When I saw Tim Challies' post on the book called, "Can we Rock the Gospel?" I knew that I had to check it out. It came in the mail today. I plan on blogging through each chapter and give a summary and reflections.
They start the chapter by highlighting this statement, "The time has come to take a calm, balanced, thorough, and Biblical look at what me might call "entertainment evangelism". This statement led me to ask my first question, "Entertaining for who". Do all people find "rock" music entertaining? I would say certainly not. I personally enjoy many forms of rock music, but definitely not all. What about the quality of the music? Should this not be a big part of the question no matter the genre? If the authors are affirming the continued use of hymns and organs or banjos or whatever (they have not said this yet), is it not possible that some people could also find this "entertaining" or are these musical forms inherently less entertaining? What is meant by entertainment and how do you know when you are being entertained? I am getting ahead of myself here...
In chapter one, the authors trace the path of music in the church in the last twenty years or so. They start in the early eighties when "rock" music began to emerge in a few churches here and there trace it to today where it is common place in most local churches. They make a strong claim that the influx of "rock" music (which they have yet to define) has much to do with the church growth movement that spread rapidly in the late eighties and nineties.
They then print many testimonies of people who for a variety of reasons have major problems with rock music in church. Here is one example from page 23, "At...Chapel the worship was awful. It was like pure noise. The drums were so loud that I couldn't hear the praise team sing. And the bass was really loud too. It was like going to a rock concert. And the songs they picked were not worshipful to say the least. They troubled my spirit". Sounds like this guy suffered from a bad sound engineer and pour worship leadership, but this has nothing to do with rock being wrong in and of itself.
I have to say from the outset I am having a hard time figuring out how the authors believe that a purely subjective and preference laden statement as found above does anything but take away from any argument that rock music is objectively wrong for the church. The problem is that I could also find just as many testimonies from people who have really strong feelings against any form of music that you could come up with to use in the church.
The author's make their feelings clear on page 34, where they say, "The author's make no secret of the fact that we count ourselves among those who are offended by rock music in God's service and are truly perplexed that so many other Christians go to such great lengths to make use of it in both worship and evangelism.
They then go on to warn that there are many people in our churches who are deeply hurt by the changing trends of music. They imply that leaders need to repent of placing this "stumbling block in the way of so many believers". Questions: So we remove rock, then do what? Go back to what form of music? Also, what about all those people who love rock music, would they not also be offended if we removed it all? From the beginning of this book I am finding that there are many many questions left unanswered. I am troubled that no definition of "rock" music is given, thus I feel they are critiquing something that has no real boundaries or distinctives. I am starting to think this project of blogging through this book might be a grand waste of time as I am very unimpressed (not because I disagree) with the approach the authors have taken in this first chapter, but since I am now a worship pastor I think this will be a good exercise for me.
They end the chapter by listing the four reasons why they believe this book needs to be read and understood.
1. Widespread ignorance in the church about rock music and the problems it has caused.
2. Biblical illiteracy on the subject of worship.
3. New and controversial teachings about the subject of rock music are taking hold in the church.
4. Incorrect assumptions about those who object to rock.
I would group myself in those who probably have "incorrect assumptions" about those who object to rock. I hope the authors can give some more solid arguments in the rest of the book beyond mere subjectivism. The authors claim they will give biblical arguments in the remaining chapters. I look forward to it what they will have to say.
(BTW - if you or anyone you know honestly believes that rock music is objectively wrong I would love to interact with them here and read what they have to say.)
6 comments:
My sentiments echo yours (with a wah-wah pedal, I might add!). Seriously, is music not amoral (without moral quality - neither moral or immoral... just music)? Harold Best does a great job of laying a foundation for this concept of music being "amoral" in his classic book Music Through the Eyes of Faith. I'm sure you have it (I believe I still have JT's copy - oops!).
Please do keep blogging through the book; it will be interesting whether there are any legitimate Scriptural points made.
Spaz that.
Z - I read this article tonight and all I can say is "oh boy".
I actually heard a very well known "radio theologian" from a very well known seminary in Texas speak on something similar. His argument was literally that hymns were much more spiritual and purposeful.
I won't get started on the topic, but needless to say I disagree with Mr. Radio Theologian and would argue that hymns are nothing more than the "modern praise songs" of old. Fanny Crosby, the Wesley brothers, Franz Gruber... oh those troublemakers.
Modern music in church is no different than presenting the sermon in modern English rather than King's English. Its about relevant communication with the intended audience.
Granted there are some weak songs out there and probably some poor worship leaders and soundmen... but that might be the case with any style of music. I've heard some horrible organists in my time too.
