StaddonFamily.com

20 Responses to “Music Standards, Part 1”

1. elizabeth | September 2nd, 2009 at 10:58 am

   What a surprise and delight to find this blog post today! Our family just left our church because of this issue. We are a very musical family and we know this whole issue quite well. You did a great job addressing it, and we look forward to reading the next post on it. It was so refreshing to see this today. Thank you!!

2. James | September 2nd, 2009 at 9:53 pm

   WOW! Excellent explaination. It’s hard to refute anything backed up with that much scripture.

   Readers: UPDATE on “Davids Manhood Ceremony” includes more pictures of the ceremony and it’s surrounding activities.

3. Crystal | September 3rd, 2009 at 11:53 am

   Michael, thanks for addressing a revelant & important issue of the times we live in. I have noticed a dramatic decrease in Christians speaking out against rock music. It seems that wrong music no longer “creeps” into church & Christian homes, it waltzes right on in with an open invitation.
   Have y’all watched the tapes on music by T.P. Johnston? He spoke at Knoxville a few years ago. It is an excellent resource to aid in identifying wrong music.

4. Donald | September 3rd, 2009 at 12:50 pm

   Thank you for putting this in writing Michael. I agree with the comments afterward as well. So far the statements and concepts are from Scripture but it was helpful to add a couple things from Tim Fisher’s book ‘Harmony at Home’ as well as our own observation. It sounds like Johnston’s research would be worth a check too. Thank you for the recommendation.

5. matthew | September 4th, 2009 at 6:21 am

   Reading this, I’m reminded of how I once believed. Very strongly too. However, something to note is that none of the bible verses used here say “don’t use a back beat” or “don’t slur your notes” or anything that can be understood to directly address a particular form of music.

   There are things God commands, and knowing His human creation’s propensity for quibbling, He didn’t leave them up to chance. “Thou shalt not” is a phrase we are very aware of, even non-christians are familiar with it.

   And there are things He doesn’t command, but advises on. His way is better, but for His glories’ sake He allows us to choose our way. And there are things He leaves completely up to us.

   All the connections between what you argue to be incorrect music and God’s word are made by books of man. I’m very familiar with these arguments, like I said, I’ve been there myself. You use the books and arguments of man to imply music is what is being discussed in these verses.

   Being of the Berean sort, I don’t find the connection to be as strong as a reasonable argument requires. One must be careful in interpreting and applying scripture that there is a clear connection between the verse and the situation it’s being applied to.

   God made His scripture accessible to us. I believe God protects the translation of His word to ensure His truth is maintained throughout the process. Modern study has proven our current translations to be incredibly accurate to the earliest remnants found. He also made it understandable. We don’t need the priest to interpret the scripture to us. An ignorant person reading the Bible with a sincere heart thirsting after God can have the same understanding as the most studied among us.

   The story of David dancing before the Lord is perhaps most commonly used to argue that dancing is not pleasing to the Lord, and by extension, the music used in dancing must not be either. However, the only ill said of David was by his wife Michael, not by God or a prophet. And it was Michael who was punished for her jealousy of her husband’s love and total abandonment before the Lord God who had brought back the Ark of the Covenant.

   These various points, that God has not clearly commanded that music with certain and strong rhythms is displeasing to Him, that the scripture is accessible and therefore such commandment would be clear if it existed, and that God was not displeased with David’s dancing before Him in joyful abandon, all illustrate God’s love for us.

   God has left much of the construction of worship to us. He commands that we do it skillfully, joyfully, and with a pure heart wholly devoted to His praise.

   And it is very true that Martin Luther used the bar melodies of his day to make his music more singable to the masses. He knew that the melodies were amoral. It is the words that mean things. And if he chose a tune that everybody could sing already, he knew the singers could enter into the truth of the words much more quickly than if he were trying to teach them a new tune as well.

   And he may just have been a terrible composer.

   At the root of it all I just want to convey that God wants us to worship Him in His way. That is something He has stated clearly. You don’t have to go through tortuously winding nested arguments to understand His commands in this respect. Worship His way is not one of the options or advise bits, it’s a command. And because it’s a command it’s clear.

   No go worship God.

6. Michael | September 4th, 2009 at 11:09 am

   Thank you Matthew for reading and commenting on this post! I have read and considered what you said. The command to let all things be done decently and in order is as good as saying “don’t use a back beat” and “don’t slur your notes”, or anything that appeals to our carnal nature. When the Bible says “all things”, that is exactly what it means. Do you feel there is no clear connection between the verses and what they are applied to? There is no basis to argue that when Scripture speaks of “the song of fools” or of a harlot it is speaking only of the words and not the music.

