Tag: spirituality

Clarifying My Thoughts on Music

~ Bob Hayton

My most recent post on music has a provocative title: “Superior Affections Yet a Christ-less Conception of Worship.” And someone over at Sharper Iron sought clarification (in the comment thread here) as to whether I was really implying that a traditional stance on music is inherently legalistic.

I wanted to share my clarification here for my readers’ benefit.

Clarification

I quoted Bixby for the “Christ-less” remark in my post. I do think discussing the music issue and having ordinate affections and all, would be healthy for evangelicalism as a whole. The criticism is valid that often there is not much thought given to where we are with music and worship.

That being said, there is a danger to have such an emphasis on form that it obscures the gospel. I do think that is a danger as well.

Berating people and badgering people into having a certain music style is not healthy. Bixby was saying as much. Is RAM doing that, or some RAM type people? I am not sure. But that is not healthy if/when it occurs.

Additionally, having pride in our worship or thinking we are superior because of it would be a gospel problem. Legalism is in the heart so this is a danger that can exist. Maligning others and impugning them with ill motives, which is how the public statements often sound from RAM / traditional music emphasizing fundamentalists when they speak of those who use the other music. It goes back to Chuck Phelps’ letter and the anonymous hit piece on NIU that RAM posted. Those are examples of judging motives and assuming the worst of those who utilize contemporary styled music in worship.

To quote from my post which was referring to Bixby’s:

If you have preferred traditional music, his post will help you examine your own heart. It will also show how this stance toward the worship wars can so easily turn into a pharisaicalism that looks down on others and in turn, becomes an empty shell of externally focused religion.

The point is that one can have what is considered “superior affections” and yet have a Christ-less conception of worship – a legalistic attitude. I am not claiming that RAM has this. I think Bixby brings out some good points and may overstate his case some, but in my experience it is usually the followers who take what someone says and run with it to an extreme. So I bet there are real examples behind the excesses Bixby chronicles and denounces in his post.

Hopefully that explains things. Discussing the role of affections and the role of music can be a healthy thing for the evangelical church. Often people just assume and do, rather than carefully consider. The careful considering I have done on the issue has made me a better worshiper and I think a greater influence in evangelicalism by fundamentalists in general – on lots of things, would be a good thing.

Then some follow up questions were asked and I thought I’d share my response to those here as well. I don’t want to be misunderstood and this is an important conversation – even if it is difficult not to talk past one another and be misunderstood in our zeal for our particular musical position.

Are you saying that if you have a “standard” for worship action (never mind whose for a minute), you are maintaining a “legalistic” and “Christ-less” concept of worship? I’m not trying to put words in your mouth, but it seems like that’s where you are going.

I am not saying a “standard” makes one legalistic. A standard can be so exalted and gloried in that we rejoice that we aren’t like the publican who doesn’t adopt our standard. That is when it becomes legalistic. How one lifts up and rallies around and promotes the said standard can go a long way to promoting or encouraging the legalistic response to it. But just having a standard or drawing a line at some point, doesn’t mean that legalism will be the inevitable result.

However, wouldn’t you have to say, whether you have thought through it or not, that you have some “standard” of worship, even among those who are trying to have Christian worship; where in your conscience you say “this can be used to bring honor to God”, or “this doesn’t honor the Lord”, or “it doesn’t do anything for me” or however you want to say it.

Yes there is a standard, I would think, at our church. The line isn’t extremely clear but pastoral direction would be given and has been given in shaping the musical philosophy at our church and others I’ve been to in the past.

How do you think a less conservative standard of worship affects the unsaved? Those who have been saved out of a background of extreme love of the world and sin?

Our worship isn’t about the unsaved. I hope they would encounter a reverence and exultation in Jesus when they see our worship however. As for those saved out of a background of “extreme” love of the world and sin? Our worship is so different from what they are used to when it comes to sensual lyrics, sensual musical performance, stage lights, etc., that I don’t think there is a strong enough correlation in their mind.

