Pensees: Ending the Worship Wars (Lansdale Comments)

——
He then moved from the discussion of worldliness to the question of spiritual duties as laid out for us in the Two Greatest Commandments. Worship should be governed not only by a love for God, but a love for our neighbor. It is imperative that the congregation love each other enough to participate in worship styles that may or may not be immediately pleasing to them
——

Bob,

How does the Second Greatest Commandment apply in matters of worship? If we carry this logic over completey, we need to “worship our neighbor as we worship ourselves.” I understand the point, but it seems like on the surface the text is being manipualted. Can you help clarify (since I wans’t there)?

It applies to worship in this way; when you sing a style you like sing it with all your energy because you are fulfilling the first commandment to love God with all your heart. When you sing styles you don’t like sing with all your heart because your brother loves that style and in this way your express your love for your brother.

I remember thinking that the KJO position and the high music only position were parallel in some ways. Stretching in musical style is something neither side of the war is accustomed to. It looks like it was a good session.

Paul or Bob or whoever,

You know, the one thing I still struggle with internally from Romans 14-15 (which, by the way, changed my life and philosophy of ministry) is the area of conscience. Maybe somebody can shed more light on this, but here’s my tension:

How can I determine if someone is using his musical preference in a sinful, judgmental way or sincerely believes that he is going to sin against his conscience by participating in a certain style? I’m speaking of a weak brother.

Music is a language (I assume Brother Gaumer is referring to the music, not the text).

Unless Brother Gaumer is suggesting that music from the past is a [i]different[/i] language from music in the present, the arguement falls through. The question is not “which language are you using” but “what are you communicating with the language of music.”

The issue is the [i]morality[/i] of the message being communicated with the language of music.

All this talk demanding the end of the worship wars sounds a bit like Cindy Sheehan to me. :)

Some wars must be fought, for truth is under attack.

Jason,

Before I attempt a response, please clarify: What would your objection be if, in fact, Gaumer was suggesting that the music from the past is a different language from music in the present? You say that “unless” he is suggesting the above his argument (in your mind) falls through. So, what if he is suggesting that the language of music past is different from the language of music present?

I’ll reserve my ideas until I understand you better. Thanks for posting.

(Brian, that’s a biggie. It does need to be hashed out. I have thoughts. I don’t know how helpful they are, but I’ll share them later.)

The Relation between Musical Content and Musical Context.

I would like to launch this discussion with a brief yet true story I recently read in Harold Bests book “Music through he eyes of Faith.” “Not many years ago, a young man became heavily involved in a satanic cult. The liturgies used were complex and sophisticated…this cult regularly used a certain kind of music…years later the young man was gloriously converted to Christianity. He left the cult and began to seek out a church in which he would be nurtured. He sought the counsel of his new Christian friends and decided upon a well-known church in the community…one known both for its attention to the things of God as well as to the practice of the “best” music and art. All was well, until the organist played a special composition, one well known and loved by the rest of the congregation. The young man was traumatized. Everything that smacked of the old inverted satanic system flooded back in on him. He fled the church overcome with fear and dread. The music was by Johann Sebastian Bach, a composer whose music, represents some of the noblest music for Christian worship. Yet to this young man it epitomized all that was evil, horrible, and anti-Christian, for it was Bach that the cult leaders had chosen to be the musical mainstay of their liturgy. To this young man, this great music was a barrier of such magnitude that worship was not possible.”

“Best follows this up with three statements worth mentioning.
1. Music has no interior beacon that guarantees permanent meaning. Unlike truth, which is transcultural, absolute, and unchangeable, music can shift in meaning form place to place and time to time.
2. The forgoing can be stated as a behavioral principle: Even though music is wordless and deedless, the people making it and the contexts in which it is made are not. The more a piece of music is repeated in the same context, the more it will begin to “mean” that context.
3. There is a difference between being moved by music and being morally directed or changed by it.
Finally, those who condemn or praise music because of what is makes people do have it all backward or upside down. They overlook Jesus words in Mark 7:15.

Love them like Jesus,
Dan Warf

Dan, all this proves is that associative meaning can often over-power intrinsic meaning. No one has denied this.

