“Why gaddest thou about so much to change thy way? Thou also shalt be
ashamed of Egypt, as thou was ashamed of Assyria. Yea, thou shalt go forth from him, and thine
hands upon thine head: for the LORD hath rejected thy confidences, and thou
shalt not prosper in them.”
(Jeremiah 2:36-37)
Whenever a pastor these days
announces to the blogosphere that the music of his church is going change from
conservative and traditional to progressive and contemporary, he receives both
supportive and critical responses from his readers. The blogs that support his decision to change
the music lend public credibility to that decision. The comments that criticize his decision give
him the opportunity to defend it. This
very scenario is happening more and more often. However, such a change in policy really is the
wrong kind of change to make in the light of scripture. Many who defend the trend to modify the music
at church say that the arguments against it involve matters of “preference”
rather than applications of Bible principles.
They say that critics of the change are against it really because they
don’t like the music, and the discussion is ultimately about what kind of
church music one prefers. The fact is,
however, that there are several Bible principles that militate against
switching to the new music style in church.
Serious mistakes are being made as I write by pastors who are not
considering certain Bible truths in their decision-making process.
The prophet Jeremiah spoke boldly
against the trends among God’s people in his day to conform to the pagan ways
of the nations around them. They looked
to Egypt for solutions to their problems, and were influenced by the ways of
their old taskmasters. They also sought
the favor of Assyria, and were drawn into their religious and cultural practices. God asked them through the prophet, “Why
gladdest thou about so much to change thy way?” (Jeremiah 2:36-37) They would come to “be ashamed” of the wrong
changes they were making, and would “not prosper in them” because God “rejected
thy confidences” and would not bless the changes.
When a pastor changes the church
music to the popular “contemporary” style he should consider the seriousness of
the decision he is making and ponder in the light of scriptural principle if he
is making a mistake. The error in such a
change may be found in at least four missteps he is taking.
1.
He is
making a subtle but serious change in his philosophy of ministry.
There are
reasons that churches are adopting the “contemporary” music style today, and many
of them have to do with philosophy of ministry. A change in the church’s approach to church
and ministry is behind the change in music standards. First,
they are accepting a false definition of worship. The worship of God in the
Bible fundamentally requires that the focus of the activity be on God
Himself. Condemning wrong worship, First
Corinthians 10:7 calls the kind of worship in which the Israelites were
sinfully engaged around the golden calf idolatry, even though it does not even
mention the idol! It was idolatry
because of how they worshipped and not only because of what they
worshipped. Exodus 32:6 describes the
scene this way:
“And they rose up early on the morrow, and
offered burnt-offerings, and brought peace-offerings; and the people sat down
to eat and to drink, and rose up to play.”
Referring to
this description in Exodus, First Corinthians 10:7 says,
“Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of
them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to
play.”
They were idolaters
not only because they offered sacrifice to a statue but also because what the
people were doing in the name of worship was not genuine adoration of deity; it
was “play.” They were feasting to
satisfy their own desires, and they were singing and dancing to amuse
themselves (Exodus 32:17-19). It was not
really worship; it was entertainment.
When churches switch to the “contemporary” music styles on the platform,
are they not also switching to the entertainment model of religious services?
The meetings of
the early Christian churches had the congregation involved in “doctrine
[teaching] and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers” (Acts
2:42). There was also singing (First
Corinthians 14:15, Ephesians 5:18-19, Colossians 3:16), but it appears to have
been mostly congregational singing and not performances by talented people up
front. The fact is that the churches of
those early days did not have services that were dedicated to what we call
worship. Worship was a matter of the
heart, practiced by Christians in their daily life, and not an activity practiced
by going to a place of worship or a church service (Read carefully what Jesus
said in John 4:19-24). Believers did
indeed worship God in the church meetings (See First Corinthians 14:23-25), but
the meetings were not dedicated to worship, or designated “worship services,”
and the worship that happened was not defined in terms of music. The Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20) gave
the disciples of Jesus plenty to do when they gathered together to disciple and
teach the believers. The activity of
church meetings was not centered on the singing and “worship,” and it was not
led by a “worship team.” The focus of
the meeting was Bible teaching and praying.
Worship was happening, but worship was not defined as going to a certain
place and enjoying the music.
Churches that
change to contemporary music soon change their meetings into entertainment-based
services not at all like the meetings prescribed by the New Testament. They are called “contemporary churches”
because it is not only the music standards that change; it is the purpose of
church that changes, too. This is proven
by the fact that after the people become used to the new music, they cannot
bear to go back to the traditional-service style of the past. If you remove the new music, the whole thing
collapses. The purpose of church becomes
entertainment, and the “contemporary” music is the entertainment the people
want.
The philosophy
of evangelism also changes with the music change. The book of Galatians opens with a rebuke of
teachers who pervert the true and original Gospel. In arguing the point, the apostle Paul (by
the Spirit) makes an astonishing statement about how to approach evangelism.
“For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I
seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of
Christ.”
(Galatians
1:10)
The right
philosophy in winning people to God is founded on persuading God before trying
to persuade men. Now Paul did seek to
persuade men to turn to Christ (Second Corinthians 5:11), and on some level he
also sought to please men in order to win them (First Corinthians 10:32-33). But his philosophy of evangelism was
essentially vertical in its view rather than horizontal. It was not, “How can I conform my ways to the
ways of the world in order not to offend the people of the world?” It was, “How can I have God’s blessing and
power as I faithfully proclaim His Gospel?”
In the Acts of the Apostles, mighty harvests of souls were preceded by
intense prayer meetings. The secret to
winning the lost is to look to God, not to conform to the world. When pastors and churches cave to the
pressure to use popular-style religious music (rock, rap, country, new-age,
American-Idol-type), they are buying into the philosophy that to win the world
we must conform to the world, which, of course, is unscriptural (Romans
12:1-2).
2.
He is
pointing his people in the wrong direction.
Ephesians 5
teaches the children of light to distinguish themselves from those still in
darkness. They are not to do what the
unsaved do (verses 1-7). And they are
not to endorse the sinful things they do.
“And have no fellowship with the unfruitful
works of darkness, but rather reprove them.”
(Ephesians
5:11)
Some defend the
decision to use “contemporary Christian music” (CCM) in their churches by
denying that singing a song written or performed by a certain artist or
composer implies endorsement of the doctrines he believes or the life that he
lives. However, the problem of
association will indeed undermine the Christian lives of the church members
when use of this music draws them into the CCM world of show-business.
CCM is show
business. “Christian music” and “Gospel
music” and other contemporary styles (in contrast with hymns) are
classifications given to recorded performances in the “music business.” Who doesn’t know this? CCM songs are associated with their writers
and performers in a way that the hymns were never associated with theirs. Did anybody ever ask, “Have you heard the
latest Isaac Watts hit?” Did
nineteenth-century Christians rave about how a Robert Lowry song was rising up
the charts? The writers of hymns and
Gospel songs over the years were never viewed as show-business personalities as
CCM artists are today. The association
of the new music with the creators and purveyors of the songs is very real in
the minds of the listeners. And the
truth is that many of the CCM stars have histories of moral failure, serious
behavior inconsistencies, and doctrinal deviations that do affect the many who
become their followers through their music.
Their lives and beliefs are associated with their songs in the real
world.
Shall a pastor
point his people to the world of CCM show business? He cannot prevent doing so as long as he uses
these songs in church.
3.
He is
forgetting the undeniable meaning of rock music.
The book of Titus
(along with other sections of scripture) teaches us that there is a certain
attitude and certain behavior that go along with sound doctrine.
“The Cretians are
always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.
This witness is true. Wherefore
rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith…”
(Titus 1:12-13)
“But speak thou the
things which become sound doctrine…”
(Titus 2:1)
“…behavior as
becometh holiness…that the word of God not be blasphemed.”
(Titus 2:3, 5)
The
atmosphere of a doctrinally-sound church ought to be charged with virtues that
go along with (“become”) the truth that is taught. Certain virtues are held forth in the book of
Titus as those that are becoming to sound doctrine: sobriety, temperance
(restraint), discretion, family-orientation, chastity, subjection to authority,
respect, godliness, zeal for God, and rejection of worldliness. The mood and spirit of a church meeting
dominated by rock music is not of this sort.
It is actually destructive of the attitudes that uphold the truth of
God, and that emanate from it. The
church meeting ought to represent accurately what God is like. Services that suggest He is “non-judgmental”
(in the current understanding of that concept), “easy-going” (in the sense of
not demanding much commitment), “cool” (in the sense of enjoying the
celebration of sensual pleasures), and compliant with our wishes (in contradiction
of His advancing His own perfect will)
misrepresent the true God.
It
isn’t hard to find out what the message of rock music is. And what is euphemistically called
“contemporary Christian music” is really rock music with religious lyrics. The rock ’n’ roll style came to dominate
popular music in America as our culture declined morally. Robert Bork’s authoritative and
ground-breaking book on the decline of American culture, Slouching Towards Gomorrah, devoted a chapter to the music of that
decline. He identifies it as rock music,
deteriorating into hard rock, heavy metal, punk rock, and rap. Judge Bork, of course, was no fundamentalist
preacher. He was one of the great legal
scholars and social scientists of our time.
Among many other things, he said of rock music, that “these songs
reflect a generalized rage, particularly rage against social authority.” He points out that “fixation on self first
became obvious [in the decline of the culture] with rock ‘n’ roll.” He insisted that this style of music had a
profound effect on the young audiences that come to hear it. Rock music arose as an expression of
rebellion, selfishness, and sexuality, as everyone in the 1950s and 1960s knew,
and as the creators of it admitted and boasted.
