« Images of the Savior (29 – His Answering the Syro-Phoenician Woman) | Main | Images of the Savior (30 – His Giving the Keys of the Kingdom) »
10 Observations Against the Style-Specific Position on Music in Worship
By pitchford | June 7, 2007
I have long considered music to be one of the most precious gifts that our bountiful heavenly Father has bestowed upon the world of men. Music is the food of the soul. It is the aged and well-refined wine of the affections, and no drippings of the honeycomb could fall upon the palate with a more pleasing and invigorating effect than that which well-crafted music has upon the heart. Music is the highest occupation of the holy angels, the radiant splendor of whose purpose can be expressed in no other way than to sing the thrice-holy of the Almighty God; and music will likewise be the highest and eternally delightful occupation of the saints, when they shall finally be gathered around the throne to sing, “Hallelujah! For the Lord God Almighty reigns.” Do you want a foretaste of heaven here on earth? Then come into the presence of God’s people as they forget their cares and dissensions for a time and lift up their voices in unified, vibrant, and heartfelt praise to the King of kings, whom to know is to love with a glory-filled and inexpressible joy.
It is, therefore, a tragedy of the highest degree that there are certain circles of Christians who are opposed on moral grounds to the usage of certain styles of music in worship – and some of the most passionate and emotionally-expressive at that. When my blinded conscience was enlightened by the truth, and my bound heart set free to shout out the praise of my Redeemer in the manner in which my soul most deeply resounded, I tasted heaven, as it were; and the foretaste left me with a hunger for worship that cannot be satiated until it is my sole remaining business. I pray that many believers from the same background may find the same experience reduplicated in their own lives.
So what is it that would hold a Christian back from offering up praise in certain musical styles? Although I have heard an astonishing plethora of far-fetched answers to that question, most of them too patently absurd even to bring up in rational society, the arguments with which I have most commonly been presented include the following: first, the biblical term “new song” indicates a style of music altogether different from that which one may have employed when a pagan; second, the admonition to be separate from the world, or, from a different vantage point, the overwhelming scriptural witness that there must be a difference between the sacred and profane, or the clean and unclean, necessitates a distinction between holy and unholy music styles; and third, the ability of music to express and excite various emotions argues for the corollary truth that styles which give expression to certain emotions are legitimate, while styles which give expression to others are clearly pagan.
Do those considerations carry any weight of legitimacy for the restriction of musical styles in worship? Let us make 10 observations from the scriptures, the cumulative effect of which I think may set the case at rest.
Observation 1 – God commands that we use music in worship.
This is so manifestly beyond cavil, that we will merely mention a few texts, and consider the matter firmly established thereby: see Psa 33:1-3; Psa 105:1-2; Psa 135:3; Psa 149:1-5; Eph 5:18-20; Col 3:16.
Observation 2 – It is commanded or exemplified that in doing so, we ought to use every available instrument.
Again, we will simply mention a few texts, with the added observation that the last of them, by indicating that David invented musical instruments, gives exemplary warrant for the invention and usage of instruments in subsequent times: 2Sam 6:5; 1Chr 15:16; 1Chr 15:28; 2Chr 5:12-13; Psa 150:1-6; Amos 6:5.
Observation 3 – It is commanded or exemplified that we ought to do so with the utmost emotional intensity.
Again, a few texts: 2Sam 6:14-16; 1Kin 1:39-40; Ezra 3:11; Psa 33:3; Psa 98:4; Jer 31:4.
Observation 4 – It is commanded or exemplified that we ought to do so with the expression of every conceivable emotion, only with regard to the right realities.