   Why is there no “thou shalt not?” First of all we know that Jesus said there were many things he wanted to tell his disciples that they could not yet bear. After all, how could they understand how bad music could become? So he gave them what in principle what they would need to apply to any issue. Anything He taught about any form of communication, especially when linked to behavior, would apply to music. You are right that in His love for us He didn’t give us things we could not bear. When He taught about God’s design for marriage, they said “if that’s the case, it would not be good to get married”. He said “He that is able to recieve it, let him receive it.” Just as strict monogamy has been proven to produce a strong society, so also will a high music standard, if we will receive it. In modern times we have seen how much of a force music can become for both the evil one and for righteousness, and the Spirit of the Lord is raising up a standard. In God’s time and when the need arises His Spirt guides us into all truth, using His Word. It has been my primary goal to learn from the Holy Spirit that He has given me and, through Scripture, evaluate what people say. I have not developed my musical standard from anyone else.

   You notice I have not used David’s dancing to say that any music is wrong. I would, however, use David’s own words to show, among other faults, that his actions were a bit vile. It is sad that he didn’t have the humility to listen to the heart of his wife, regardless of her wrong attitudes. And I see no reason to believe that it was right for David to punish her this way.

   As long as the melodies written by the world do not violate God’s design and the only thing wrong with them are the words, there is no problem with changing the words like Martin Luther did to make melody in our hearts to the Lord. It was a great idea to use a tune people knew. I don’t think he would have used a tune, though, that would cause the people to feel silly, or sensual, or act inappropriately, or in any way express unholiness in Church. Do you have any evidence, other than the fact that he used well known melodies, that he actually believed music was amoral? Even if he did, it would make no difference to me.

   I agree completely that God’s Word is well preserved for us. Praise God! And I agree that we all should read and study it for ourselves and not rely on anyone “more learned”. That is the only reason I feel worthy to express my views. It’s not about what anyone at any time considered evil, or prefers; it’s just “exercising our senses to discern both good and evil” and “proving what is acceptable to the Lord”.

   We definitely should be skillful, joyful, and pure in our worship! It would do no good to construct our worship in a way that is not pleasing to the One we are worshiping. You are right that we must worship Him in His way. God is seeking those who will worship Him in spirit and in truth; remember the spirit and the flesh are at war.

   Far from being tortuously winding, it is very simple to me. My heart overflows with lots of ways to say the same thing because it comes right out of core truths; the holiness of God and His desire for us to be clean and pure and holy as He is holy.
   Parts 2 and 3 are coming up soon for your consideration.

7. matthew | September 4th, 2009 at 1:06 pm

   Michael, your first two paragraphs venture rather far from the orthodox Christian viewpoint. I must warn you as a brother in Christ to listen carefully to what I say here.

   “The command to let all things be done decently and in order is as good as saying “don’t use a back beat” and “don’t slur your notes”, or anything that appeals to our carnal nature. When the Bible says “all things”, that is exactly what it means. Do you feel there is no clear connection between the verses and what they are applied to?”

   I agree that all things, including music, ought to be done decently and in order. However, those specifics are what you cannot infer from this passage. Decently and in order does not mean, in the Greek, “with a standard rhythm accenting alternating beats beginning with the first”.

   And in the second paragraph, I may just be inferring this, but it appears to be a direct implication of your statement, that this wisdom regarding music is part of that which Jesus longed to tell his disciples but thought they wouldn’t understand.

   The disciples were most likely aware of music with off beats. The Greeks had already outlawed such music as being seditious years before Christ was born on this earth. They would have been able to understand a teaching such as this.

   Further, this argument is actually heretical. You are claiming that Jesus did not include in the Bible all things necessary for our making our way through our lives. That there would be a point in the future (now) that we have to dig deeper and meld the wisdom of Time magazine and various other human authors in order to grasp the full import of what Jesus is trying to communicate with us.

   And it’s unbiblical. Solomon said back in Lamentations there is nothing new under the sun. Mankind’s problems have always been and always will be the same. There can be variation, but the real struggles we go through today are the same struggles Cain and Abel and Moses and Samuel and Uriah and the disciples went through.

   The same arguments are presented by Mormons and other false gospels based on the Bible. They claim there is further knowledge, beyond that given to us in the Bible. They have their own books full of it.

   And so I caution you Michael, you did not likely mean this in the sense it was understood, but you communicated clearly enough here. Sola Scriptura is a wise word. It will keep us from many heresies. And keep us facing towards the true God.

8. matthew | September 5th, 2009 at 6:33 am

   @James:
   You wrote
   “WOW! Excellent explaination. It’s hard to refute anything backed up with that much scripture.”

   Much scripture does not an argument make, necessarily.

   Paul wasn’t writing scripture or speaking the books of the Bible we have now when he complimented the Bereans and held them up as an example of those who, not from disbelief, but from a desire to know truth and not just the newest thing to come of the hottest preachers mouth at the time.

   So instead of admitting the argument won by the one with the greater number of references, start taking those references apart. Do they really say that? Are there other verses that counter the other person’s application of those verses? Does the context agree with the application?

9. Sarah Stelzl | September 5th, 2009 at 10:43 am

   You hit the nail on the head Michael! Our family recently completed the Frank Garlock music tapes and found much of what you said to be so true!!! Music is a language and it DOES communicate what is in our hearts. I have struggled with how to explain our music standards to others, with the right words. This has been so helpful:-D

10. Hannah Stelzl | September 5th, 2009 at 11:01 am

    First of all, Michal, I think this was an excellent post. The scriptures you used are all very valid if you look them up, read them in context, and study their greek meanings. I am beginning to see the value of learning Greek which I used to think non-beneficial…that’s an underestimation:-)
    As for Matthew, I think it is important to recognize that Michal was not trying to build a case, start an argument, or prove soemthing to the world about his music standards.
    If we look at scripture, we find that is beneficial for doctrine, reproof, and instruction in righteousness. Therefore, I don’t think James was saying that the argument with the greatest number of scripture references was the winner.
    There are people all over the world who have varying standards on music…especially Christians. As believers, we are all called to be different from the world and most of us have a different opinion as to what that means and entitles us to do.
    I also firmly believe that if one individual did not feel convicted by the Holy Spirit about his music standards, he would not feel it necissary to start an argument by contradicitng the statements on someone’s blog. Sure, the opinion is different, but there is no need to commment if you feel differently.
    In regards to “thou shalt not,” I think it’s helpful to look at other commands in scripture. There are no verses I know of that say “thou shalt not drink alcohol” but it is implied that alcoholics are unwise. There is not a verse that says “thou shalt homeschool” but when we look at scripture, there are dozens of verses that imply that father’s are to teach their children and when we see the results of children educated by the world, they are not walking with God for the most part. over and over in scripture, there are hidden implications. The idea of the Christian life is not to get to heaven with as little sacrifice as possible, but to go the extra mile which is stated by Jesus over and over in the gospels. Anyway, I hope this sheds some light on why this should not be an argument, but a new look at what the Lord has to say about things that displease, or please Him. I hope I have not been argumentative or defensive…if I have, please forgive me…but I once again reaffirm…Michal, that you did an excellent job with this post.

11. Michael | September 6th, 2009 at 12:32 pm

    Matthew I really appreciate your comment. I think our “arguing” is a product of our love for one another.

    I think you did infer something incorrect, as I do think Jesus did include everything necessary for us in the Bible so that we can “prove what is acceptable to the Lord”. So, what is the use of the verse about decency and order if we cannot infer specifics from it? The rhythm is a regulator. Wrong music sets up a rhythm for the purpose of violating it. The melody doesn’t play a rhythm, it is regulated by it. The melody is the creative part of the music. (Syncopation is sometimes added to make up for a poor melody.) Just like the heart beat, when something is off it means something is wrong, and if it is obsessive, it is deadly.

    I have not ventured anywhere from the orthodox Christian viewpoint. Not long ago, students in Christian universities were scolded or disciplined or expelled for practicing music of a carnal style. I’m not talking about anything overt or erotic, just playing jazz on the piano. Universities used to be very well regulated, and so did people’s character. It is not a bit unreasonable if you understand the spirit it communicates.

    Of course there is nothing new under the sun – that’s what makes is so ridiculous to think that the “new song” spoken of in Scripture is some “new” style. But there is variation in degree: degrees of wisdom, degrees of judgment, degrees of commitment, etc. With the electronic equipment available today, our music can communicate many levels of magnitude more intensely than at the time of Christ.

    Permit me to use a little logic, which you are probably partly familiar with, and apply it to this issue about why the Lord didn’t give a “thou shalt not”. First, of course, we know that music is a form of communication. All forms of communication are essentially moral.

    Writing: Letters by themselves don’t communicate much in and of themselves. But we put them together into words they mean a lot. What we write can glorify God. It can also be used to encourage wickedness and feed the lower nature. Where do we draw the line on what writing does or doesn’t promote carnal passions? One who knows the truth will grieve over the wrong use of writing and overcome the deceptive lures of the flesh. Why did our Lord never say “thou shalt not write love novels” or “never write about the things that are done of them in secret”. Do you promote improper writing materials or magazines in Church or in your home?

    Art: Innocent lines combine to create pictures that communicate a lot. Pictures can glorify God just as His creation does. They can also create nudity and pornography which have a tragic effect on people. Where do we draw the line on what artwork promotes carnal passions? It might not affect Christians the same way who are walking with Christ; they would grieve rather than lust. Why did our Lord never say “thou shalt not create pornography” or “never draw nude pictures”? Yet do you promote pornography and nudity in Church? In your home?