All
art has a message. The writing of the
history of art always includes the meaning and message that was conveyed by the
painting, the poetry, the writing, and the music of certain types and
eras. Rock music reflected and generated
a movement against standards, morals, authority, and religion. The message was in the style as well as in
the words.
Another
highly significant study of twenty-century societal deterioration was The Closing of the American Mind by
Allan Bloom, a distinguished professor at the University of Chicago who
examined the deterioration with higher education especially in mind. Dr. Bloom also devoted a chapter of his book
to the music of our times. In it he
insists that “rock music has one appeal only, a barbaric appeal, to sexual
desire.” Then he says, “The inevitable
corollary of such sexual interest is rebellion against the parental authority
that represses it.” He says that rock
music has “three great lyrical themes: sex, hate, and a swarmy, hypocritical
version of brotherly love.” Here is another
of his interesting and insightful comments:
“Rock music provides premature ecstasy and, in this
respect, is like the drugs with which it is allied.”
Bloom
was a highly-respected scholar, professor, thinker, and author, and was not a
fundamentalist preacher. Yet he, as well
as Bork, saw the insidious nature of the music of our times, and the dangerous
effects it has had. The vile words
corresponded to the perverse music style of rock music, which appeared on the
scene both as an effect and a cause of our rapid moral and cultural
decline. Strangely, many of the
evangelical thinkers who advocated the introduction of rock to church audiences
have read both Bork and Bloom. Many more
are aware of the effect the rock music style had on the minds of its fans. It is mysterious why any Christian leader
would propose an alliance with this Ahab in the battle for the Lord. Younger men who have grown up with rock music
in their lives may miss the moral and mental effects it has, but it still does
work against the very things pastors are seeking to accomplish through the
preaching of the Word of God.
Further
evidence regarding the nature of the music style is the almost inevitable
decline in modesty, restraint, commitment, and holiness in churches that use
it. Now is the time for the pastor to
open his eyes and see that this is not a change that should be made.
4.
He is
neglecting the resources we have in Christ.
The pastor and
many of the members of his church want to liven up the miserably dead services
that they seem to have again and again.
This is one of the main reasons churches decide to change the
music. However, the principle of Romans
8:6 will warn us against trying to bring life to our meetings by the use of
sensual, self-gratifying, entertainment-oriented, beat-driven music.
“For to be carnally minded is death; but to
be spiritually minded is life and peace.”
The flesh always
produces death (See also Galatians 6:7-8), and the Spirit produces life. The Holy Spirit is called “the Spirit of
life” in Romans 8:2. To appeal to the
flesh as the focus of a church service is to dispense death to the
congregation. To give the Spirit control
of a meeting is to bring life to the service.
Now even death can be exciting, but it is death, because “to be carnally
[fleshly] minded is death; but to be spiritually minded [led by the Holy
Spirit] is life and peace.” Dead
services lack the participation of God’s Spirit. They are not improved by the use of
carnally-minded music. They get more
exciting, but they do not get better until we forsake the flesh (see John 6:63)
and are filled with the Spirit.
Our spiritual
forbearers did really face the same challenges that we do in seeking to bring
men to Christ. They often ran into the
brick wall of the offense of the cross when they conducted evangelistic
campaigns and labored to win the sinner in their towns. Sinners were never comfortable with the holy
living Christianity demanded, or with the fearless denunciation of their sins
that they heard from the pulpit. They
never dressed as we dress, enjoyed what we enjoy, and sang the songs we love,
or took an interest in the Word of God. But
the old-timers did not resort to changing our ways in order supposedly to
eliminate these barriers. The standard
that guided them was the will of God revealed in the scriptures, regardless of
whether men around them liked how they lived and preached and believed or
not. The old revivalists resorted not to
change when they ran into a brick wall, but rather to earnest prayer. Isn’t this how Elijah reached the people of
the wicked time in which he lived?
Wasn’t this the practice of the apostles? The change needed in the churches today can
be defined in terms of revival. We must
seek the Lord, believing that He will be found.
We can have His blessing and power in spreading His Gospel if we will
conform absolutely to His will and way.
The answer is in the revival prayer meeting, and not in the praise
band. A change is needed to bring life
to our dead churches, but it is not the change that our enemy is so
relentlessly suggesting to the pastors.
The concern Christian leaders
have had for years about the standards and style of the music used in regular
church services and in evangelistic efforts was not unfounded or unnecessary. They knew what rock music was, and they saw
the travesty in bringing it into the church.
Pastors today must consider the issues in this matter very carefully
before dismissing the warnings of older preachers as purely the product of
preference. The Bible has a lot to say
about church, and much of it relates to the kind of singing we do in
church. The challenges of our times call
for believers in Christ to re-adopt the vertical view, and seek the blessing of
God instead of adopting the approach of the world to growth and success. When churches do this, God will bless them,
and will be glorified in the fruit that will be borne.
“I am the vine, and ye are the branches: he that abideth in me, and I
in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.”
(John 15:5)
Dr. Rick Flanders, Evangelist