In substantiation of which point we would observe that the Book of Psalms has always been a songbook for all the saints, and is meant not just to be read, but to be sung. All human emotions may be found in it, including joy, sorrow, anger, repentance, confidence, hope, love, etc. All these emotions have a legitimate place in the true worship of the Lord; only they must be in response to right realities. The difference between pagan and Christian music is not that one is more emotional, but that the emotions respond to different stimuli. Christian music demonstrates anger at the thought of sin, rebellion against God, indwelling impurity, etc.; pagan music expresses anger at what God has done of which one does not approve, at the fact that one is not autonomous, as he supposes he should be. Christian music expresses love, joy, and tender admiration at the manifestation of their beloved God and Savior; pagan music expresses those qualities in praise of their idols: boyfriend/girlfriend, wine, luxurious goods, money, etc. The difference is not in the emotion, but in the end to which that emotion is directed. When emotions are properly directed, no degree of intensity is too great. When improperly directed, whatever the style, it is grossest idolatry.
Observation 5 – The “new song” enjoined upon the believer has reference to the lyrical content, and not the musical style.
And thus it is that every time the “new song” is mentioned, it is explicitly connected to the works that God has done, about which one, having just discovered them, is motivated to sing a song directed to the praise of these recently discovered wonders, even, as in the case of Psa 33:3-6, “with a loud noise”. The style is not what is new, but rather the reality about which one is singing. In Psa 40:3 this connection is made indisputable: the “new song” is unequivocally defined as “praise unto our God”; therefore, when the content of one’s music has not been praise, and then that lyrical content is changed so that praise is rendered; by definition, the new song of which the psalmist speaks has been put into that person’s mouth, regardless of the style in which it is offered up. Further examples include Psa 96:1-3; Psa 98:1-4; Psa 144:9-10; Psa 149:1-9; Isa 42:9-10; Rev 5:9-10; Rev 14:2-3. This last text in particular indicates that the “new song” cannot be learned by the unsaved; however, the unsaved can learn any musical style; therefore, we would conclude, the “new song” must be cast in terms of experiential knowledge of the gospel. And besides all this, it is an obvious consideration that the world is typically at the “cutting edge” of new musical styles. If “new song” means “new style of music,” then the world’s music best fits the description. The style enjoined upon believers by anti-contemporary musical styles is, generally speaking, styles that were popular in the world long ago, i.e., old styles of music.
Observation 6 – The distinction between “clean” and “unclean” indicates a separation between the inherently moral and immoral.
In substantiation of which we would point to Psa 24:3-4; Jer 13:27; Heb 9:13-14; Rev 21:27. The same case could likewise be made for the distinction between profane/holy, etc. In this age of shadow-fulfillment, the validity of any such distinction rests upon one’s ability to prove from the nature of a thing that it is inherently evil.
Observation 7 – The specific Old Testament regulations were dissolved upon the coming of Christ.
And so we read in Mark 7:14-20 and Act 11:7-10.
Observation 8 – Nothing created by God is inherently immoral.
To which truth 1Tim 4:3-5 and Col 2:16-23 bear witness.
Observation 9 – Music was created by God.
As we may learn from Job 35:10-11; Eze 28:13; Col 1:16-17; Rev 4:11.
Observation 10 – And so we finally conclude that music is in itself not immoral, but is to be used with thanksgiving.
Those who argue against certain styles of music by appealing to the truth that mankind may use God’s good creation in immoral ways fail to recognize that the manner in which this is done has exclusively to do with the end for which one employs God’s gifts. No one will deny that trees are God’s good creation, and that they may be evilly used; but it would be folly to suggest that the way in which to use them evilly is to build with them a ranch-style, instead of a Victorian-style house. To build a house in order to provide shelter for the homeless is to use God’s good creation in a moral way, and to build a house to use as a brothel is to use God’s good creation in an immoral way, regardless of the outward form of the house. In the same way, music is by all means a good creation of God, and is used evilly not when it is cast in one style over against another, but when it is directed to the praise of something other than God; or when, being offered up to God, it is not done so with one’s whole heart, strength, and ability. One may say, “But your analogy is flawed, for wood is amoral and music has inherent morality! Trees are senseless, but music is the expression of emotion, and by its very nature has communicative intent; and all emotion and communicative intent of moral creatures is either good or bad.” Fine, we will grant him that much for the sake of the argument, only let him answer this: “why is it that some music is immoral?” If he says, “Because it communicates or stirs up evil passions,” we must ask why those passions are evil – and ultimately the only answer is that, they are directed to the wrong end. Lust is evil because it is passion directed to another woman when it should be to one’s wife; or ultimately, because it is directed to some other end than Christ, the fulfillment of the marriage-picture (see Eph 5:22-32). Greed is evil because it is desire directed toward some other end than our greatest and only good, God himself. We are convinced that there is no human emotion which is evil in itself; but all emotions become evil when improperly directed. And so music may express or incite any passion and be positively good, provided it directs those emotions to the proper end, which is precisely what we said at the beginning. In conclusion, every style of music, employing every conceivable instrument, to express every conceivable emotion, is a good creation of God, and ought to be used to give expression to right realities, for the praise of God.