Today, if you go to the dentist, go to a shopping mall, eat at Wendys, attend a ball game, go to a bowling alley, pop music and a syncopated beat is everywhere. It is the air we breathe. And for that reason, I contend, that it has become just a normal part of the culture. Heavily sensual beat, gyrating dance, intense and very loud music – that is part of the club scene and has characteristics quite different from what you hear in the doctor’s waiting room.

All of that means is that the average Joe who comes to hear our syncopated worship songs, won’t think anything inherently strange or sinful is happening. It is the music expression he is used to – his language. The lyrics and God-ward direction from the worship leader(s) will be what is new, and powerful, and attractive. And he’ll also encounter older hymns, and choral pieces that are different to his average experience that also communicate the depth of church history and the grandeur of worshiping a holy God.

What if someone in your worship team wants to perform secular music in secular venues as well?

Certain kinds of secular music don’t necessarily have to be seen as immoral. But it would depend on the type, the context, etc. It hasn’t come up in churches I’m aware of, or a part of. But consideration would be given for sure. Do we have to have a rule book which says you can’t do X, Y and Z outside of Sunday’s serivce and Saturday’s practice times, in order to be a faithful church? How about we disciple people and respond in biblical wisdom to situations as they arise?

Feel free to jump into the conversation in the comments below, or over at Sharper Iron.

“NIV Greek and English New Testament” edited by John R. Kohlenberger III

~ Bob Hayton

NIV Greek and English New Testament edited by John R. Kohlenberger IIIBook Details:
  • Editor: John R. Kohlenberger III
  • Category: Bibles
  • Publisher: Zondervan (2012)
  • Format: hardcover
  • Page Count: 976
  • ISBN#: 9780310495901
  • List Price: $52.99
  • Rating: Highly Recommended

Review:
The NIV Greek and English New Testament is a Greek student’s dream. In one volume both the Greek and English New Testaments are beautifully presented for devotional reading. The 2012 edition, contains the text of the newly updated New International Version (NIV) on one side, and its underlying Greek testament on the other. An introduction to the NIV Greek and English New Testament is included along with the preface to the 2011 NIV. To make the volume complete, at the back is a condensed Greek-English dictionary, edited by William D. Mounce.

The text of this volume is clear and readable, and the margin is nice and wide at 1 inch. It uses a single column format and includes some footnotes, although nothing compared to what one would find in a study Bible or a Greek NT apparatus. The Greek footnotes primarily document differences between the NA27/UBS4 Greek text and the text given which underlies the NIV (600+ differences). They also provide the underlying Greek text for some of the additional variant readings the NIV text footnotes, often involving differences from the text of the King James Bible. The complete English text footnotes are included on the right side of the leaf, where the English text is found. This book is available in imitation leather bound, but works nicely in hardback, as I have it. The pages are thin and lay smooth, yet are of a slightly heavier weight than those found in a typical New Testament. This makes them suitable for the wear and tear of a highlighter and pen, yet still light enough to turn easily for devotional reading.

The presentation of the book is first-rate, but it is not meant to supplant the place of a standard United Bible Societies (UBS) or Nestle-Aland (NA) Greek New Testament. This book came out just as the NA28 hit the presses. But with so few changes in the NA28 from the NA27, this should not harm the value of this study tool. Of course, it would not have provided the NA28 text since the NIV 2011 was not based on it – but it could have included footnotes to the differences between its text and that of the NA28. I am confident that future editions of this resource will do so, provided the NA28 meets the widespread acclaim that its predecessor has.

