We can agree to disagree on the merits of CCM and who can call themselves a fundamentalist or not, and you are welcome around here any time.

       God bless,

       Bob

30. Mjones,

    There hasn’t been a “New Evangelical” for about fifty years. In the present landscape, there is a spectrum ranging from extreme fundamentalists to far left evangelicals (and those who have stepped into liberalism). I personally would locate Bob somewhere between fundamentalism and CE (I’m not sure how he articulates separation).

    CW

    (Sorry Bob, I had to jump in here. I just couldn’t stand the ignorance of history that was being spouted)

    1. No problem, Chris.

       I don’t hesitate to call myself Conservative Evangelical, and with the right qualifications, I own the label fundamentalist too. I’m not attending a self-identified fundamentalist church, but my church is very much like many which are. So you’re describing me adequately.

       By the way, we do got to get together one of these times, since we’re in the same general locale….

31. This is a sad day in America. Here’s another shocking example of how pervasive CCM is in today’s world. I don’t know who the artist is, although I’m sure all of your liberal readers would know.

    1. Sheila from BJU,

       This is totally ridiculous. This is not worship of God, this isn’t in a Church service, this is just entertainment.

       We’re talking about using the best of CCM in a worshipful, reverent way to the glory of God. Spreading Youtube videos like this one does nothing for the discussion and is comparing apples to oranges. CCM is pervasive because people don’t use the musical styles like they do at BJU anymore today. But the CCM that is pervasive, is becoming better and better in my opinion, there are many really good artists writing excellent music for God’s glory.

32. Mr. Bob H., you just made the best summation of CCM that I have ever seen: “This is totally ridiculous. This is not worship of God, this isn’t in a Church service, this is just entertainment.”

    You are right on so many levels! All CCM is ridiculous, is not worshipful and shouldn’t be used for worship and is just entertainment. This is another shocking video of how far low our CCM supporters have gone. This is probably another video we need to pay for to get massive quantities that we can distribute to every church in America! I almost caught myself tapping my toe to this song and I was reminded how wrong that would be because that means it appeals to the flesh. Also, anything that shows emotion is wrong. I didn’t see any great harm in that respect about this song, but it did have a bad beat which I disapprove of. I like NASCAR, but I don’t see it as having much in worshipful content. Typical CCM’rs trying to make vacuous music worshipful.

33. Felner and Sheila,

    I honestly think that both of you are trollers. You are making fun of this discussion and that’s not right.

    You cannot possibly think that this is even a song. This is called AutoTuning and it’s super popular these days. They take a speech and are able to manipulate the voice digitally to make it sound like a song. This is not CCM and to be frank it’s a very irreverant prayer that a pastor prayed for Nascar that resembled a very blasphemous prayer from a movie about Nascar that doesn’t need to be mentioned here.

    I don’t believe that either of you care at all about this discussion and I think you should leave the discussion.

    If you are sincerely offended and believe THIS is CCM then you have serious issues.

    If you truly want to discuss CCM then talk about CCM and not ridiculous Youtube videos that have nothing to do with it.

    I suspect you are trollers who just want to stir the pot and do not care at all about either side of the issue.

34. Marty, what are you talking about? I could hardly care more. I don’t think you’ll find anyone against CCM as much as I am. To say that I don’t care is the height of ignorance! Let me repeat what I said earlier about CCM, just to show you how passionate I am about the issue: ““This is totally ridiculous. This is not worship of God, this isn’t in a Church service, this is just entertainment.” If that’s not passion about the issue, then I don’t know what is.

    I think that CCM is probably the biggest issue facing the American church especially, and probably the bigggest issue facing the worldwide church as well. Think I’m wrong? The Crystal Cathedral, the shining light of America, is going through a lot of turmoil right now in large part because of CCM. They always used to have such wonderful, classical and conservative music and now they are moving towards CCM and it is causing a lot of havoc. And I agree with the people who think the biggest problem of Crystal Cathedral is the trend towards going to CCM. We have an old saying in the South that says, “fool me once….can’t get fooled again.” We don’t want to get fooled into accepting CCM.

    Furthermore, I think you are the one who doesn’t care about this conversation. You didn’t mention anything about the contemporary music and just completely let that slide in that song! Instead you mentioned something about the lyrics, which I didn’t notice a problem with. The problem with much of CCM isn’t the lyrics but the music, and this is a perfect example. I don’t go to movies so I don’t have the slightest clue what you are referring to about some movie.