June 7th, 2007 at 9:46 am
Pitchford,
You state that every emotion is acceptable for worship. Allow me to give an illustration of why I disagree. First, not all emotions are created equal. And, some emotions (such as love) have different types and qualities within that type of love.
Here is the illustration. I love Italian food. I love my wife. I love a friendly dog. However, if I showed the type of love to my wife that I show to the dog, I would actually be dishonoring her.
Here is another illustration of the same type. Teenage girls love rockstars. They read everything they can about them. They dress like them. However, if one was to meet a rockstar, her mouth would drop open, she would be speechless, and she would probably have very little communication with them becuase of fear. This love is a different emotion than the love that a husband has for his wife or vice versa.
If not all emotions are created equal, then not all emotions should be offered towards God. I would love to hear your response to this.
June 7th, 2007 at 10:41 am
Great observations. It amazes me that there are “Psalter-only” or “hymn only” when throughout the church there has been a changing debate. There was a time when Beethoven’s chord progressions were to “liberal” to be used in a service.
June 7th, 2007 at 8:53 pm
Chris Watson,
Good observations. I would respond in this way: all these emotions have a legitimate place in worship, when directed to the proper end. Yes, it would be demeaning to offer the same emotion to you wife that you offer to your dog — and how much more so to God himself? However, the emotion that you have for your dog is a good emotion, a gift of God, and God deserves thanksgiving for having created it. Hence the Psalms are filled with that sort of emotion for created things — food, wine, etc. — in meditation upon which, the psalmist realizes the necessity of worshiping God who created these things and their pleasant effects upon mankind, and who is greater than they as the sun is greater than its beams, and hence demands greater admiration. All these things have their place in worship, but the appropriate ends must ever be kept in mind. Also, in regard to your rock star analogy, the basic problem is that it is idolatry, such emotions being directed to other men when they ought to be given to God alone. There should be the desire to emulate God in all that we do, the speechless wonder when we find ourselves in his presence — all these things that your teenage girl experienced, only to infinitely greater degrees, because God, unlike the rock star, is truly worthy of them. But there should also be the affectionate and confident love that a husband should have for his wife, only likewise in greater degree. God is manifoldly wonderful, and our emotions, being manifoldly capable, ought to be diverse and intense in our response to God.
Chris P.,
Thanks for the comment.
June 8th, 2007 at 5:44 am
Pitchford,
Allow me to attempt to throw a monkey wrench somewhere between steps 8-9. Music is (or was) created by God. However, that music is secondarily created, performed, used, abused, and appreciated by a totally depraved man. If that is the case, couldn’t it be possible for a music piece, genre, style, or song to be immoral if it were created by an immoral man?
Or perhaps I should ask - how does your view of depravity affect your choice of music?
June 8th, 2007 at 6:29 am
I would push what cwatson is saying a step further. Besides the passages that say that God created “all things”, passages related to Him creating music or “song” are metaphorical (songs in our hearts) or are referring merely to the fact that He created us to be musical and to want to enjoy music. To say that God creates the actual music we enjoy or use in worship is to say either that God actually composes it or that he inspires the composer in the way he inspired the writers of Scripture. God in no way created the music we have. 100% of it was created by totally depraved man.