I guess the question is... are we hearing the music with the idea of worship or are we hearing the music with the idea of "this better please me or I'm going to complain!!"
Music is not neutral.
All art is communication, and the Bible says that communication can be "bad", "evil" or "corrupt".
Rock is always a sensual appeal to the flesh, stimulating the adrenal glands directly. It's objectively wrong.
Zach asked me some questions in an email and asked me to post a response. While one day I hope to put a website up, and go into this and other topics in a lot of depth, my current time doesn't allow that. So my answers will be brief, and I'd like to ask people to hold off any expectations of a large discussion.
Zach: "What kind of music do you use in your church?"
Lance: Hymns.
Zach: "Do you think it has the potential of being entertaining to
some or is it inherently unentertaining?" (edited for spelling)
Lance: I'm sure Hymns can be entertaining, as all music can be. I actually don't think that having some entertainment value, keeps it from being godly music; the real problem is that rock music is a music style that can only entertain the flesh, while hymns don't use the mechanism that stimulates the flesh (driving beat).
Zach: "Please help me understand how you define "rock" music?"
Lance: I haven't arrived at a precise definition of rock yet, so for now a definition by characteristics (as you and Tim pointed out they used in the book) is fine by me. I think the fact that the beat drives the music instead of melody and harmony is a big factor. I don't agree that volume has that much to do with it (I think rock has to use volume a lot, because they don't have the melody and harmony to engage the mind, and the noise "occupies" the mind).
Zach (comment): "I am a classically trained pianist and also with much experience in jazz - all forms of music have repetition."
Lance: I agree that all forms of music have repetition, rock just takes this to an extreme, using the repetition to "partially disable" (I know there's a better word or phrase for it, but can't come up with it right now) the cognitive processes, that melodious & harmonious music actually enhance.
The start of any discussion, has to begin with whether music is neutral or not. As far as I'm concerned, no communication is neutral. Letters are neutral, but onced formed into words, phrases and paragraphs, the composition is non-neutral. Music, art, films are the same way; once you put the atomic elements together, you have created something that has some kind of moral stance. I may not have the level of discernment to know what that is, but that's why I study this stuff all the time, so I can seperate the good from the evil, and live in a God-honoring way.
I personally would love to find some people who agreed that no music was neutral, so that we could discuss things and I could figure out some of the quandries I still have (like non-beat-driven jazz).
Lance -
You said:
"The start of any discussion, has to begin with whether music is neutral or not. As far as I'm concerned, no communication is neutral. Letters are neutral, but onced formed into words, phrases and paragraphs, the composition is non-neutral. Music, art, films are the same way; once you put the atomic elements together, you have created something that has some kind of moral stance. I may not have the level of discernment to know what that is, but that's why I study this stuff all the time, so I can seperate the good from the evil, and live in a God-honoring way.
I personally would love to find some people who agreed that no music was neutral, so that we could discuss things and I could figure out some of the quandries I still have (like non-beat-driven jazz). "
Question #1 - Since you don't have a precise definition of "rock" then you are admiting that your opinion is purely subjective based on how you define it, not on some agreed upon definition by musicians world wide, etc. This is a huge problem for you as no one really knows what rock is when you are talking about it?
It would be like saying "I hate chairs!!!" Someone may then ask "what is a chair?" and then you say "I don't know, but I just know that I hate them" Makes no sense and give no room to qualification and clarification.
What is clear is that you are committing classic legalism - Making something into a law that is extra Biblical and preference driven. Very very dangerous and potentially destructive to those you influence.
The reason you need people to help you think through this stuff ilike when you say you have some "quandries" it points to the fact that there is really no solution other than bury your head in the sand and say over and over "rock music is bad!"
Just admit that this is a preference issue and not a moral issue, then we'll be all good.
I'm glad you brought up jazz...
You have yet to explain exactly what it is about rock music (whatever that is... see the problem?) that makes it sinful? If it is the sound of the drums, please explain to me how hitting a drum is wrong? Does the beat make it wrong, does the way it's played make it wrong, etc?
Or if it's electric guitars what specifically about them makes them immoral. Would drums played loudly with a two and four beat and a guitar played with it with some medium distortion, but played purely instrumental (no lyrics) be consider immoral in your opinion? If so why? Please explain this to me in detail...
Lance--
would you mind offering some actual Scriptural evidence for statements such as "the Bible says that communication can be "bad", "evil" or "corrupt"" or "[rock music is] objectively wrong"?
it's all well and good for you to say "the Bible says such and such"...but even when you discussed this matter on Challies' website, I can't recall a single instance in which you actually offered Biblical support for any of your statements.
Post a Comment