    1. MrFelner,

       Crystal Cathedral has way more problems than CCM. In fact, it is a classic example of how conservative music does NOT make for a conservative church. They’ve been sputing mumbo jumbo, feel-good psychobabble for quite some time. Way before the shift toward CCM.

35. Felner,

    You really should stop. You have not yet given any arguments of why CCM is bad, or classical is good. At least appeal to some contemporary works or literature that deal with the issue (i.e. Makujina, Aniol, etc.). You are giving people who actually know a thing or two about the issue a bad name. If you can’t make a comprehensive argument – or even a single argument, then hold your position in peace.

36. Is anyone else confused in this thread by liberal posters such as Marty? Marty, are you engaging in cognitive dissonance? You seem to not like “ridiculous videos” as you term it, but then you can’t argue anything good about CCM? You are confusing me: I completely agree with you! Yes, CCM IS ridiculous. We all agree with you there. Yet at the same time you seem to be saying that CCM is good? How can CCM be both ridiculous and good? Isn’t than an oxymoron? You are confusing all of us. Please explain yourself more clearly.

37. I’ll make it simple for you.

    That video clip above has NOTHING to do with CCM.

    SHEILA, FELNER and MJONES claim it does. (Trollers)

    Because you claim it does you are either mentally challenged or you are so sheltered that you belong in the category with Westboro Baptist Church fundamentalists and if that’s the case you are not a Christian and you do not love Jesus. Is that simple enough?

    My views on CCM are that it is a fantastic way to worship God. I agree wholeheartedly with Bob’s argument. I personally enjoy more than just CCM. I enjoy secular music as well. You enjoy secular music too but you’ll never admit that. As long as it’s secular music from 60-70 years ago for some reason it has somehow been “saved” and is ok to listen to.(For you) The truth is that because of Common Grace even the unbeliever can say things that have truth to them and can be beautiful and enjoyed to the Glory of God. Your biggest problem is that fundamentalism in the cultural sense NOT the true historical sense is Characteristically LEGALISTIC.(I grew up in it and I attended more than just a few fundamental baptist churches) Legalism is not the gospel. Legalists are the ONLY ones that Jesus treated harshly in the Bible. He ate with Prostitutes and degenerates and he scolded the pharisees. Someday I pray that you will wake up and open your eyes to the world around you that is dying without Jesus and you will stop trying so hard to prove that you are worthy of God’s grace by the way that you act and you will realize you ARE NOT worthy.

    Bob’s argument for CCM is both logical and widely accepted. EVERYONE has failed to break down his argument from a logical or more importantly BIBLICAL perspective. Since you have resorted to attacking Bob or myself or CCM artists the only possible response is to attack you in return. It’s sort of pointless banter.

    Bob, great job arguing for CCM I would add to your argument what I wrote above. Simply that Common Grace would allow for many of the classical composers who were completely unregenerate and very degenerate to produce great music that is beautiful. In the same way that an artist who is an unbeliever can produce a painting that is beautiful. I also believe that SOME Modern Rock music has some great lyrics and music as well under the same argument. No one would argue that lyrics that are explicit and erotic in today’s modern rock are ok. They are not helpful to a Christian and are not profitable and therefore wrong. Many of the Modern Artists are promoting Sex and Drugs and Rebellion and their music is again, not helpful to walking a Christian life. The problem is that there are a TON of PEOPLE out there making music. Each individual person and each individual song needs to be analyzed. It’s too simplistic and too easy to simply say ALL music with a beat is wrong. That’s a classic legalistic approach. Legalism is difficult because you have to feel like you are winning so making really simple general laws to follow is much easier. It’s just not that simple.

    I do not believe music is Moral. I believe people are moral and therefore any morality the music has is given by the artist. The person playing the music may be Immoral or an un-believer but they may be playing morally. (Common Grace). The person playing may be Moral or Even a Christian but they may be playing or singing out of pride and that’s offensive to God and a sin. There are quite a few configurations of this argument. The bottom line is that each Christian is meant to determine for himself or herself in his or her culture and context what is moral and immoral music and then live to the Glory of God.