Another drawback to this work is that it does not footnote all significant differences. Sometimes a significant variant between the KJV and the NIV receives no comment in the English or the Greek footnotes, as in the case of 1 Tim. 3:16 (ος “he who” vs. θεος “God”). In other places, the NIV footnote points out a difference, but the Greek footnotes do not provide the underlying KJV Greek text, as in Jn. 1:18 (μονογενης υιος “only Son” vs. μονογενης θεος “only God”). Sometimes it is unclear if the NIV is referring to an obscure manuscript reading which is not in a published text or not, and the lack of a Greek note makes this more difficult to determine, as at Rom. 8:11 and 1 Cor. 8:2-3. Equally frustrating to someone turning to this resource for help with the Greek text, are places where the NIV mentions textual differences yet the Greek footnote tells the researcher to look up Metzger’s Textual Commentary for the desired information. This is found at Jude 22-23, where it must be noted that plenty of white space exists for the delineation of a few of the textual variants the English footnote alludes to.

Ultimately, however, it is unfair to complain that this tool is not the be-all, end-all resource for textual criticism. It was not designed to be this, after all. It will not replace your Greek testament’s apparatus, but it will make for an easier trip to class or Sunday service. Instead of bringing along a Greek New Testament and your English version of choice, you can tout your NIV Greek and English New Testament and follow along, making a few trips to the dictionary in the back if you get stuck.

Now, not everyone is going to fall in love with the 2011 NIV. Many of us prefer our ESV, or the 1984 NIV, thank you very much! But this tool will meet the needs of some and may warm others up to the fresh NIV translation. Not many translations today provide their underlying Greek, but the NIV does. And in places where you think the new translation gets it wrong, there is plenty of room for jotting your observation down in the margin. This is a fine volume and a useful resource for anyone who is familiar with NT Greek (or hopes to be). I highly recommend it.

Author Info:
John R. Kohlenberger III (MA, Western Seminary) is the author or coeditor of more than three dozen biblical reference books and study Bibles, including The Strongest Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, NIV Interlinear Hebrew-English Old Testament, NRSV Concordance Unabridged, Greek-English Concordance to the New Testament, Hebrew-English Concordance to the Old Testament, and the Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Abridged Edition. He has taught at Multnomah Bible College and Western Seminary in Portland, Oregon.

Where to Buy:
Hardcover edition
  • Christianbook.com
  • Amazon
  • direct from Zondervan
Leather edition
  • Christianbook.com
  • Amazon
  • direct from Zondervan

Disclaimer:
Disclaimer: This book was provided by Zondervan. I was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.

James: Faith in Action. Parts 1-3

~ Bob Hayton

This Spring, I am teaching a 7-part SS series on the book of James, entitled “James: Faith in Action.” The audio is now available online for the first three lessons, and I have made my notes available in PDF.

Here are links to the lessons if you’re interested.

Superior Affections Yet a Christ-less Conception of Worship

~ Bob Hayton ~ 7 Comments

There are a variety of reasons for the “worship wars,” as they are called. And for fundamentalist Christians, most of the arguments center on the worldliness or immorality of the very musical instrumentation itself — the contemporary, beat-driven sound that makes up CCM. Growing up, I was trained to recognize a strong beat in musical accompaniment and to envision that anyone singing to such music was worldly. As I started thinking through the subject in more detail, I wanted to find a Biblical argument for my stance against pop musical styles. And Frank Garlock and David Cloud had to suffice. Even then, I could see the arguments were quite weak, so most of the rationale had to depend on an analysis of the psychological affect of rock music on people and of all things, potted plants. Yes, plants!

Well, after I walked away from strict fundamentalism and re-evaluated my position on cultural matters in light of an open-minded examination of the Bible, I came to embrace contemporary worship and I was then able to really enjoy worshiping God in music to a whole new degree. I encountered deep, Christ-exalting lyrics (more meaningful to me than some of the shallow and almost trite hymns we sang growing up). And the music resonated with me – it moved me. It was like speaking in the language of my own culture — which I had been trained to deny and put down, but that really was a part of who I was. I was able to express myself in worship, to lift up my soul and exult in new, powerful ways. And I have since come to really appreciate the contemporary worship song for all its worth.