    Music: A note played by itself does not communicate very much, but when we put them together to form melodies, they say a lot. It can express a very orderly and powerful Christ-like character or a very impulsive, rebellious, and sensual character that throws off self-restraint and gratifies the flesh. One who is walking with Christ would grieve rather than conform to such impulses. So why did our Lord never say “thou shalt not use syncopated pulses” or “never sing sensually”? Yet ought we to promote such things in Church? In Christian homes?

    If peoples’ hearts are changed, the issue ceases to exist from both sides: no one creates material for carnal purposes, and no one uses materials to stir up carnality. How can a Christian leader behave himself holily and justly and unblamably among God’s people and exhort and comfort and charge them that they walk worthy of God – and then expect them to gyrate to the wild rhythms and back beats of rock ‘n’ roll?

    What God’s word says about communication and words and speech applies to music. So I warn you as a brother in Christ to be absolutely sure that you take no pleasure in unrighteousness and make no provision for the flesh to fulfill its lusts. Small things that seem innocent lead to worse things.

12. matthew | September 7th, 2009 at 9:05 am

    I assume this is Michael Staddon and not Michael Heines who has commented on the Facebook snippet of this blog article.

    I must thank you for recognizing my discussion as coming from my desire for correct understanding and application of the Bible and therefore correct living as a Christian.

    @Hannah: In the same way it is unlikely that Michael wrote this article out of a deep conviction of serious sin in his own life and a necessity to justify and rationalize his continuing in it, I’m not convicted of sin in this area of my life and feel no need to rationalize my beliefs and convictions through excessive argumentation.

    James’ comment was that he found Michaels argument sound and/or convincing primarily because Michael used so much scripture as supporting evidence. Not that it was right, necessarily, just that he agreed with it or found it strong or convincing.

    My concern was that we don’t want people to give up on what they know to be true or accept arguments they may agree with just because the argument is presented with so much scripture as evidence. There are plenty of things one can argue for using extensive lists of scripture that you and I would both agree are not supported by the whole of the Bible. How can some churches teach such wrong things as Abortion being OK and unrepentant actively practicing homosexuals being allowed to preach and lead as pastors while reading from the same Bible we do? Because man’s deceptive heart can use even the words of God, taken our of context or explained incorrectly to mean all kinds of perverse and abominable things.

    An argument is not necessarily a fight. An argument is a hypothesis (statement of viewpoint) backed up by supporting evidence. Someone providing counter evidence and possibly a counter hypothesis (contradicting viewpoint) creates a discussion or debate as the two or more engage.

    Michael was making an argument, he began with a hypothesis and set about to prove it using scripture and other sources of evidence and information.

    Why I commented:

    The stakes, if Michael is right, are that I should experience sincere conviction (not a put-upon or peer pressure-driven feeling), not make such music, and limit my involvement in ministries that make and use such music. If I am correct, it would be a realization on your part that you’ve been needlessly hampering the spread of the gospel with arbitrary preferences read into the scripture as commands.

    I believe those stakes are sufficient to warrant a discussion when the opportunity presents itself. When I blog I want people to disagree with me and present arguments and evidence of how I may be incorrect. It sharpens me, it sharpens them. We each benefit from it. In the same way that sitting in a chair getting a massage doesn’t strengthen so much as a hard workout in which the muscle fibers tear and must regrow, sycophantic and congratulatory and mere agreements don’t strengthen people as much as a healthy and reasonable debate.

    The bible indeed doesn’t say don’t drink alcohol. It does say don’t get drunk. And not just by implication either. Drinking alcohol and getting drunk are related but not the same. It is highly likely you believe that wine in bible times was very weak and diluted. It’s unlikely I’ll convince you otherwise. That debate has been going on very likely far longer than either of us have been alive. But take it on fact, there is a distinct and definite difference between getting drunk and drinking alcohol. The point of that advice in the bible is that God wants only Him controlling us. When we are drunk, or otherwise impaired from ingesting other substances such as drugs, we are not able to excercise self-control or remain under God’s control.

    If the bible had said don’t drink alcohol, there would have been more leeway for the allowance of psycho-active drugs and stimulants because there could’ve been a plethora of reasons for God to instruct us not to drink alcohol and not all of those are just that we remain in control of our actions and words and under God’s command.

    Do people sin by default if they send their children to public or private school? I don’t believe so. I wouldn’t send my children to a public school, but in the right situation I’d send them to private school if necessary. As it is, I’m set on homeschooling them because I take the father’s responsibility seriously and don’t think I could do as good a job were they in public school. There are parents whose children go through public school and turn out OK and productive and God-fearing brothers and sisters in Christ. Did those parents make a mistake? In Israel there were public schools run by the Synagogues and taught by the rabbis. These weren’t an affront to God’s will because the fathers weren’t teaching the children directly all the time. The father is responsible for providing for the family as well. He doesn’t have the time for doing regular schooling. The Mother is not included in that equation at all either.

    The point is this, the Bible doesn’t say the only right way to school a child is by homeschooling because that’s not the only right way to raise a child in every situation. The Bible doesn’t say it is wrong to drink alcohol at all because there are situations that call for it (taken any Nyquil or over the counter cough medicine lately? A capful of those will affect most people more than a single beer or a glass of wine or a single cocktail mostly due to concentration and volume of alcohol in the serving).

    @Michael

    I believe the crux of our disagreement lies in where we would each draw the line as to what defines and comprises the sinfully sensual and sexual forms of music.

    We each believe the scriptures we each are citing as being inspired by God and literally applicable to our lives.

    I believe the line of demarcation of music pleasing to God includes music with a beat, use of the drums and percussion, and electric guitar (Say it ain’t so!!! . I find that one can use and play music with a heavy rhythm is not necessarily sexual and evil in use.

    Rather, the sexual and sensual nature only comes when the performer makes it so. Contrast the crooning and groin thrusting of Elvis with the straight tones of most CCM singers. There is a distinct difference, and in that difference would “the line” according to my understanding of God’s laws of order and the nature and forms of music.

    One can take classical forms and modes, introduce sexual intent and produce tango and salse and other musical genres very sexual.

    It is not the arrangement of notes or the order of rhythm, melody, and harmony that cause music to be sinful. It is specific methods of performance and the intent of the composer and performer.

    You can say “Come here” and not mean “to my bed”.

    You can draw the form of a person and not make it sexual.

    Music is a language, but it is an imprecise and ambiguous language. Westerners don’t usually think of minor key melodic forms as being joyful, but the Jews have Klezmer music which is minor in tone and joyful in spirit. Asians play in a tonal system westerners find difficult to appreciate and even harder to comprehend or understand.

    Listen to Mark Schultz or Steven Curtis Chapman or the Gettys and you’ll hear music with a beat which is not sexual.

    I participated in a group worship service as our church brought together their three services (we don’t all fit in one, and the early service is more “high church” with pipe organ and choir while the second two are more contemporary with regular drum use) and in the beat of the drums and the wail of the guitars and the syncopated piano and flowing organ we worshiped God. We weren’t gyrating to the beats. We weren’t thrusting our hips. The wild rhythms were skillfully executed and if there were any backbeats, they didn’t create spontaneous sexual orgies in the crowd.

13. Hannah | September 7th, 2009 at 4:20 pm

    Matthew,
    You mentioned in your previous comment that an argument was different than a fight. I can definitely agree with that. There are times for hypothesis…which it’s funny you mentioned that because we are studying those in school right now…but that is off course…and there are times to remain silent.
    In commenting the first time, I wondered if I should just stay out of this regardless of my beliefs, butto say the least, I felt it would be both educational and a chance to evaluate what I really believed.
    I think you will agree with me that if a child’s parents forbid them to listen to a certain type of music, they should comply cheerfully with those wishes even if they or their peer think differently. It is clear to me that even the teenagers today who are being pressured to be individualists SHOULD be listening to their parents still.
    As a sister in Christ, I would admonish you since you are choosing to make this public, to add that to your comments…that if one’s parents, the authorities God has placed over them, see a certain standard as right or wrong, the child should submit. There are no doubt kids younger than eighteen reading this…and of course, Jesus was completely in submission to his earthly parents until they released him at the age of thirty. It’s just a thought…certainly not a necessity.
    I will not try to change your mind…as you have said before, that will no doubt do no good. I can only say that regardless of What God really thinks, I as a believer feel led by the Holy Spirit to listen to only certain types of music. This should not offend you…since I am Choosing to give up any so-called freedom that you veiw this as. In the same way, if you are choosing to listen to something I Think is wrong, I need to refer to the Gospels where Jesus cautions us not to judge one another, lest we be judged. Maybe I’m right, or maybe you are…but lets just say, that both of us are wrong in some area of our lives, and all that will come out in judgement day…so we need not worry about if someone else is exactly the same as us.
    As you mentioned, Drinking alcohol and being drunk are very different. However, drinking alcohol temps those with little self control to become drunk. Since we are all humans, all sin, and all have lack of self control, it would be foolish to make provision for the flesh when no necissary. Still…drinking alcohol in and of itself is not wrong…I believe.
    In the same way, yes, I have known one or two kids who came out of a public school and were OK. DOes that make it scriptural…No. If you look at the historical foundation of schooling outside the home, you will see that the Greeks originated it adn it found its way to God’s chosen people. However, the preistly teaching is much like a doctoral degree today. You may get a bacholers degree online, but to be a doctore, you must GO to school. I guess being a homeschooled kid had made me appreciate the protection from the overcoming power of the enemy even more.
    Going back to music, I’d be interested to know when you believed so strongly…what changed your mind, and how you came to be where you are now…if you don’t mind sharing that…
    Thanks
    Hannah

14. StaddonFamily.com » Blog Archive » Music Standards, Part 2 | September 8th, 2009 at 9:40 am

    [...] on the foundation explained in Part 1 we will now look at the importance of purity in music used for Christian worship. There is a raging [...]