Your point number 6 is the only one that almost addresses my position. Unfortunately, you only chose the passages that deal with clean/unclean as issues of morality. What I’d like to see you address are the passages dealing with Levitical worship-leading “holiness” versus the “profanity” allowed for the other Israelites. There was an obvious disconnect there and no suggestion was made that the vast majority of the Israelites were immoral simply because they weren’t held to the same standard as the Levites. If your number 6 breaks down, so do 7, 8, 9 and 10, so I think you really should make that point better.
I agree with points 1-3 and 5.I think that your point 4, though, assumes that Frank Garlock et al are correct in their “music=emotion” cling-to. I don’t think that this is something you have to prove. Yes, to an extent music and emotion can be simultaneous, but the emotional outlet is something that should come from one’s true experience and rational thought about God or one’s own condition, not something that is artificially generated by any music choice. It would be interesting to strip away the music at your next service and discover whether you can still generate the same emotions. If not, I would say that your focus is on how the music makes you feel, not how the facts of Who God is and what He has done actually affect you emotionally. Yes, song is the perfect outlet for already existent emotions, but it is not the source.
Hope things are going well.
June 8th, 2007 at 6:47 am
Sorry, that last part wasn’t that clear. What I’m saying is that the musical style doesn’t have to vaguely and abstractly match some specific “emotion” because the music isn’t what determines the emotion and I believe it’s simply hogwash to try to identify a musical style with an emotion.
June 8th, 2007 at 9:28 am
Chris (and Nathan, in your affirmation of Chris’s observation),
Yes, I agree that in a secondary sense, man “creates” all music: but he does so with the building blocks that God has given him. Only God can create ex nihilo, so anything that man creates, he does by molding a previously existing substance. Which is just to say that, God created everything by which specific musical expressions may be derived; and if he created it, it is good. It may be used in a bad way, as I already admitted, but any attempt to say that the music is bad because of one or more of the essential elements that went into creating it, and not because of the end to which it was directed, is to say that God’s own creation is bad.
Nathan,
On point #6, I am assuming an entire biblical theology of cleanness/uncleannes about which whole books could be (and have been) written. No, the “profane” Israelites were not immoral because of their differing standards than those to which the Levitical priesthood were held; but the distinction itself was a type or foreshadow of inherent morality/immorality. The whole clean/unclean, or profane/holy dichotomy assumed the idea that, to the degree that one would approach God’s presence he must be separated from the common. But the common is manifestly the sinful common, as the later New Testament references show. We today, if we would be holy to God, must be separated from sin. And when we are brought to a new earth in which sin will be no longer, nothing will be common or profane, because nothing will be immoral. I’m suggesting a movement from shadow to fulfillment, and I think passages such as I Peter 1:14-17, 2:9, etc., bear this idea out.
As far as your other point goes, I agree that music can never be the foundation of true emotions, or that which ultimately excites them, but rather the vehicle through which emotions that have been excited by the sight of the holy God may best be expressed. And I am not suggesting that we ought to formulate a specific musical style for every precise emotion, but rather that music is in general an emotional mode of expression, and should be employed in an intensely emotional manner – provided, of course, that the intense emotions have arisen from beholding God. I agree that if the emotions dissolve when the music is taken away, that indicates that they were never genuinely based on the sight of God in the first place, and were hence idolatry. Although I also wonder if one can ultimately take away the heart music of one who has been so affected by seeing God, since that is the natural way of expressing one’s wonder, devised by God himself.
Yes, things are going well, by God’s grace. How are you and the family?
June 8th, 2007 at 9:37 am
Pitchford -
Let me see if I understand your position (in a discussion on music, I prefer clarity rather than agreement). Goodness and badness is not defined by intrinsic meaning, but by use and function. Any and all musical forms and styles (etc.) are intrinsically neutral. Their morality is determined by their focus and end.
If that is the case, I disagree with you. I would say that the meaning of music is intrinsic within the music itself. I would say that God has either a positive or negative opinion on each form and style. Normally, I state in a discussion of music, that there are three levels of agreement.
We would disagree on the first issue. Therefore, We really have no grounds of discussing individual styles (which we have not yet done) or even goodness and badness, beauty and ugliness.
I must say that I appreciate your civility in having this discussion with me, even though we disagree.
June 8th, 2007 at 4:05 pm
Pitchford,
Do you not think that music, like all other things in this fallen world, have been perverted by sinful man, even though created by God?
Wouldn’t it make sense, then, that sinful man can put these building blocks together in away that is perverted?
June 8th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
Wait a second. I still don’t agree. If by “building blocks” you mean “sound,” then yes. But God did not create the major and minor scales that make up Western music, He didn’t create the chant and drum banging that make up African music, and He sure didn’t create rap (sorry, couldn’t resist).
Now, if you could make the case from either Scripture or common sense that God did create music (which you can’t - it’s just not there), other of your arguments break down. Specifically, if a) God created the building blocks of music, and b)God created all things, and c) nothing God created is immoral, and d) therefore the music man makes with God’s building blocks is not inherently immoral, then e) God as Creator of the mere building blocks of anything means that the end product that man comes up with in any case can not be immoral. That applies to sex, speech, thoughts, acts, etc. It is a path that quickly leads to blasphemy.
June 8th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
Chris,
Just one quick observation: at the end of paragraph one, you mentioned the morality of music. Then, at the beginning of paragraph two, you mentioned its meaning, in a logical apposition. I think your blending of those two distinct concepts is unfair to my position. While I would agree that music is meaningful, it is not specifically meaningful; that is, it is incapable of specifying the precise subjects to which its meaning applies. Whether it is ultimately moral or immoral has to do with how its general emotional meaning is made to comment on outside realities. Music can praise the God of heaven or the gods of wood and stone (and the American dollar). It can be angry at sin or at the “bad things” that have befallen the “undeserving” singer. But it can do neither of those things specifically without words or some other preciser conveyor of meaning to direct its intention.
Fitzies (I’ll lump you two together since you’re brothers, and besides, I think you’re saying basically the same thing),
Yes, God created music, and yes man perverts it by using it wrongly. But we have to be clear on exactly how he does that. Would you agree with me that sin is, generally speaking, loving anything more than God or not for his sake, that is, putting something in the place of one’s affections that should be reserved for God alone; and specifically speaking, sin is any transgression of what he has commanded? Now, God has not commanded that we only sing according to certain scales or meters, so we can scratch that possibility off from the start. In order to say that a musical style is sinful, then, we’ll have to substantiate that it is capable of conveying meanings which are inherently against God’s explicit laws, or inherently value other things more than him. The problem with the sex analogy is that God has clearly commanded when and under what circumstances that gift should be indulged in. If God had said, “Only sing with your wife,” then we could quite easily mark certain musical practices as wrong. But on the contrary, he commands us to sing at all times, with all the saints. The problem with the speech analogy is that it makes clear the subject of its discourse, and can be analyzed against God’s standards with precision. If speech consisted of nothing more precise than, “Beauty, joy, pleasure!” Then, we could not call it moral or immoral, until we knew the source and goal of this ascription of beauty – and music is the same way. If you played me a track of Beethoven or else African drum beats, I couldn’t tell you the specific denotation of those tracks – and neither could anyone else.
By the way, no God did not “invent” major and minor scales, but he created all the sounds and the time frame upon which they must be stretched, and he invented the human sensibility which is capable of recognizing a pleasance in certain sound/rhythm patterns. He didn’t create Gothic or monolithic architecture, but he created the stones and invented the human sensibility which is capable of recognizing beauty in the massive, solid, structured vastness of Stonehenge or the soaring, breathtaking magnificence of Notre Dame. Architecture may be used immorally by perverted humans – hence the Druidic witchcraft that went on in Stonehenge and the papal heresies conducted in Notre Dame. But the immorality is not contingent upon the style. I couldn’t fault one on moral grounds for loving monolithic architecture more than Gothic, but I could fault him for loving to perform human sacrifice in either. I couldn’t fault one on moral grounds for loving rap more than hymnic common meter, but I could fault him for loving to sing about idols in either genre, or else for offering up heartless and insincere praise to God through either.
To reframe your question, Fitzy,
“Do you not think that [stones], like all other things in this fallen world, have been perverted by sinful man, even though created by God?
Wouldn’t it make sense, then, that sinful man can put these building blocks together in away that is perverted?”
I would say yes, if he used them to build an altar for human sacrifice. But in any case, it would be the function and end, not the physical layout, that would constitute the perversion. In the same way, the end to which music is directed, and not the chordal progression or rhythm, determines whether or not it has been perverted.
June 8th, 2007 at 7:35 pm
So you really think that stones could not be layed out in a way that is perverse no matter what the use? Could a sculpture be created that is perverse no matter what it is used for? I would say yes, without getting into detail, I can think of more than one off the top of my head.
June 8th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
Again, you have to allow for the factor of precision in expression. Sculpture may denotate things that are clearly immoral. For instance, nudity is a sign of shame in this fallen world, and so nude sculptures explicitly represent that which is shameful. Sculptures may also explicitly represent actions that are immoral. When one lays out stones in any abstract arrangement, nudity, shameful actions, etc., are not clearly denotated. Neither is shame, immorality in action, etc., explicitly denotated by music, but when some clarifying contextual factor (e.g. words) gives it that precise nuance, then it is immoral.
June 8th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
I knew when I hit “submit” that your response would be a pitch-ified variation of “but God gives the parameters of sex, speech, et al.” And you’re right. However, when there are obviously moral implications of man’s usage of all of God’s other gifts - whether He’s told us specifics or simply left it up to us to determine based on principle - you seem to want to yank the issue of music out of the pile of all that is and give it its own “cannot be immoral” categorization. I’m confused from your post and comments by what authority you feel you can do that.
To be clear, I believe there is much more music that I can accept on the grounds of personal enjoyment than I can accept for corporate worship. I hate the analogy like the dickens, but it’s the same reason I don’t wear a swimsuit to a wedding. Now, to go nude to the beach or the wedding would be immoral, but the other two choices are merely a matter of appropriateness (dang, the ‘a’ word). I guess that sums up my personal beliefs on the subject.
Because the Bible is unclear on this matter, I don’t believe it will ever be solved and I would never dream of making it a matter of separation. I simply try to apply what the Bible does say about corporate worship and I think there’s a clear distinction between the sacred and profane throughout.
June 8th, 2007 at 8:56 pm
Nathan,
I would just say that music is not by itself in this category. All foods are good, and may be used to God’s glory, but may be used in praise of something other than God, and hence evil. All building materials are God’s good creation, but architecture may be used in evil or good ways. Music is not its own beast, it is the same as these things.
I still think that the profane/holy distinction between substances that were not inherently immoral was appropriate for the era of shadow revelation, but not for today. Pork was unclean, but is not inherently immoral, and may be eaten to God’s glory today. I think that any clinging to the shadow distinctions is at the same time a minimization of the substance, which is of Christ, to which they pointed (as per Col. 2).
June 8th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
P.S. I appreciate your latitude on the basis of lack of scriptural clairty, and I agree wholeheartedly that I would never make this issue a matter of separation. Anyone who conscientiously holds to a different standard may do so freely, as far as I’m concerned. But at the same time, I want to state the case for my own convictions as clearly as possible.
Blessings.
June 8th, 2007 at 10:08 pm
Matt and Nathan,
If God created all things to be used for his glory, and if the biblical testimony indicates that we must make a distinction between moral and immoral in various subsets of each class of his creation (because apparently if music is an exception to this general principle, it’s the only one), then on what basis must we do so? Foods should be used for moral purposes, and only some types may be used morally – so are raspberries wrong and oranges ok? Or is buttered toast wrong and dry toast ok? Or is it ok to eat apples cut in slices, but not in cubes? Or in building materials: is concrete wrong but wood ok? Or in music: is common meter wrong but short meter ok? Or jazz wrong, but classical ok? If we have to make a distinction between subsets of each created species, when God didn’t do so, then does that not make us judges of things that God himself has not given us any standard of judgment for?