Thanks for your response. In response to your question, I would argue that as any expression of art (ie: music, sculpture, architecture, etc.) is a language in some sense, that unless we have changed the expression of the art between “then” and “now,” that the language itself is the same language. In other words, if we’re using all the same elements to communicate (rhythm, melody, form, etc.), then we have not changed the language, we have only changed what we are saying with that language.

Jason,

I’m not trying to bait you (and maybe I’m being a troll on my own blog), but I am pressing for some clarification on the “language” concept.

I think I concur with what you said that language then is the same as language now. Elizabethan English is still Elizabetehan English. The question, however, is which language is the spoken language. While the content is the same, we speak ESV, not KJV. The same is true for music. We speak ESV musically today. We don’t speak KJV. The message is the same and may be clearer.

It is granted, however, that some language is rebellious. Just because it is current or contemporary and the “way we speak” does not necessarily mean that it may be cleansed by a good message. “Gangsta” is still “Gangsta” and in that case a holy message can’t be spoken in that language. A holy message necessarily changes the language.

But I think that you must concede that a holy message does not necessarily change “gansta” into Elizabethan English.

Wouldn’t you agree that much of the debate today in music is between “ESV” music and “KJV” music and thus ought to be left to the independent discretion of autonomous churches and individuals?

Brian,

One of the clearest and most practical treatments of this aspect of Christian liberty is found in Calvin’s Institutes (check the index under Christain Liberty). Calvin works out the appropriate use of our liberty. One really helpful distinction he makes is that we must always be sensitive to/aware of the weaker brother; however, we must never allow the weaker brother to dictate what we do. The basic reason that we must not do so is actually for the benefit of the weaker brother himself. While love precludes us from flaunting our liberty to the detriment of his soul, love also constrains us to draw near the weaker brother with the pure word of God so he can be free from his weak conscience. Why does it matter whether one lives with a weak conscience? Whenever we maintain an extra-biblical standard of right and wrong we cut ourselves off, to some extent, from the voice and leading of the Holy Spirit. This is no small thing!

The problem I have with your reasoning, Bob, is this: you are being internally inconsistent. On the one hand you say that decisions regarding musical form in church should be left to individuals, but on the other hand you quickly insist that you do not have a “blended service,” as if there would be something wrong if you did, and you admit that there are certain forms that are rebellious “Gangsta” forms that cannot be cleansed with simply adding good textual content. If you are going to be consistent with your first statement, who are you to insist that Gangsta rap cannot be sung in your church if several of your members insist that they enjoy it and it is beneficial to their spirituality? If you are determined to have “musical diversity” in your service, what is stopping you from having a good mixture of hymns, gospel songs, Christian rap, Praise & Worship, grunge, alternative, and J. S. Bach if you have groups in your congregation who appreciate all of these musical forms?

Come on, Bob, you’re a good Calvinist! :) Where’s a consideration of the total depravity of man in all of this? “The heart is deceitful above all things!” Hopefully as believers we are being progressively sanctified and becoming more discerning in our personal preferences, but you know as well as I that we still battle sin, including in our desires. Frankly, I wouldn’t trust my own personal preferences to make all the decisions for myself, my family, or my church. I need something objective outside myself to help me make right decisions.

The doctrine of total depravity demands that we not make man and his preferences (even regenerate man) the ultimate arbiter of morality. We are compelled to look without ourselves. And then we must change our personal preference to match that which is objectively good.

That plus the inconsistency of your own system are my biggest concerns.

Hey, if you can compare my views to KJV-onlyism, I can compare yours to semi-Pelagianism! :)

Scott,

First of all, I don’t think anyone denies the associative meaning of music (no matter what side of the argument they are on). I don’t. And I think that most will admit that association is determined culturally. Most of the the people you are debating (notice I said “most”)are not calling for a music that is clearly and unmistakably associated with evil. Gangta, according to my dictionary, is “A style of rap music associated with urban street gangs and characterized by violent, tough-talking, often misogynistic lyrics.” As Dan said (and as you say) associative meaning overpowers here. I think it is unusable.

I do not think that it is always as clear about every style of music. That’s all.

I did not “quickly insist” that we do not have a blended service as if to imply that I think its wrong. You can’t see how fast or slow I type! I merely stated that we don’t have a blended service. That’s all. Others do (Gaumer, for example) and I don’t have a problem with that.

While I have never been to Gaumer’s church, I am fairly certain that he is not using a musical style that is universally associated with evil. I am also fairly certain his congregation on the whole embraces it. It is not insconsistent of me to say that it is fine for his church, but that our church would do differently.

This conclusion does not make man and his preferences primary. A body of believers in united, prayerful, and submissive cooperation align themselves in knowing submission to the Revealed Word and obey the dictates of their collective conscience. You want me to make your preferences primary, but I can’t even though I enjoy Religious Affections Radio every day and like your tastes. I cannot impose your idea of what music is best on every autonomous church. I believe too much in the depravity of man!

If you are determined to have “musical diversity” in your service, what is stopping you from having a good mixture of hymns, gospel songs, Christian rap, Praise & Worship, grunge, alternative, and J. S. Bach if you have groups in your congregation who appreciate all of these musical forms?

I would say amen, but I am trying not to be cheeky this week!

There is only a fuzzy answer for this straw man, since thats clearly what it is. Arguing what Bob does above does not automatically preclude him from making moral or practical judgements regarding musical style. There are pretty clear standards of appropriateness that can be applied in our culture. However, I don’t believe that we can be as clear when discussing where that line is, unfortunately (or fortunately) the scriptures don’t specifically define style, we have to derive it from scriptural principles, and our understanding of our particular culture.

I would have no problem with a ministry that draws the line somewhere based on such principles, that is the whole point Bob is making regarding the individual and corporate freedom of each church, however, most argue from a Biblical foundation that while accurate, has little to do with their practical application.

Scott,

“I need something objective outside myself”

Ok, Where can I find this “objective” truth regarding music or a specific style of music in the text?

Is a “regenerate” man incapable of making right decisions apart from objective truth?
What about Jerimiah 31:31-34; Gal 5:16.

Dan

About Brian’s question:

I am not sure if you can discern if a person is being judgmental or if it’s a true matter of his conscience. In the same person there can be a mixture of both. I think you would have to observe a lot of things about his heart through listening to him talk in order to make an educated guess.

Why are you asking that question?

Bob,

Thanks for your thoughts.

I don’t believe it is valid to treat gangsta as a different language from gospel songs. In other words, a language in itself cannot be sinful (therefore it is not a good parallel to styles which clearly can be sinful.)

To use your parallel, there are good things communicated with Elizabethan English and there are bad things. There are good things communicated with ESV english and there are bad things. Therefore, Elizabethan English needs to be evaluated on the same plane as ESV English. All styles of music are using the same basic elements to communicate a message.

The issue is not how old a style is but what is being communicated with it. Certainly there is music that has communicated a good message from Bach to Garlock, and the issue is, are we willing to evaluate each style in the light of the Word.

Regarding your question “Wouldn’t you agree that much of the debate today in music is between “ESV” music and “KJV” music and thus ought to be left to the independent discretion of autonomous churches and individuals?” Yes. But only after it has been concluded that the ESV music is communicating a good message.

Anne,

Romans 14-15 changed my life in more areas than just music. I believe that to some I would be considered a strong person and to others I would be considered weak. I think the point of the whole passage is that God is glorified when we maintain unity in these areas where Scripture is not clear.

Now, if I am the strong brother and my weaker brother will be caused to sin (not just a preference thing) by my using particular music in worship leading, I can’t use it. That requires knowledge. I have to know that the weak brother will be led to sin.

At the same time, if the weak brother really believes that he is NOT weak and is divisive over these kinds of issues, I believe he is in sin and should not be fellowshipped with.

I guess the hard question for me is: how do I know that musical choices I make on behalf of my congregation is or is not causing them to sin? How does conscience play into the situation? Is knowledge the determining factor? Is weakness immaturity, that should be grown out of? These are the kinds of questions I wrestle with. I think, because of bad exegesis of Scripture, many of our churches have taken a far more narrow approach to musical selection than is necessary. However, the moment you take a step outside that tradition, you become suspect of sliding down the slippery slope.

Sorry, this is kind of rambling.

Allan, I will read the Institutes on Christian Liberty. Thanks for the tip.

Brian:

You are welcome.

Just one additional thought: I think it is virtually axiomatic that a weak brother does not believe he is weak. What compounds this problem is that weak brothers are peculiarly attractive at times as leaders. Their strictness is often viewed as godliness. Their dogmatism on doubtful issues makes them appear courageous and decisive. Yet, whenever a weak brother is elevated to the status of leader he almost always becomes more entrenched in his positions. It was one thing to change when he was only a person among many. As a leader he feels the pressure of not “giving any appearance of evil” and not “getting anywhere near” things which are “evil.”

Thus, in many many conservative churches weak brothers and their strict consciences become the rule, and it difficult if not impossible to change the culture.

One other thought: while there is danger in challenging the weak consciences of conscientious believers there is as much danger in allowing that type of culture to remain. In other words, we have all seen weak brothers who have precipitously fallen “off the deep end” once their system of standards was shaken.

But what about the situations in which weak consciences dominated and it was allowed to continue? Are there consequences to this? They may not be as glaring and apparent, but I would argue they are even more dire because the consequences are most evident in the next generation. What happens when children are raised in a context where standards which are more based on tradition or fundamentalist culture than the Bible are allowed to rule?

Such a form of Christianity, evaculated of the sweetness of the Spirit’s presence, is stale, dry, empty, lifeless, ingrown, heavy, joyless. Yes, it IS dangerous to live without all the extra-biblical standards. YES, people can and do abuse liberty. Indeed, there will never be a shortage of those who pursue license in the name of liberty. Yes!! A million times YES, this is a corrupt, worldly, sensual age. BUT WHAT IS OUR HOPE???? It is only the pure Word of God, preached in the power of the Holy Spirit, flowing from hearts which are alive to God, rather than consumed with “touch not, taste not, handle not.”

Sorry for the ramble.

Nice summary application, Allan.

This use of “weaker brother” of Romans 14 to refer to what is commonly labeled “legalism,” in the way legalism has come to be understood over the past generation, makes very little sense. It is exceedingly unlikely that the kind of people usually labeled “weaker brother” in our time are going to lose their faith no matter what someone else does with their music.

I don’t personally don’t know of any in this definition of legalistic “weaker brothers” who have lost their faith through someone violating their standards, although I imagine it is possible there are some.

A much more meaningful designation of “weaker brother” refers to those the contemporary “legalistic anti-legalist” leaders seek to recruit to their side. For example, we have been seeing youth leaders urging young people to not allow the convictions (wisdom?) of older people, even their parents, sway them in developing conscience and not to be “legalists” by using musical discernment.

So many (not all) of these young people exactly fit the description for the “weaker brothers.” They have developed a hunger and thirst for secular rock music just by attending their youth groups due to parasitic nature of CCM (it MUST stay connected to secular rock in order to find out what will be ‘in’ next). Sadly many have subsequently abandoned their faith or lived their faith with considerable compromise. We have seen this repeatedly over the course of the past 20 years.

Even today I heard another (after many)report of a young person who I thought had great potential for Christ who was led in CCM through the “legalistic anti-legalists” in our area who is living with his girl friend (and intends to continue in it with a clear conscience) while attending a local CCM loving church. This has not been an exception, but the general rule of the way young people have turned out in our area who have been sucked into the scheme of the modern “legalistic anti-legalists” of our time.

Note: When I refer to “legalistic anti-legalists” I refer to those who seem to believe that the only form of legalism is “high culture” legalism and who cannot see the intense legalism of our self-centered “free” culture forms.

Everyone needs to get themselves familiar with Clinton Arnold’s work on Colossians 2:16-23 called “The Colossian Syncreticism” so we can lay to rest using Col 2 as evidence against those with convictions about musical gluttony. His case is quite convincing that it has nothing to do with what we have come to think of as petty legalism.

It is exceedingly unlikely that Gaumer’s suggestion of “toleration” and “broadness” is going to help very much in the worship wars even though there is a sense in which the idea has merit. It WOULD work wonders if there was a basic sense within a church about absolutes in music and the belief that music was intrinsically beautiful and worthy.

However, peace is impossible as long as “the self” remains the standard for musical choice.

It is very much like the moral status of our country right now and the proposition that we will all get along better if we just accept everyone’s beliefs and behavior as differences of opinion. This will not, it CANNOT, produce a more peaceful culture. As long as self remains the standard we can be assured of war. It always will be like Joshua pointed out to Moses in Exodus 32 - “there is war in the camp” - when we become a standard to ourselves.

As long as self remains the standard we can be assured of war. It always will be like Joshua pointed out to Moses in Exodus 32 - “there is war in the camp” - when we become a standard to ourselves.

Absolutely. The inability of either side to recognize and accept that the evaluation of music must be one that is done in a thoughtful biblical manner is the key reason for the division on this issue. Those who hold to more traditional forms of music do so for cultural and personal reasons while attempting to connect their standards to the scriptures rather tenuously, and many of the modern pragmatists have reacted by throwing caution to the wind and embracing music that is indistinguishable from secular rock. Somewhere in the middle is the area where the pendulum will likely end up when its done swinging.

Not entirely sure what your whole “legalistic anti-legalist” rant is about, but even paranoids have enemies. Once I stopped looking for legalism under every rock, I found it much more easily right out in the open.

Is it fair to say those who “hold to more traditional forms of music” do so for cultural and personal reasons? I know I don’t. Nor do I believe do the musical conservatives I have communicated with.

Granted, I find advocates of contemporary styles much less insightful into Scripture in the area of music than they are about many other difficult areas (e.g. abortion, male headship, slavery, immodesty, drug use, homosexuality, and many difficult theological issues) where they can be quite insightful, even creative, indeed. They can easily dismiss the Biblical commands for music to be with “glory, honor, majesty, splendor, beauty, wisdom, strength, joy (okay, so they do see this one), ‘terrible’, exalted, holy” as culturally relative in regard to music. Yet they are quite astute in using the similar (even the same) terms to defend against the moral crises of our time. If this is tenuous than so are many of the Biblical arguments we are required to make in our time.

When we argue with liberals about immodesty, fornication, adultery, etc. do we do so out of “cultural and personal reasons”? Do we reject them because we “don’t like them?” I am only too ashamed to say I DO like them, at least in some respects. Just as I like even some pretty hard core Rock in a sense. I just do not believe these reflect the glory of God and I seek to live and worship according to God’s preferences and not my tastes that are pretty maleable.

The conservatives I talk with do not reject things because they “don’t like them” or because our cultural background doesn’t espouse them. We reject them because the words of Scripture mean something absolute and not relative to our preferences (though we know many moral areas have some degree of culural relativity).

We do not believe the Biblical terms about suitable “music to Yahweh”, including glory, honor, majesty, spelendor, strength, joy, beauty, and holiness - are compeltely culturally or individually relative. This is just like we believe that murder, fornication, adultery, male headship, slavery, drug use, etc. are not compeltely culturally relative.

We should not favor our existing tastes, in fact, we should doubt them. I confess my natural tastes and cultural background lead me astray - especially into gluttony and insenstivity. I have no interest in perserving all, or even most, of what I was brought up on. I, and I think many other musical conservatives, purposely stretch and change our tastes to make ourselves more sensitive to the glory of God. I personally have been looking beyond my own past experiences and training for forms more congruent with Biblical terms for the glory and majesty of God.

Direction is more important than legally defining what is permissible. This is why I use the term “legalistic anti-legalists.” These people decry “legalists” while they seek to find the legal and permissible. They give little to no guidance to direction and purpose of musical styles.

The same skills we need to develop for greater appreciation for appreciating God’s handiwork and glory in creation should be required to develop appreciation for God’s glory in human art. These skills include curiosity, patience, knowledge, insight, discipline, refinement, carefulness, love (not eros), joy (not need for titillation), peace (not exhaustion), and more patience.

I admit I find most (not all) contemporary music ill suited for this task. Contemporary music tends to be driven by desires for quick gratification and so tends to be loud, fast and needing a strong beat to sustain interest. These qualities tend to dull the senses and create needs for greater stimulation to get the same affect. The more one follows them the less sensitive one gets toward matters of design and subtley which God seems to love.

The whole point of worship is to worship God in holiness. All too often, those who lead in this area are not pure themselves. Style, beat, and rhythm may vary, but if the vessel is pure, we can get through to God. If the vessel in conducting Handel’s Messiah but is having an affair. how is God honored? There is too much majoring on minors and minoring on majors. God said make a joyful noise, so whether that is an orchestra or a poorly tuned guitar, if it is done joyfully with a pure heart I believe God is pleased. Too often I believe the spiritual bar is lowered if someone can make it cook.