15. Chuck Erikson | September 9th, 2009 at 1:32 pm

    Great post, Michael, and one I’m mostly in agreement with. As someone who’s been professionally and continuously involved in the music industry since 1963, this became an immediate issue of the conscience in my own life when I became serious about turning my entire life over to God in the late 1960′s. Over the years, I’ve amassed a rather extensive library of research materials dealing with exactly what music is and is not, including source documents examining almost every possible viewpoint both secular and religious, as well as a comprehensive catalogue of applicable scriptures.

    A few years ago, the senior pastor of a fellowship I was attending (in which I was serving as a deacon and functioning as an elder) requested that I and another musician present a lengthy series of teachings examining music from a biblical perspective, open to anyone but mandatory for any musician involved at our assembly. We spent many months putting together an in-depth college level curriculum which was carefully reviewed and discussed by leadership, but after only the first several introductory classes the material had caused such a rebellion among the existing worship team members that our pastor cancelled the entire project, not because of any problem with content but because he was unwilling to handle the stress. It’s by nature an emotionally driven and thus easily divisive subject, one in which our natural inclination is to ask not “is this true” but, “how do I feel about it?”

    What we as moderators brought to the table were plenty of scripture, extensive quotes from both Christian and secular books and music magazines, scientific research published on several continents, and our own commentary and experiences. What we asked of class participants was honest and open discussion, but only that which could be backed up with documented evidence such as we were presenting: opinions are not arguments, and because they lack support can’t attempt to prove anything; an argument is a supported opinion, with a necessarily logical link between the premises and the conclusion.

    Unfortunately, what we ran into was desperate and out of context scripture-twisting, appeals to majority opinion, raw emotional defensiveness, and ad hominum attacks against “old guys who just don’t like new forms of music”, rather than reasoned and civil argument as befitting those who claim the name of Christ. So, thanks for taking a considerable risk by publicly airing your closely held views on music!

    Without getting into quoting all sorts of scripture which are easily researched by anyone with a concordance, here are several general things that need to be considered: 1) close examination of numerous Old Testament passages reveal at least two distinct musical contexts, that of worship offered within and during the formal temple service itself, and that of praise expressed outside the temple during public religious parades and national celebrations or private worship, both of which involve demonstrably different forms of music, instrumentation, and musical leadership; 2) if we are to believe, as most church musicians constantly remind us, that musical worship is a form of “prayer”, “ministry”, “sacrifice”, or “evangelism”, then scriptures which deal specifically with those particular activities now become legitimate commentaries which can be brought to bear in defining and testing our conceptions of “music”; 3) music which may (or may not) be appropriate outside the walls of a church sanctuary, such as music you might prefer to have playing while competing in moto-cross or enjoying sex with your spouse, is not necessarily appropriate when introduced in the context of a public worship service; 4) it is easily documented that what carries the most power in any musical composition is the SCORE (the instrumentation) and not the LYRIC — most secular musicians clearly and quotably understand this concept, but most Contemporary Christian musicians find it necessary to get it backwards in order to validate many of the things they’re doing (“there’s no such thing as ‘bad’ music, it’s all about the words” or “…all about the musician’s ‘heart’”); 5) nowhere in scripture do we find anything in the works of man which are considered to be morally “neutral”, yet how often do we hear the claim that “music is morally neutral, it’s only the words that count”?

    To elaborate a bit on the last two points: First, as concerns “Christian” lyrics being superimposed over a “secular” score, the argument is often mounted that Luther freely used contemporary barroom drinking tunes and simply changed their lyrics. This is patently untrue — he used one “secular” melody for only a single song, and rather than being a tavern ditty this was a widely recognized piece performed by traveling minstrels. Second, to reinforce comments already posted regarding the spiritual “neutrality” of music, individual musical notes are no more “good” or “bad” than the letters in an alphabet, or the hues in a color wheel; but as soon as a human being appropriates those notes, letters, or colors and arranges them to express something, the deliberate composition by definition now contains information and carries some type of meaning, which are inescapably a candid expression of the composer’s heart and mind, and as such are certainly anything but morally or spiritually “neutral”!

    Peter Masters, the current pastor since 1970 at Spurgeon’s original church, London’s Metropolitan Tabernacle, made the profound observation some years ago now that even then “England is twenty years ahead of America in spiritual decline…and the first thing to go in the churches was the music.” Not the preaching from the pulpit, for which most believers have prepared intellectual defenses, but the music, for which they have few emotional defenses!

