There’s a saying I’ve heard attributed to Dr. Jack Lewis. He was speaking about an individual in the church and said something to the effect of: “He has a hard time differentiating between what the Bible says and his personal preferences.” I don’t know the original context or even the reliability of the attribution, but I’d say that statement sums up a lot of the discussion on church music.
If we want to clap while singing, we can find scriptural support. If we like the way we feel when singing with instruments, we can find biblical evidence as to why they should be used. If we don’t like modern praise songs, we attack their theology. In other words, if you don’t agree with me, you’re disagreeing with God.
If we don’t turn to the Scriptures, we make “objective” statements that support our views. Singing without instruments promotes unity. Singing with instruments attracts non-churched people. Singing too many new songs will cause some of the old-timers to leave. Singing too many old songs will cause the young people to leave. In other words, if you don’t agree with me, you don’t care about people.
We can find scholarly studies that support our views. Anecdotal evidence from growing churches (or dying churches!). We can point to faraway lands where they’ve done what we like and, behold!, their churches have achieved a utopian bliss.
Most of it’s hogwash. It’s a focusing on externals rather than internals. It’s ignoring all that the Bible says about what makes for true worship and what makes for vain worship. If you can’t worship God without an instrument, you can’t worship him with one. If you can’t be edified by singing Isaac Watts, you’ll eventually find that Casting Crowns leaves you cold as well. If people come to your church because of your praise band, they’ll leave when the church down the street has a better one.
Worship is about the heart. And a big sign of a heart not right with God is the unwillingness to consider your brother’s needs ahead of your own, your brother’s preferences instead of your own.
I recently read a quote that said church leaders should aim to have one hundred percent of the people happy eighty percent of the time. If that’s true, we need to be ready to not get our way twenty percent of the time. (And the “stronger brother” should expect to give in more often than that!) Are you ready to not be satisfied one fifth of the time?
It’s time to take the “I feel”s and “I like”s and put them in a drawer. It’s time to seek what’s best for the body as a whole.
(I know “druthers” goes back further, but I picked the word up from the musical L’il Abner. There’s a song called “If I Had My Druthers”)
I was with you, right up to this line, which seems like an unfair generalization that ignores the dynamic of the first impression. Now, if people *keep* coming back to your church because of your praise band, or your praise team, or your high-quality video presentations, or even (gasp! the horror!) your external closeness to “the old paths,” then yes, they’ll probably leave when the church down the street does it better.
But the reasons why people come and the reasons why people stay are often two very different things.
Nick, I have to concede your point. My wife first went to a campaign because she wanted to practice her English and hear the American college students sing. She was eventually converted through that contact.
Two statements in this post really struck me:
Each of those really get to the nub of things – or should I say the “heart” of things.
About 40 years ago, we had a couple come to us from a neighboring congregation where they had been youth leaders (unpaid). The elders got upset with them when someone discovered teen-agers having a prayer meeting – horror of horrors, in the dark fellowship room.
I saw two wrongs here: the elders for castigating the youth for turning out the lights when the prayed – and the youth leaders for insisting the prayer in the dark was somehow more “spiritual.” Neither was prepared to submit to the other. The elders should have simply been happy that the kids were praying and not having a “necking party” in the dark. The youth leaders should have been willing to make a concession and have a light on.
When each of us has to have his own way, neither of us will win. When we each are willing to concede to our brother/sister, all of us are winners.
I was told one time that in music they talk about “hot” music and “cool” music. “Hot” music is music like you hear on the radio… it reaches out and grabs you. It is designed to captivate and control the experience. “Cool” music is meant to be interacted with… unless you interact, you will find it boring. This is music such as much of classical music, etc…. It seems to me that one of our struggles is the cultures emphasis on “hot” music. It is pervasive in our culture. Because of that we are seeing a shift in the music of the assembly. Whereas the music at one time was extremely “cool,” beginning with the revival movements at the turn of the 20th Century it has gradually became more “hot.” Until now, you have people demanding it be “hot.” Of course the “heat” wears off rather quickly. It seems to me we need both. We need the standards that call us to our tradition, heritage, etc… and we need the contemporary songs that grab us and move us emotionally as well. Incidently, I heard a gospel “rap” on the radio, and started thinking about how long it would be before we would have “rap” in the assembly. I had to admit it would be scriptural… but that will definitely be some of my 20%.
Amen, amen and amen. Can I say amen again?
Pingback: this went thru my mind |
Tim:
And what happens when we do turn to the Scriptures and see what the context says… and then we do not like the message? What does that say about our hearts?
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Bruce,
The problem is, we always suppose it’s the OTHER guy that’s doing that. What does that say about our hearts?
Grace and peace,
Tim
Tim:
I had planned to “move on” from the discussion… until I saw your essay.
I saw this: “We can point to faraway lands where they’ve done what we like and, behold!, their churches have achieved a utopian bliss.” I think I am seeing a reference to churches in the Fiji islands. If this is the case, I continue to wonder why you seem to have little or no interest in what these people (of all churches) have to say and instead “poke” at the example… and perhaps even relegate it to “hogwash.” Have you even looked at the article to openly consider the message and research?
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Bruce,
I guess I was poking at that, but I was poking at a lot of things. I intend to study the article. But I also know that this is one example among many. One group of churches that decided what was best for them. Or were they saying that every church everywhere must give up instruments to be in fellowship with them?
You can’t just find one group of people that reached a decision that you like and somehow try to apply that universally. As someone has said, the plural of anecdote is not data.
Had you included examples that supported the other side, as well as the one that supported your idea, I could respect your research. Entering into one area of social sciences and only pulling out the example that supports what you are saying is not the type of scholarship we need.
Grace and peace,
Tim
Tim:
What I find revealing is that you disrespected the research and message… before you even looked at it closely/read it. I highlighted it because their focus on song as a means toward congregational unity illustrates part of Paul’s emphasis in Ephesians 4:17-5:21. I hope you will take some time to hear that message in the context. It is not my imagining such; it is there, and others hear it too. But mentioning Paul’s teaching at that point certainly brings out strong resistance in our day….
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Tim:
Separately, let me express some concern regarding your “not the type of scholarship we need” via one key question to you: Do you agree or not with Guthrie’s conclusion that one of Paul’s themes in Ephesians 4:17-5:21 is his tying of unity to song? It seems to me that in your strong reaction to Deceiving Winds and the “wrong scholarship” and the study of the context, you have consistently made this “about Bruce.” So, one of the best ways I can think about to dismiss that critique is bring in another voice who has looked at the context.
So, is the theme of unity tied to song my imagination or part of Paul’s teaching? What do you see, brother, in Ephesians 4:17-5:21?
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Bruce,
I have spoken out strongly in support of singing. I suspect that I’m closer to Guthrie’s views than you are on the subject of singing in worship. You seem to have made this more about something else than singing, for you keep trying to use your book to refute the use of instrumental music. That’s not supporting singing, at all.
Actually, I thought your use of the Fiji example in the book was appropriate. It was later, in correspondence and blog comments, when you kept saying, “Did you consider the Fiji example?” that I disagreed. It is illustrative. It does not prove anything. That’s the difference. In the book you used it to illustrate, which is perfectly fine. To try and use it to prove something is to misuse the example.
Grace and peace,
Tim
Tim:
I am glad you see the connection between song and unity in the text. I think it will take awhile for folks to grab hold of that thought, so believe some of the investment of time here was worthwhile.
As for the Fiji islands, I hear you saying two different things in this string of notes and I think I will leave you to that and consider this discussion a wrap until we can chat face-to-face some time in the future.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas