"Have you considered the simple fact that all three members of the triune Godhead sing? The Father is said to sing over His people: “He will rejoice over you with singing” (Zeph. 3:17, NIV). The Son of God sings with His disciples: “And after singing a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives” (Matt. 26:30). It also appears that the Son of God sings over us (i.e., His people) even now. Hebrews 2:12, using Psalm 22:22, says, “I will proclaim Thy name to My brethren, in the midst of the congregation I will sing Thy praise.” The Holy Spirit sings within the heart of each of God’s elect, according to Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16, both primary texts studied in this issue."
"I suggest that Christians have no choice but to be deeply concerned about music, especially the music that is used in their churches. This is true, if for no other reason than that half of what we do in public praise involves music. Surely this fact alone urges us to take seriously the music of our churches if we desire to reform them biblically."I thought this point needed some clarification:
"Finally, any philosophy that treats music as an end in itself is suspect and unhelpful. This is the “art for art’s sake” idea. It often drives certain churches that take great pride in their “high cultural” approach to liturgy and form in music. The answer to this is simple: Art for Christ’s sake is our goal!"
I assume that what he means is "Any philosophy that treats music IN THE CHURCH as an end in itself is suspect... etc" I believe that music outside of the church is an end in itself in many ways. For example, when I listen to an amazing solo jazz piano concert there is no mention of Jesus, in fact there are no lyrics to be heard at all. I don't think that this devalues the art form and I believe that God can find pleasure in the reflection of his creativity even from those who don't asknowledge him. Now, would this same solo jazz piano concert be appropriate for a worship service? Obviously not. Thus, "Art for Christ's sake is our goal" is a great banner to hang over the music of the church, but I'm not sure that we should lay a blanket of condemnation over art that is not done for Christ sake, (this has to be evaluted on a case by case basis) nor should we look down on those Christians who may not directly promote Jesus with their artistic expression.
(HT: Scooter)
3 comments:
yeah, i'm not real crazy about blankets of condemnation for any sake. so are we now saying that there is no room in the church for art that is not evangelistic or worshipful? help me understand why a beautifully played jazz solo in the church would not be glorifying to God. why is it that the creative gifting is required to be overtly evangelistic or worshipful when others are not? must the person who pays bills for the church write a bible verse on the checks? what about the carpet? should we have crosses or Jesus face woven into it so that it is not just carpet for carpets sake? for the guy who painted the walls, is his craftsmanship enough of a witness or does he need to paint scriptures over them as well? talk to me z.
John,
your pointed questioning is amazing.
I think the point is that in the church the goal is to draw people's attention to the glory of God. The center piece should be the cross. We are sinners and our minds do not gravitate toward the things of God. This a huge reason we need preaching! I know you know this. Let's apply your reasoning to preaching? Why not just have a great orator get up and display his God given creative abilities to communicate well to people through the spoken medium? Obviously this seems a bit absurd. i think you would agree.
It's not that a "beautifully played jazz solo" would NOT be glorifying to God. Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't depending on many different factors, but the better question is, what kind of music is going to draw my heart closer to Jesus and the humility of the cross on a consistent week by week basis? Instrumentals or songs that have Biblical content? I would have to say that I would definately vote for the latter.
Let me put it back on you...If you want to say that art in the church does not have to be evangelistic or worshipful, then where do you draw the line and by what standard do you draw it. What is your standard for evaluting art? hard question, I know. I ask not because I have an answer but just want to think about it more.
You said " why is it that the creative gifting is required to be overtly evangelistic or worshipful when others are not? " I love that question. Keep asking it. I agree. There seems to be a double standard in place.
thoughts?
I personally think Armstrong's comments about music not being an end in itself is primarily referring to music in the church; however, even if he wasn't, it would still apply. As you've discussed in past posts Z, excellent music done by unredeemed people with wrong motives still glorifies God via common grace, but this is beside the point.
I read Armstrong's point as directed to the believer. Of course, with a Christian worldview we would never view our music as an end in itself whether it be in the church or local bar. In either setting it is to the glory of God (of course lyrics that exalt sin would be the exception).
All this to say that I think the meaning behind this quote was primarily directed at churches that embrace a high-church model that results in musical snobbery and idolatry.
Post a Comment