Don’t get me wrong. I still value the old hymns, and I value traditional music as well. I sing in choirs and enjoy harmony and special numbers. I also don’t enjoy any new song, indiscriminately. There is a lot of shallow music without much doctrinal depth out there, for sure. But there are some great songs which bridge the gap between traditional and contemporary. I have written, years ago now, on the Modern Hymn movement. UPDATE: USA Today just did a piece on the Gettys who I also feature in the article linked above. And I still enjoy a balanced worship approach that seeks to unite styles and generations, as well as ethnic affinities, together into a blended, unified, corporate celebration of worship. And I appreciate John Piper’s emphasis on gravity alongside our gladness in worship too.

Now, to the point of my post, after having come to where I am now on worship, I became aware of a newer position on music in fundamentalism. This position eschewed some of the more Gospel-ish hymns, and didn’t take to the sentimental songs that were written in the late 1800s and early 1900s. They took to more doctrinal-centered, high sounding hymns. And they also stressed “religious affections” — an approach which majored on appropriate feeling in worship, and stressed that God desired the best aesthetics in music. I didn’t get sucked into that movement, although it did seem appealing and intellectual. But it didn’t sit well, especially when it was not Scripture that was judging between various music forms but research and supposed universal aesthetic principles.

I say this to encourage anyone who is following me here, to go read Bob Bixby’s recent post pointing out some grave errors in this “religious affections” approach to music. This approach stresses that there is a right way of feeling, and that how you sing and what you sing in church, reveals if you are having right feelings toward God. It sounds right, but it isn’t. Of this movement, Bixby notes:

They’re separatists by condescension. They don’t practice separation; they practice superiority. And that separates them….

Theirs is a Christ-less conception of worship. It’s Gospel-free. It’s enraptured by form. It’s old-school fundamentalism. And it has little to do with the religious affections that Jonathan Edwards wrote about.

Bixby’s piece is worth reading if you have ever tended toward frowning on contemporary worship styles. If you have preferred traditional music, his post will help you examine your own heart. It will also show how this stance toward the worship wars can so easily turn into a pharisaicalism that looks down on others and in turn, becomes an empty shell of externally focused religion.

I have to quote one more bit from Bixby’s post before encouraging you to read the whole thing.

Consider the God-ward, God-glorifying form of the Pharisee in Luke 18:9-14. “I thank thee God that I am not like that poor Chris Tomlin singer over there who shuts his eyes and lifts up his hands with the pitiful, artless, crude hip-swaying style of corrupted orthopathy.” Ah, yes! The feelings of thankfulness were genuine in the Pharisee. He had, in fact, religious affections of sincere gratitude that God — indeed, he credited God! — had not made him as that poor loser in the corner, crying out to God with bad poise, seemingly unconscious of God’s glorious transcendence and preference for hymns. No one had more concern about form worthy of God than the Pharisee. No one.

Now if you really want more after reading Bixby, you could try to wade through this old post in my archives, with its 50 plus pages of debate on the subject of the morality of music! But you probably have better things to do!

Eustace, the Gospel and the Power of Story

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

If you’ve read the Chronicles of Narnia, you’ll remember the character, Eustace. He’s a weasel of a boy who enjoys being a brat to his cousins. He is transported to Narnia and there meets Aslan, and becomes a different person altogether. His story is clearly analogous to the Christian life. He is confronted with the gospel and then is progressively transformed into the image of who Aslan desires him to be.

This post will try to bring together two ideas surrounding this. First, the incredible power of story to convey the realities of the gospel. Second, I want us to think closely about Lewis’ account of Eustace’s “conversion” and appreciate anew the beauty of sanctification and the gospel of grace.

To illustrate the power of story, consider this quote from Michael Flaherty, president of Walden Media. In this interview, he comments about the making of the movie for The Voyage of the Dawn Treader. I found this section of the interview fascinating. It reveals how counter-cultural grace truly is – and the power of story to bring it home to people in a powerful way.