However, the bible clearly says that nudity, gluttony, and worship of anything but God is sin.
June 12th, 2007 at 6:34 pm
Nathan,
Great post.
All,
I enjoyed the debate and the clarifying/reinforcing statements from Nathan. Really, doesn’t the 150th song from that great Hymnbook of Christ (Psalms) sum up the matter with great glory and power? Hard to imagine a divinely-sanctioned case for musicological nitpicking from that one…
While issues of conscience and uneducated brethren should be handled delicately and with much wisdom and grace, it is important that we “take every thought captive to Christ” and soundly confront divisive and needleesly inhibitory teachings. We must stand firm in our Blood-bought, Christ-commanded liberty.
Longing to be a more faithful steward of the staggering freedom of the children of God,
Dave Hayton
June 15th, 2007 at 8:56 am
I am joining this discussion late & have never posted here before. Great discussion. I think Pitchford’s views on this subject are biblical. I just wanted to add one observation. In Genesis 4, we are told that it is one of the wicked descendants of Cain who is credited as being the “father of all those who play the lyre and pipe”. I think this is an excellent example of and biblical case for how things are NOT inherently bad/wrong/immoral. Wicked Jubal is the father of all musical culture. Given the source, would that mean it is wrong to use ANY music for worship? Should David and the priests NOT have used the lyre to praise the LORD? May it never be!
June 15th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Carla,
Thanks for stopping by, and good observation.
June 28th, 2007 at 5:40 am
Great discussion, excellent article. I’m going to highlight it on my blog.
Thanks,
Bob
June 28th, 2007 at 9:39 pm
Thanks for the highlight.
God bless.
July 19th, 2007 at 7:48 pm
Nathan,
You might want to be aware of the fact that your article is being debated over at my blog, and was just linked to from Jackhammer. Just in case you want to enter the debate and clarify your position any. Should you choose not to, I totally understand.
Blessings from the cross,
Bob
July 19th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
Bob,
Thanks for the heads-up. I looked through the debates, and I really couldn’t see how the persons involved were honestly trying to understand my points and critique them logically and scripturally. Just to cite one small example of many possible, the case was made that, because “NOT EVERY PSALM CALLS FOR UTMOST EMOTIONAL INTENSITY”, therefore my point was utterly overturned that “It is commanded or exemplified that we ought to do so [i.e. sing praise] with the utmost emotional intensity.” I suppose if I said, “Let’s have a cup of coffee”, he would say, “Not every appropriate drink calls for the coffee bean,” and suppose that he had made manifest the utter lack of scriptural basis for my desire. But a positive statement does not assume universality, or the negation of the legitimacy of different, non-contradictory realities in different times/circumstances, unless a modifier such as “always” is included in the proposition.
Anyway, in such a case, I don’t know what would be gained by engaging in debate, other than defending myself against someone whose mind is already firmly settled. If I cared about the strawmen, I would voice my protest against these strawmen burnings, but I can’t really say that it breaks my heart to see them go up in flame. The true issues remain untouched by all the smoke and clamor.
July 20th, 2007 at 7:22 am
I totally agree. I think the debates should be about over now.
August 3rd, 2007 at 10:20 am
I’ve been to churches where the singing is a performance to the congregation. Even I was concentration on the great abilities singer and not worshipping the Lord. I find this to be distracting. I go to a church which sings only hymns. I love the hymns but what I find distracting about them is that I’m new to the hymns and don’t know most of them so I can’t really feel as though I’m worshipping. What to do what to do! Hummm. I guess it comes down to the realization that it isn’t how I feel in the worship service but whether my focus is on Christ. If I just read the hymns until I learn them, then I’m worshipping Christ. I can’t really do the “free style” of worship and concentrate on Christ. Maybe if the lead singer didn’t use a microphone and overtake the singing…if everyone was instructed to sing loudly in unison instead of just one or two people doing that I would like it.
August 3rd, 2007 at 10:22 am
Sorry for all the mistakes in my last comment…I can’t speak today!