We live in an abundance of Christian music. We have all types, all styles, all forms, it seems. You can find hymns revisited, retuned, rewritten. You can find new stuff to excite and entertain. You can find easy listening to heavy metal, choral to rap. Jackie Hill-Perry is listed as part of the "Passion 4 Christ Movement" offering such amazing pieces as "My Life as a Stud" and "A Poem About Weed" which ... wait ... really? Yes, really. It's out there. We have impressive worship songs from heretical sources and lightweight "Jesus is my boyfriend" songs from Christian musicians who, you'd think, should know better. Lots and lots of stuff, from high worship to base entertainment.
I don't think that God has detailed what "worship music" should sound like. Some do; I don't. I mean, the psalmist wrote about praising God "with tambourine and dance" and "with loud cymbals," clarifying "with loud clashing cymbals" (Psa 150:1-6). I know good, honest believers that would not tolerate that in their churches. "'Tambourine and dance'?? 'Loud clashing cymbals'??!! Not in my church!" But there it is in God's Word.
On the other hand, I think we are often blind on the subject. Like "If it says 'God' in it, it's worship ... right?" So we will sing songs for worship with lyrics we wouldn't dare speak to God because they're wrong. You'll find them in all genres and all eras. And we don't notice because, "Hey, it's worship, right?"
You can find hymns that declare, "How can it be that Thou, my God, didst die for me?" Easy answer. He didn't. He can't. Jesus, the human, died. God cannot. An easy shift -- "... that Thou, my King, didst die for me" -- works fine. But God doesn't/didn't/couldn't die. Yet, we sing it worshipfully as if God is glorified in it. You can find warm and thrilling modern songs that extol the "reckless love of God." Wait ... "reckless"? Like a driver who barrels down the highway without regard for the consequences of his driving? Trust me, God is never without concern for the consequences of His actions. God's love is absolutely overwhelming and never-ending, but it is always intentional, not careless. The idea of God loving blindly without regard to outcome is not praiseworthy. The notion that God loves sinners with eyes wide open is stunning in its magnificence. Pick a better word.
There is a lot of music available for Christians. Some is really good; some, not so much. Some is genuine truth; some is, as it turns out, heretical. I'm not one of those who argues, "Reject worship music if it comes from a bad source." I prefer to analyze the content and see if God can be truthfully and genuinely glorified in it. I am not one who would prefer to gloss over the words because it makes me feel warmly toward God. I cannot imagine that God is glorified when I feel good about Him while declaring untruths about Him.
The Bereans were "more noble" than others; they examined the Scriptures daily to see if Paul was telling the truth (Acts 17:11). Surely we should be as diligent with our music. Paul told the Thessalonians to "test everything; hold fast what is good" (1 Thess 5:21). That's what I'm recommending. If we are to love God with our minds (Matt 22:37), wouldn't that include using our minds in regard to the music we listen to and even give back to Him? That's all I'm asking.
15 comments:
But Jesus is God I thought. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Now if the hymn said, "that thou my God the Father didst die for me," then yes, that would be in error.
What am I missing?
amen, well said Stan. I tried to listen to the new christian music, but its lost something along the way. Of course there are good bands out there but when I hear songs like reckless love, I was like what? Totally agree. Of course the 80s had bands that played some music that was questionable too. More Steve Taylors out there, less Lauren Daigle style music. As with everything written and said, I pray and ask for discernment when there is doubt, especially in the worship music at church. Plus, why is it when i have visited different churches in my search for a home, that the stage is so dark, and then a light show results. So common now to feel like I am attending a concert to be entertained and not worship my Lord.
I do have a problem with writers who sacrifice theological precision for the sake of fitting the rhyme scheme or meter of a song.
In the example you mention, I think that his point is theologically pretty sound, but it’s undermined by the word reckless. To use another example Crowder uses the word “innocent” when “not guilty” is probably more accurate theologically.
To be fair there are a lot of hymns that have questionable theology, and even more that are almost impossible to sing well.
I’ve also come to appreciate projected words over hymnals. Since most people don’t read music, or sing parts, expecting them to follow sheet music just makes it harder to do anything but try to keep up. While projecting the words puts people’s focus up out of the hymnbook, how many people hold them “properly” anyway, and projects their voices up and out.
I really noticed this when I was visiting my aunts church in FL. The hymns were unsingable, and in bad keys, everyone had their head down staring at the books and you couldn’t hear anyone but the choir, through the sound system.
There is a lot of good theology in hymns that’s been ignored and should be incorporated better, but i don’t think it’s an either or situation.
I also think it’s an area where there is plenty of room for good theology to be put to any music.
A few problems, Bruce.
1. Christianity is a monotheistic religion. One God. Not three. The Trinity is ONE God in three Persons. If God died, all three PERSONS would be dead because they are the same in essence. If we were tritheists, it would work ... but we wouldn't be monotheists. The Lord our God is One. Only one.