38. Bob,

    It’s a shame that your post here attracted so much ignorant ranting, because it’s a useful and valuable topic to consider. This is a subject where sola scriptura really grows teeth. I drew on this comment-thread to teach on this subject yesterday in adult Bible class.

    Scripture is the final word on this topic, not personal taste. This is where 99% of the attacks on contemporary hymnody fails.

    The hymns that traditionalists claim as the standard were the contemporary Christian worship songs at one time. Amazing Grace and A Mighty Fortress were new songs at one time. It’s the same sort of dull-wittedness that doesn’t realize that the KJV was new at one time.

    Lyrics have to be the main focus of evaluation, because only words communicate ideas.

    Lots of traditional hymns were sentimental junk (like In The Garden), or have good lyrics but use songs that are way out of date (like the oom-pa-pa calliope music of Coming Again).

    Music isn’t neutral, that much I can agree upon with traditionalists. Music creates mood, and mood can be evaluated regarding its fitness — what feeling or mood is fostered in a normal group of people by a particular song?

    Time is the judge of music. The hot youth-group song when I was first saved was Pass It On. It’s a sweet little song, but it hasn’t lasted the test of time.

39. Jack, you are on your way to become a good judge of music, but you still have a ways to go. Here’s where you are correct: Lots of traditional hymns were sentimental junk (like In The Garden),

    I agree with you that our society is becoming too sensitive and femininte. We don’t need or want emotions in our music. We don’t want any music that produces “mood” or a “feeling.” But you still for whatever reason are saying that CCM is acceptable and I don’t know why. And I have yet to see how you can say that music that is appealing to the flesh can ever be acceptable?

    I’ll ignore your “ranting” posts as ignorance on your part and try to engage in a conversation.

40. I still have yet to see you or the others present any evidence that CCM is evil. You seem to be under the impression that stating something dogmatically makes it true. Maybe that’s how your preacher preaches? Just says things loudly and angrily, and doing so makes personal tastes and unfounded opinions true for everyone?

    Prove, by appealing to Scripture only, that CCM appeals to the flesh. All you’ve done is make ranting assertions without any proof to back any of it up.

    You also seem to be seeing sentences that aren’t there — like my claim that society is becoming too feminine. Which I didn’t make.

    The idea that we shouldn’t want any “emotion’ in our music is also silly. God created emotion. It’s part of the image of God in man. God feels and expresses emotion.

41. Jack,

    Thanks for chiming in. I was beginning to think we would never get to issue at hand.

    The basic argument against CCM is that it is based in the Rock and Roll genre of music and since Rock and Roll has historically been about Sex, Drugs and rebellion any Lyrics combined with that Genre of music are considered part of the Rock and Roll genre and therefore tied in with Sex, Drugs and rebellion.

    I think Bob did a great job of explaining why that isn’t a good argument. It just doesn’t hold any water if looked at from a simply logical standpoint. There also isn’t ANY biblical principle or doctrine that teaches anything like that.

    The same argument is used for Secondary Separation a term that has grown up in Indy Fundy circles since it has never been a part of any reasonable idea of Separation as taught by scripture. Separation says that I won’t take part in X because I need to separate. That thought can possible be supported biblically based on what X is. Secondary Separation says I won’t fellowship with Y because Y is taking part in X and I don’t want to be tied in with them.

42. The starting point of a discussion is a clear definition. The first problem with the anti-CCM attacks is that they never define “rock” music. The word “rock” covers an array of styles as big as the great outdoors, just as “classical” covers a bigger range than just Beethoven. A genre that can cover everyone from Alicia Keys to the Rolling Stones to the Archies to KC and the Sunshine Band needs focusing. A lot of pop music that is played on soft-rock stations isn’t rock. It can be reggae, jazz-fusion. Is Deborah Harry’s song The Tide Is High, even though it uses Jamaican style music and there’s no 4/4 beat? Was Paul Simon’s Me & Julio Down By The Schoolyard a rock song?

    The second problem is their failure to deal with text. Can anyone seriously claim that Bono’s I Still Haven’t Found What I’m Looking For, or Kansas’ Dust In the Wind, or even something as plastic and nasty as Queen’s Bohemian Rhapsody, are about sex and drugs? I believe those who attack all contemporary music don’t even listen to it, i.e., they are ignorant of lyric texts. You can find plenty to criticize in lyric texts, but that’s separate from genre. I find many of Frank Sinatra’s songs to be just as atheistic and sexual as any rock song.