    For those involved in producing worship music, these scriptures should be sobering: “Seemeth it but a small thing unto you, that the God of Israel hath separated you from the congregation of Israel, to bring you near to himself to do the service of the tabernacle of the Lord, and to stand before the congregation to minister unto them?” (Numbers 16:9); “And if a man also strive for masteries, yet is he not crowned, except he strive lawfully.” (II Timothy 2:5)

16. matthew | September 9th, 2009 at 7:59 pm

    Hannah,

    You’re in the minority among bible-believing Christians when you agree that drinking alcohol, in an of itself, is not wrong.

    I would agree with you regarding the parent’s standards to an extent. The bible tells children to honor their parents, and obey their parents. If my parents held a standard I believed to be wrong, I could still honor my parents without following them in that standard.

    But then you have to recognize essential versus optional positions. If my parent’s wrong standard was over an essential truth, or if in following their standard I would be sinning, I could not follow. For instance, if they followed blasphemous or false teaching like Mormons or Jehovah’s Witness, or they believed in discipline that involved actually harming children rather than just hurting (spanking), I would have to not follow their standards. But music is an optional position. If my standards were different than their standards over music, it would behoove me to submit ,not necessarily cheerfully, but willingly to their standards. Obeying them in that case would not constitute sin on my part.

    Regarding school, God was creating a Theocracy with Israel. He was able to set down whatever standards He desired in building that nation. He did not set down a standard for homeschooling.

    But it still comes down to this: In the same way there is no command not to drink alcohol but there is a warning not to get drunk. In the same way there is not a command not to play music with a heavy beat but there are admonitions to play skillfully and praise God in spirit and in truth. There are reminders that parents are responsible for their children, not teachers or trainers.

    However the parents decides to raise their children, they are the ones to answer for their motive and the eventual outcome.

    Regarding my personal journey from rigid anti-rock music to permissive… ummm… whatever I am now. I was right with Michael growing up. My parents weren’t incredibly musical. Mom played guitar infrequently, dad doesn’t have an instrument. My brothers and I were introduced to music early. I’ve been playing piano now for over 21 years, since I was 6 or so. We didn’t have many albums growing up, making most of our music ourselves. Growing up with IBLP and ATI I took literally and on par with the words of the Bible all that came out of Bill Gothard and those he chose to teach besides himself.

    I went to Sound Foundations and found loads of like-minded people as well as books and teachings on the evils of rock music. I agreed with everything.

    My family had left one church due to some differences including drums on stage and included in worship. But the church we were at now was hiring a new music pastor. He was a very skillful musician and leader and very passionate for Christ.

    I never doubted his love for Christ, just his knowledge of the nature of music as I began debating him over the evils of beat music. He was very slowly and carefully building a worship team band and was planning on having drums when he found a drummer. I was not happy.

    But like I said, I couldn’t fault his spirit. He wasn’t leading us in orgies or sexual sessions in worship. He was leading us in worship, and while I didn’t like or appreciate the music, it was dawning on me it was not for it’s evil spirit but my own preference.

    The final nail in the coffin was watching the final Billy Graham Crusade lead by Billy Graham himself televised from St. Louis. This was shortly after the Columbine massacre and Michael W Smith had just written the song “This is your time”. The music video tells the story of Cassie Bernall who was killed in that tragedy. They played the music video, which isn’t “hard” music by any means, but is definitely within the Contemporary Christian Music genre and therefore eschewed by those who, like me, held the evil nature of the rock beat.

    Watching this song I had to admit to myself there was nothing inherently evil and wrong with rock music. The wrong things I was concerned of are limited to those with the intent to create them, not those would worship our one true God with their skillful music.

17. Michael | September 10th, 2009 at 9:12 am

    Thank you Matthew for analyzing the stakes of our discussion. I would add that if I am wrong I could be teaching for a commandment a doctrine of man. I would add too that if I am right, some “Christian” music is “turning the grace of God into lasciviousness” and taking His holy name in vain by using it with music that contradicts and offends character, His true name. It is important that we be ready to change our views if they are found to contradict Scripture no matter how hard of a change that might be. I think it is true that “our disagreement lies in where we would each draw the line as to what defines and comprises the sinfully sensual and sexual forms of music.” In other words we both agree that there is morality involved in the way music communicates. I agree that practically all instruments, including percussion, can be used to glorify God – depending on the way they are used – except of course for an instrument (or any object) that has actually been worshiped. I would say march music is an example of “heavy” or “strong” rhythm that is does not encourage disorderly behavior from the sin nature as long as it abides by “God’s laws of order” for the nature and forms of music. I also agree that good classical music can be made very wrong by elements the performer uses to make it so. No one can say that the mere intent of the performer is the difference. The intent of the performer causes him to do things to the music itself – pitch, rhythm, and volume – that make it communicate differently to the heart of the listener. Music can vividly communicate what is in the heart of the performer and influence the listener to identify with it and join in. It could be desperately wicked or it could be made new. It could be Christ-like or it could be worldly. It is a heart issue.