You Patrick Henry [College] students have all read Dawn Treader, and you know that in it God’s grace is a strong theme. You know that Eustace becomes a dragon because, Lewis writes, he gave in to his own dragonish thoughts. So we’re talking with the screenwriter and director and someone says, “Before Eustace gets un-dragoned, let’s have him fight another dragon, and as a reward for him fighting that other dragon and beating him, Aslan will un-dragon him.” I knew there was no way we could talk these guys out of having another dragon in the movie, so I said, “Why don’t we do it another way? Why don’t we have that fight and have Eustace do something incredibly cowardly—retreat, leave everyone in danger—and then Aslan will un-dragon him.” They looked at me as if I had said the craziest thing in the world, and they asked, “Why would anybody give somebody something they didn’t deserve? And that’s when I realized the opportunity for stories and how much work we have ahead of us as believers—to explain grace and to explain that undeserved favor that we get from the Lord.

For how exactly we see the gospel and sanctification in Eustace’s story, I turn to G.K. Beale. Beale’s massive biblical theology of the NT is not where you’d expect to find a treatment of Eustace and his “un-dragoning,” but again the power of story allows Beale to illustrate Paul’s teaching about the Christian life perfectly by this.

The true believer is someone who is no longer an unbelieving “old man” but instead is a believing “new man.”…

C.S. Lewis pictures this theological reality in his Voyage of the Dawn Treader. The character Eustace was a very spoiled boy who had become so enamored with a dragon’s treasure that he became the dragon itself. Lewis’s point is that Eustace’s transformation into a dragon represented his dragon-like heart. In a subsequent scene, Lewis depicts Aslan, the messianic lion, leading Eustace up to a mountain, at the top of which is a garden (echoing the garden of Eden) and a big pool of water with marble steps leading down into it (reflecting a baptismal scene). Aslan tells Eustace to undress himself by shedding his dragon skin and go into the water. Eustace realizes that he has no clothes, except for his dragon skin. So he begins to scratch off a layer like a snake sloughs off its old skin. But after doing so, he still looks like a dragon, with dragon skin. So he scratches off the next layer, but he still appears as a dragon; so he scratches off yet a third layer of scales, but he cannot change the fact that he is still a dragon. No matter how hard he tries, Eustace has no ability to change his dragon-like nature.

Finally, Aslan tells Eustace to lay down, and he will remove his dragon skin once for all:

The very first tear he made was so deep that I thought it had gone right into my heart. And when he began pulling the skin off, it hurt worse than anything I’ve ever felt…. Well, he peeled the beastly stuff right off — just as I thought I’d done… — and there it was lying on the grass: only ever so much thinker, and darker, and more knobbly looking that the others had been…. Then he caught hold of me and… threw me into the water…. After that… I’d turned into a boy again. After a bit the lion took me out and dressed me. [C.S. Lewis, The Voyage of the Dawn Treader (Harper Trophy, 1994), 115-116]

Afterward, Eustace rejoins his friends, and he apologizes for his bad, spoiled behavior: “I’m afraid I’ve been pretty beastly.” [Lewis, 117] With regard to Eustace’s subsequent behavior, Lewis concludes,

It would be nice, fairly nearly true, to say that “from that time forth Eustace was a different boy.” To be strictly accurate, he began to be a different boy. He had relapses. There were still many days when he could be very tiresome. But most of those I shall not notice. The cure had begun. [Lewis, 119-120]

Lewis’s description is clearly his attempt to represent the biblical portrayal of the reality that people, on the basis of their own innate ability, cannot do anything to take out their old, fallen, sinful heart and create a new heart for themselves. Only God can bring people back to Eden and create them anew in the last Adam, and when he does, the bent of one’s desires and behavior begins to change and to reflect the image of the God who has re-created them into a new creation. Immediate perfection does not come about, but a progressive growth in doing those things that please God does occur. [G.K. Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology (Baker, 2011), 847-849]

This is food for thought, and may be cause for you to consider reading through the Chronicles of Narnia, again. (And if you haven’t read through them, shame on you! But now’s your chance!)