43. “You also seem to be seeing sentences that aren’t there — like my claim that society is becoming too feminine. Which I didn’t make.” Jack, I don’t know what you are talking about. You correctly stated that society is becoming too effeminate and emotional when you referred to “In The Garden”. Why do you now back down from your rightful comments?

    Want proof that our society is becoming too girly and womanish? Just look at the pansies in the NFL who are complaining about having to play too many pre-season games. And look at the pansies in the NFL who are implementing girly rules such as making certain hits and tackles against the rules!

    I think this goes back to Fanny Crosby, that big fem. Her songs were girly, emotional and something which I think should be avoided by churches of today lest our young men become even more soft. The NFC should be called the National Fanny Conference for all the girlish, emotional influence she’s had on today’s society.

44. How old are you exactly?

45. I really enjoy the lack of melody in Fundamentalist-accepted hymns. The constant droning expresses holy reverance far better than all of you sinners that participate in CCM.

    Does that pretty much sum it up? I grew up in a legalistic Baptist church… NO THANKS! I bet they’re still patting themselves on the back for having spiritually dead and completely uninspiring church services.

    Whatever music helps you worship and strengthens your relationship with God is what you should be listening to. Give everyone else the same courtesy to worship how they please without judgement.

    Pray for wisdom. Judge the LYRICS of individual songs for yourself…then shut the hell up.

46. Jack, I joined AARP several years ago. I was probably experiencing mid-life when you were in diapers. I don’t want to be overly pushy, but I have a lot of age and wisdom in my favor.

47. Getting back to the topic of music, I don’t think any of us have a problem with the musical portion of any F Crosby songs; it’s the girly, emotional, womanish lyrics that we are against. I don’t think it’s appropriate for any church gathering as a whole to use FC songs. For a ladies’ tea it’s fine, but not for any other gathering. And the ladies’ tea is a problem in and of itself. The second greatest problem in today’s church, other than music, is age and gender segregation. Ladies don’t need their own gatherings and children don’t need to be separated from adults. Keep the families together and don’t separate them and form “youth groups.” That just leads to liberalism.

48. I can’t discuss this issue any longer. It’s a NEVER ENDING debate.

    Indy Fundy’s will always see those who listen to CCM as Compromisers and “insert derogatory comment here”. There is no room in Indy Fundyism for grace.

    Those who believe CCM is a reasonable way to worship God will never understand the argument because quite frankly you need to either grow up in IFB churches to believe the argument or you need to be someone who was saved into legalism (if that’s really possible) to embrace the argument.

    No ground will ever be gained on either side. It’s very much not worth the time to try to argue.

    If however Felner or Mjones are able to set up an argument by laying out their BIBLICAL grounds for this then it’s worth discussing. The problem is that NO BIBLICAL grounds exist.

49. Marty,

    I’m an “Indy Fundy” (to use your terms). Listen to whatever you desire. You will be judged for what you listen to, as will I. Go to whichever church you desire – that plays whatever music you desire. But realize that the question is deeper than “worldly” or “not worldly.” The question lies at the very heart of theology. Is beauty defined by human self realization (i.e. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder), or is beauty an absolute value in the eyes of God? Can a piece of music be ugly to God – even if the lyrics are good? Is worship driven by my response or the character of God (I think that most fundamentalists – even those who oppose CCM get this question wrong)?

    I have never stated that I wouldn’t work with someone who chose to use CCM. My youth group could probably work with another youth group that did – provided they would allow me to choose the music (most people who like CCM still hold on to the hymnody as well) in deference. I simply don’t make a big deal out of the issue anymore. I just choose to keep my family and church away from it.

    The folks who are nay-sayers above have not really thought through the issue deeply and are simply parroting old arguments that no longer work in the present context.

50. Finally! The debate has become a real discussion.

    Please explain how music that is acceptable is “beautiful” if not by self realization.

    Does the Bible TRULY give guidelines for holy music?

51. Perhaps “self-realization” is not the best term. The question here is whether God has an opinion (or sovereign declaration) of what is beautiful or ugly. Is, in the eternal scheme of things, the garbage dump ugly and the sunset beautiful? Were God to behold the sunset, would he declare it beautiful? Were God to behold the garbage dump, would he declare it ugly? Would such declarations be binding upon an absolute understanding of beauty?