    I definitely disagree that music is imprecise and ambiguous. I feel that its affect on people is very definite and probably measurable, affecting all people the same way. I have written a little about music of other cultures in Part 3 which is scheduled to be posted in a week (if I can wait that long). The problem with wrong music is not only sexual – depending on the style it could stimulate the flesh’s cocky attitudes or self-willed or defiant or rebellious attitudes. Are you saying that the music itself cannot communicate these feelings in the rhythm, melody, and harmony and that the only wrong expressions (excluding lyrics of course) can come from a live performer? Are you saying that recorded instrumental music cannot express a morally right or wrong message, and cannot affect our character in a positive or negative way? Since all music communicates I think the line needs to be drawn where all music can be evaluated based on how it affects us with definable elements that are either abide by or violate Biblical principles such as holiness, order, chastity, and inward separation from the world and carnal entertainment. As with art and language, it is wise to gravitate as far as possible on the safe side without being oppressive or unreasonable.

    In the kind of service you described, if I willingly participated, I would not be allowing God to be in complete control of my spirit. Would you say the wailing guitars and beating drums help you to have Christ-like character? Has it ever stirred up any carnal desires in the listeners? Has it ever given you a prideful or cocky attitude or caused you to feel like acting on fleshly impulses? If not, what does? Would you recognize it? Are you fighting the flesh? Are you having victory? This is my primary concern. You said the music did not create spontaneous sexual orgies. That is not good enough. Can you say there was no sensual body movement at all? Do you realize how far the American Church is from what God wants it to be? As Chuck pointed out, do you realize where we are headed since we have already let the music go? I’m sure there are people who can keep a very sincere and self-controlled attitude and posture while involved with wrong music styles. But I think it still affects them, and we have to look down the road (and up the road too).

    You could not fault the music director’s spirit. Sounds like a case of Thyatiraitis. You can’t fault the character of the leader of the Church of Thyatira either: love, patience, faith, even works greater than at the first! Yet at the same time he was permissive of the false prophetess Jezebel teaching His servants and seducing them to commit fornication. Do you see no link between the sensual musical styles and the immorality prevalent in American Churches and youth groups? No one should feel badly just for having a preference for certain kinds of music, because I believe God does too. But it is important that our preference be based on His character and not on our flesh. It is even OK to have a preference for certain styles within the bounds of Godly music. When you hear good lyrics to an improper style of music, take what’s good and toss what’s bad, and guard your heart, for out of it are the issues of life.

    Chuck, I appreciate your comments too. Your experience and insights reveal a lot. I would say the reason music overpowers the words is because the words are not a universal language: they mean nothing except by association with experiences, emotions, and feelings, pictures, etc. Music is universal: it expresses a definite character that everyone can identify with. So eerie music with peaceful words can over time change the meaning of “peaceful”. That’s why we must be so careful how we use the name of God, that it only be associated with the highest degree of holiness so that His character is not distorted by anything worldly or fleshly. I think the meaning of “Jesus Christ”, “love”, and “joy” have already been re-defined by the pop culture that churches have accepted. I don’t think we would be dealing with sodomy in church leadership if we had been able to deal with marital unfaithfulness and immoral additions, and we couldn’t deal with those because we didn’t deal with music – and we didn’t deal with music because we weren’t truly knowing God; walking in the Spirit; abiding in Christ; being made perfect in love.

18. Hannah | September 10th, 2009 at 4:05 pm

    Matthew, thank you for sharing about your experience. I definitely agree that if parents are believing in something harmful to their children such as Mormanism, etc, that the child should at all costs, avoid this…however, I would hasten to say that Mr. Gothard has many illistrations regarding just how to go about that without being dishonoring. You seem to be of good enough character to agree that there would be a dishonoring way to go about defying your parent’s beliefs
    Based on your experiences with music, I now completely understand how you came to the place you are now…but since I feel this will lead to a place I am not willing to debate…I will keep those opinions to myself unless you really want to hear them. I think at this point, we are now going in circles, so…Michal, I will defer to you…and continue to read your posts regarding the matter. However, Matthew, feel free to continue our little saga if you have more to say…
    Blessings
    H

19. StaddonFamily.com » Blog Archive » Music Standards, Part 3 | September 15th, 2009 at 5:58 am

    [...] Part 1: How music communicates a moral or immoral message [...]

20. Neil Smith | October 30th, 2009 at 1:23 am

    Excellent work Michael. Keep the standard alive in ATI!

    Neil Smith
    ATI Father, New Zealand

Leave a Comment

Name (required)

E-mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Notify me of followup comments via email.