2. If God was three entities and one died, we would need to redefine "God" because He is no longer Eternal.
3. If God the Son died, all that exists would cease to exist (Col 1:17). End of story.
Jesus died. Jesus, the man. How do humans die? Their bodies cease to function and their spirit departs. What did Jesus's spirit consist of? God. Jesus's death was the separation of body and spirit -- God. God the Son recovered that body 3 days later. God didn't die. Jesus did.
Leigh, in a "seeker-sensitive," "marketing-driven" era of doing church. Churches like Saddleback Valley Community Church and Willow Creek Community Church are megachurches started on the market-driven idea. Find out what people want from a church, then give it to them. Seems nonsense on the face of it because the church doesn't belong to them. But that's the way a lot have gone. So, if entertainment is of high importance to people, it will "sell" in church, too. And I've been to too many churches where "worship" is a concert, not a participation, as a result. They seem to have forgotten the purpose of church -- God.
Craig, isn't it wonderful when you get a song (hymn or not) that bears genuine, true theology? They're out there. They are not a minority. I suspect that part of the problem is we've failed to do what I'm suggesting and think, "Hey, it came from a Christian source; it must be okay."
I've often wondered if you've taken the bit of "God died" beyond it's meaning. We all here agree that God can't die (ie cease to live), but Jesus is God, fully man and fully God, and He did die, but only His body. And as you pointed out, dying is simply releasing our spirit from our body, only to be given a new perfect body. Did Jesus not do that? The way you balk at that line seems like you are trying to separate Jesus' humanity from His deity. I don't think anyone singing that hymn is thinking that God is dead. Only that Jesus, who is God, died for us. There are far more worse grievances in worship music that veer much further from good theology. This one, in my opinion, has been a little too nit-picky. I agree that we need to be far more discerning about what we sing and say to God, but there is a point of thinking too far as well. Jesus wasn't a 200% being. He was fully human, fully God. Your way appears to be trying to split God the man from God the deity, like they are 2 separate entities, like God simply possessed a human body. I know you don't believe that, but trying to separate the two for a line in a hymn makes it appear that way and eschews your theology.
Jesus did die. We agree. Now, as for God Himself dying, if you'd be able to explain to me how "all things consist in Him" and yet nothing ceased to consist and how "God is eternal" but God died, I'd be happy to reconsider.
I completely agree that theology should be the first priority in music for corporate worship. After that should come “singabity”. I think that in songs that are not for corporate worship that there is more room for creativity and expression.
I remember the hubbub over the song Kiss Me by Sixpence None the Richer. They were a band who were Christians and they managed to have a pop hit with a song about romance. You would have thought they’d advocated Satan worship or something by the reaction. When they’d written a really nice pop song that was consistent with Christian values and much more wholesome than what was on the radio. It also gave them a chance to expose people to their more overtly Christian music. As long as nobody tries to stick it in a service, I don’t have a problem with it.
Yes, there are a lot of songs that I enjoy listening to that should not be stuck in worship. Not the same thing. I'm with you there.
nicely put Craig, with your last post, im in agreement with you and stan. Stan, as far as your answer to what the people want in a majority sure is true in megachurches. I was at a calvary chapel last year, that was average size but still the same thing. Maybe im just being too hard line on this. If its bringing people in and they listen to the Word, God will be exalted.
I agree that there are flaws with the seeker sensitive model, but I also think it’s possible to maintain Biblical fidelity and being more accessible to nonbelievers.
The hard thing is that church is primarily for the equipping of believers, which means that you want to have that. Yet non believers tend to show up at churches because they don’t know where to go.
I’m convinced that it’s possible to maintain an atmosphere that gives believers what they need, while still being welcoming to nonbelievers.
It just occurred to me what I think is the flaw in the seeker-sensitive model. It's not that I'm suggesting that churches should not be sensitive to "seekers" (setting aside for the moment the biblical problem with the term). It's that a seeker-sensitive church has "seeker-sensitive" as its aim, its purpose, its goal. Since churches are supposed to be for equipping believers and glorifying God, the aim of seeker-sensitive isn't helping, but that shouldn't preclude being of good quality, reaching out to people, meeting felt needs ... all this as part of being a church as opposed to being the goal of the church.
I think we’re on a similar page. I also agree that “seeker” probably isn’t the most accurate term. I agree with you on the primary mission of the church. But the reality is that people who are “seeking” God are/were likely to come to a church as part of that process. So the question is really one of balance. How does a church welcome seekers or new believers and provide what more mature believers need? It’s much more complex than a blog comment, but I do think that there is some room to make the on ramp appropriately welcoming, while equipping and challenging others.
Part of the answer is mature believers leading less mature believers.
"Part of the answer is mature believers leading less mature believers."
"Go into all the world and make disciples," Jesus said. That is has been the cry of my heart for decades and I've seen precious little of it.
Post a Comment