52. Marty,

    Does the Bible give guidelines for whether a believer (or anyone) should smoke marijuana (especially with legality aside – legality is not an issue in some states/countries)?

53. How many times do I have to keep telling you that emotional, girlish, femmy lyrics are what’s wrong with much of “Indy Fundy” music? Music that sparks an emotional response in humans is gimmicky and plastic and garbage and to be avoided at all costs.

    This is a completely separate issue than CCM. Who really cares what sort of lyrics are in CCM or secular music? As if that really matters anyway! The musical style itself is wrong and therefore that voids the argument or the need to even remotely address the issue of lyrics.

54. Wow, the debate has moved on quite a bit since I was last here. Thanks Marty and Jack, and also Chris for chiming in.

    I think another entire post could be made on the “appeals to the flesh” argument that was brought up by Felner. Please define that. So when you tap your foot to a John Philip Souza march is that appealing to the flesh?

    And regarding beauty, we are left with biblical principles and with general revelation to make our choices as to what forms and such are beautiful. There is also the appropriateness principle. A garbage dump looks appropriate for its function. There are different categories for beauty too.

    The problem with the beauty line, Chris, is that it ends up being racist. It really does. I’ve seen that come out in some threads on this site from years ago. It ends up being a certain musical style from a certain period of music history, which also happens to be from a very WHITE locale, that that music is the ONLY music which is truly beautiful and truly good and truly worth-while….

55. @CA Watson

    Trust me you don’t want to go down the marijuana road.

56. Yes, tapping your foot to a Souza march is because your flesh is attracted to the music, and therefore the music is wrong. Does Souza have any spiritual effects? No, I didn’t think so. The main reason that NASCAR song is wrong is because it has a strong worldly beat that appeals to the flesh. Upon second listening, now I’m not so sure that the lyrics are ok either. The man made a reference to his “smoking hot wife.” If that isn’t lust and a fleshly appeal then I don’t know what is! This is a difficult issue and one which Western society has not dealt with well. In some cultures people actually beat themselves with sticks and sit on beds of nails in order to crush any appeals to the flesh. Is it wrong to cover yourself at night with a warm blanket and sleep on an overly comfortable bed with lots of cushioning instead of a bed of nails? I think it probably is. How does a warm blanket help me spiritually? My husband is not an attractive man and is obese and homely. I am not tempted to lust after him physically and that is a blessing. But I do like him for his brilliant mind. Lately I’ve been thinking that this is as wrong as it would be if I were physically attracted to him. Isn’t it my flesh that is attracted to his mind? How does that benefit my spiritually? This is a serious issue that needs to be addressed by American Christians.

    1. Sheila,

       I am thinking you are posting tongue-in-cheek. You are illustrating how that argument cannot possibly be consistently applied.

       So I want to move my foot – and that is a natural impulse. Why is that wrong? What’s wrong with tapping your foot?

       I prefer Butter Pecan ice cream to Vanilla. Butter Pecan is my natural preference. My flesh likes that vs. the other. What’s wrong with giving in and picking Butter Pecan instead of Vanilla?

       There is a legalistic, astheticism behind this argument, really. If it feels good, it must be evil. But God created the world, mind you, and He made many things to feel good and be good – because He loves us. Do you think, God could have made music in such a way that it would be FUN to listen to it? And that that was His intent and it’s okay???

57. Marty,

    My point was, that in order to make any real, substantial application of any sort, you need second premises (other than simply biblical principle).

    Bob,

    First, you have confused function and beauty. They are different categories (ask your wife why she has chosen a certain piece of art for the wall, or why the table centerpiece looks as it does).

    Your ad hominem argument of racism (without even hearing the argument) is inappropriate for any discussion (You’ve stooped to the level of Joe Biden calling the Tea Party “terrorists”). As a matter of fact, in my place of work, my manager is a Nigerian (and we have an excellent relationship). My senior manager is a lesbian (and we have an appropriate working relationship). I’ve been working within the Chinese immigrant community in an ecclesiastical setting for around five years. I am not (nor are my arguments) “racist.” By your statements, I have a feeling that you wish to end the conversation. I am finished with this thread then.

    To the rest of the people on this post, on both sides, realize that any ad hominem argument means that you have lost the argument and do not desire to actually deal with the arguments at hand. So you resort to attacking persons. Watch what you say and how you say it.

    1. Chris,

       I apologize if my comment was taken wrongly. I have read stuff by Aniol and Ryan Martin, and I feel I’ve heard the argument before, but I wouldn’t mind you continue to flesh it out.

       Perhaps my reply was more against the specific argument that we judge culture by its affinity to the Bible, so hence 17-18th Century culture (or include 19th Century if you want too) is determined to be the only permissible culture to impact music. In a comment thread here, someone actually went so far as to claim it was only American & English music of that era that was acceptable. Period. The comments there were racist.

       I know racism is not inherent to your argument. It is not a necessary consequence. But it seems to flow naturally from it in my experience.

       How can we judge beauty objectively without our jugdments being filtered through our cultural position? And if we judge our preferred culture as the only one that’s objectively beautiful enough for God, what are we saying about other cultures, and why is it that our preferred culture ends up being so grand?

       I understand secondary principles are also needed and used by Scriptural men, too. But the further we get from Scripture itself, the less dogmatic we can be and the more open to other views we need to be.

       Again, feel welcome to continue explaining what your position is. In fact if you have a link you could point us to which succinctly describes this line of argumentation, that would be great too. The back and forth of blog comments are not always suitable to irenic discussion.

       Bob

       1. Also, Chris. You’ll see I’m talking about the argument, not the person. I’m not directly saying that’s where you’re going. I’m implying that if we continue the conversation, it will go down that road (after we push and pull and get to the root of the argument). I’m not saying you are headed that way on your own at all.

58. Hi Chris, I did not take Bob’s comment as a personal attack against you, but an appeal to the understanding that the Hymnody that descends from European roots simply relects one body of musical worship. Others, from Africa, Indian, Oriental, etc., roots, have, in addition to translated Euro/American hymns, their own musical styles that, wed to scripture, become idigenous hymns.

59. Bob,

    By using the term “racist” in terms of the argument, you set a clever trap – almost an “ad hominem circumstantial” argument. If I do hold that position – the racist argument, then what conclusion should be drawn? It was a seriously inappropriate rhetorical device for the conversation.

    Now YOU brought in the concept of color. You said that the argument was “white.” I would draw a distinction between ethnicity (which is more proper than race – by using the term “racism” you fall into the early evolutionary trap of dividing people into different “races” or in some cases, “species.” There is only one human race) and culture. The discussion is not one of ethnicity. In order for you to buy into this particular argument you must agree with the following proposition: “Some cultures better reflect a judeo-christian worldview than others.” In other words, some cultures are better than others. Is a medieval European, or Renaissance culture better than that of the Aztecs? Yes or no: Agree or disagree? (Note that color has nothing to do with it – you have confused the categories of ethnicity and culture – is multiculturalism good or bad? Not just in religion but in social order as well?)

    1. I would say you cannot dismiss cultures en toto. You can’t say that since Aztecs were blind to Christ that their entire culture from the color of the beads they wore on their neck, to their customary songs and chants and dances, is evil. We can certainly judge certain aspects of their culture (i.e. human sacrifice and paganism), but we’d have to do the same with Renaissance culture too.

60. More on links tomorrow, possibly.

61. You didn’t answer the question. Are some cultures “better” than others? Are some cultures more “Christian” than others in their basic worldview and core?

    1. Everything is relative, Chris. We don’t have a revealed Christian culture in the Bible, so many aspects of culture are morally neutral. But with qualifications I would say yes, some are (as in contain less immoral aspects than others).

62. Bob,

    Spoken like a true postmodernist (as opposed to a pre-modernist – you should read Richard Weaver – “Ideas Have Consequences” followed by Lewis’ “The Abolition of Man”). Thus is the difference between you and me – between your view of worship and mine. You are a relativist – by your own admission. I believe in a transcendent order (universe), and that sin has distorted this universe – and our minds in understanding this universe. It is our task to best understand the transcendent order in order to navigate our universe, and in order to have worship that is most acceptable and pleasing to God – the designer of the transcendent order. Garbage dumps are ugly. Sunsets are beautiful. If you attempt to argue otherwise, you simply display your own warped sensibilities. As a general guideline, when it comes to visual art, man can create beauty after the beauty that God has created. Thus, a painting of a sunset is beautiful in that it reflects the beauty of the sunset.

63. C A Watson,

    Elementary my dear Watson. If our perception is distorted because of sin how do we stand outside that perception to know that it’s distorted. You are relying too much on Philosophy to guide your worship rather than Scripture. Worship is not Singing. Worship is EVERYTHING we do. It is what we ascribe value to. Some ascribe value or greatness to Football, some to Money, some to Power, some to Education, some to systems like Calvinism and movements like the Reformation. What you spend your time, effort, money and love on is what you worship. It’s not as difficult as you want it to be. You want to outthink everyone in order to sound like you have the best argument but it is in fact as silly as all the others. What we have all forgotten in this whole debate is this. Isaiah 64:6 – “all our righteous acts are as filthy rags.” (literal translation, your righteousness is like a dirty maxi pad.)

    Everyone who believes that their attempt to worship is so noble whether it be in “free expression” of all the music the world has to offer or whether it be in Predominantly Classical music or some other “Self Defined” category it’s a filthy rag.

    Someone earlier posted that I will be judged for what I listen to. I WILL be judged for EVERYTHING I do that wasn’t in Jesus Name and I will be found NOT GUILTY!!!!!!!!! That’s the Gospel!

    Since the Bible is not EXPLICIT in this you cannot run away to other principles that are explicit like Pornography and try to tie them in. Sex is amazing and it a gift from God FOR MARRIAGE. So seeing a woman naked isn’t wrong as long as that woman is your wife. When you see your wife naked you get excited and you are gratifying the lust of your flesh. If I were to use your reasoning for not listening to CCM the ONLY LOGICAL conclusion that could be made is that God wants me to gratify the lusts of the flesh in some instances. In other words there are times when it’s completely worshipful to God to gratify the lusts of the flesh. You cannot argue against this. You can try but it would be DEFY logic.

    In the end the only thing you CAN do is agree that you have chosen a standard of music and we have chosen a standard. NEITHER is more “holy” they are both a vain attempt to do our best to worship IN SONG, GOD who is our redeemer.

    C A Watson – If you are correct then what about all the people who existed before Pre-Modernists? Did they worship God?

    Tim Keller mentions this in his book Generous Justice about this argument of Absolute Beauty and “Secondary Beauty”. Because of Common Grace all who are able to produce something beautiful are able to do so because it is from God. Jonathan Edwards taught that if through an experience of God’s grace, you come to find Him Beautiful then you will serve the poor because serving honors and pleases God.

    In the end. Most music both CCM and whatever IFB’ers find uplifting and worshipful is a pretty small part of worshiping God. God didn’t tell us to go and preach the gospel so people would argue about which music is good and which is “evil”. He wanted us to preach the gospel so we could “do justice, love mercy and walk humbly before our God.”

    Not a lot of that (walking humbly before our GOD) has gone on in this Comment section myself included.

64. Ouch. Looks like my comment was deleted. Way to hold an intelligent dialogue…

    1. Your original comment was caught by my moderation filter. It doesn’t add to the discussion much anyway.

65. Apologies. I will leave a more appropriate question in my last inappropriate comment’s place: How well do the lyrics of CCM actually stand up when compared to the lyrical content of a non-religious affiliated song?
    This argument will get nowhere but it is still essential to what right wing conservative religious members believe. Do you think it restricts the experience of an adult to listen to the poetics of a song by Michael W. Smith when compared to those of Leonard Cohen, Bob Dylan, or Joni Mitchell?
    Also- I understand that you ignore the lifestyle of musicans such as Tchaikovsky because of their “disagreeable lifestyle.” Why would you not be able to do the same for a lyricist when so many songs hold just as much truth as their christian counterparts?

    1. Not sure what you’re getting at, MP. For me, I think that we can use other music as entertainment and art. Just like with art and entertainment, we can enjoy the imago dei (image of God) still reflected in the natural, unsaved man. We don’t have to only go to Christian movies, have Christian artists’ work hanging on our walls, and only listen to Christian tunes or lyrics. In a church setting, however, I would be more stringent and want to have a song with a Christian message.

66. Great. I was a little worried this was to type of forum in which participants only listen to Christian music. Nice to hear a little diversity. Good luck with your future discussions.

Comments are closed.