Music has taken on a life of its own in the past 100 years and while it is important, necessary and a wonderful gift of God I think we misunderstand exactly what its purpose is in the life of the believer. Music? What is it? What makes it so special? Even outside of religious circles there are wars raised over music. The lyrics are too immoral for kids, the style incites violence, even Congressmen have taken music on as a political issue. So why all the hype about music?
While we might not all like the same types of music I have never met anyone in my life who said, “I just don’t like music. At all.”
One of the most unique things about music is that it is as close to creating something as humans will ever achieve. It is one of the only mediums we humans have to practically make something out of nothing. While there are rules that must be followed, you can even break the rules and it fall into the category of music. Maybe not quality music, but music nevertheless. But there are forms of music such as Jazz and Blues that came about from guys bending the usual rules of music.
You can take something that only exists in your mind and make it into something beyond yourself. There are those who just copy others, but then there are some of the greats who seem to have invented something totally new in the area of music. This is the part of the unique gift of music and music is a part of God’s creation.
God’s creation as we know is diverse. On the same planet we have deserts and rain forests. We have ostriches and orchids, elephants and butterflies. On the same level we have Eric Clapton and Beethoven, we have Japanese kabuki and the anonymous writer of songs in Africa. We have Bach and we have Miles Davis, and whether it is your preferred music this is all a part of God’s creation. The question has been posed to many great theologians “what kind of music does God like?” Their response is beautiful music. And I agree. God does like things that are beautiful. The issue is that the majority of these men will refer to Beethoven or Bach or Tchaikovsky or Luther as their example of what constitutes beauty in God’s eyes.
But Harold Best said it the most clear when he wrote, “
When we speak of the beauty of creation we must remember that we usually make selective choices among all of the things that God called good – things that to God, as well as their own kind, are highly desirable. We often choose parts of creation the way we choose art and music: some we like and some we don’t. This is all right as long as we don’t imply that God’s creation can be graded according to our limited concepts of beauty and worth. In doing this we can overlook the fundamental wonder and beauty of all creation along with the sum of the essential wholeness of the integrity of each created thing. Thus we may have no more aesthetic right to say that a sunset is more beautiful than an artichoke than we do to say that classical music is more beautiful than jazz or Gothic preferable to punk. Perhaps we need to compare Gothic with Gothic, and jazz with jazz before we get involved in trying to decide among them.
When we begin to think this way we understand that God has but one personal style, expended in endless variety. From this we learn that the singularity of process and consistency of style can manifest itself in endless variety.
So basically what I am saying is that for our conversation I am removing style off the table.
I have reasons that I choose the styles I have in our particular services, but I am not saying that what we do is more biblical or more God pleasing than anyone else’s style of music. Some find a butterfly more beautiful than a cockroach. God created both! Music is part of God’s creation and he set the rules and he is the only one that can truly judge its beauty. Because in reality he is the only one that knows a man’s heart.
If you get hung up on the issue of style and make the assumption that you know what God likes then you have assumed yourself to be god. We have no biblical grounds whatsoever not even have an implied set of verses that dictate what musical styles please God and which ones don’t.
There is no musical equivalent in the NT to Jesus’ words: “this is what Moses said, but I say to you…”
You can read more on this in the Harold Best book. “Music Through the Eyes of Faith.”
Tweet
36 year old husband, father, pastor, singer, musician, reader, eater, rider, watcher,
Scott,
This is an idea that I’ve struggled to define. In the realm of “Christian” music, I’ve always determined what I’ve thought of as good music as music that is “beautiful.” But when I try to describe what makes it beautiful I’m at a loss. It has absolutely nothing to do with style. I love traditional hymns, contemporary praise and worship and old-time (pre-1940) gospel songs. I guess one element would be whether or not the song is oriented toward God or oriented toward man. Which brings God more glory, “O for a thousand tongues to sing” or “I’ve got a mansion just over the hilltop?” Personally I would rather dwell on the glories of God instead of what’s in it for me.
Scott,
This post has nothing to do with corporate worship. I’m going to try my best to answer in this post which style of music God likes the best in regards to corporate worship. So if you find my comments a little off topic – can’t help it. I tried to talk to you in your other post, since that was about corporate worship, but you thought it better to have me answer in this one. You say:
“We have no biblical grounds whatsoever not even have an implied set of verses that dictate what musical styles please God and which ones don’t.”
No we don’t. Fortunately, though, God has given us principles on how we should worship him. This is what I can’t stand about the “Heart of Worship.” I hope no one misunderstands what I am about to say here but I’m gonna say it anyway. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. That is, even people who mean well can still be wrong. And not everything about worship is in the heart. There are definitely some physical attributes that matter to God as well. For instance, I think most Christians would agree a woman should not be leading worship if she is immodestly dressed, no matter how pure her motives are. Indeed, her heart could very well be in the right place because she might not even know it’s wrong to dress like that as a Christian, especially since she sees other Christians dressing immodestly. And though this specific post isn’t about immodest dress in the church, it does go to show that there are some physical things, not just heart things, that matter in worship as well. In fact, I believe if your heart is truly in the right place then you will care enough about God to obey his commands. God laid out all over the Old Testament how his chosen ones were to worship Him (I don’t have time to find you hundreds of verses for this one, but if you have read the Bible then you know what I’m talking about so don’t pretend you don’t.) The Jews were all the time being chastised by God for mixing pagan practices with their worship toward God. Why would we, as Christians, think God no longer cares about how we have mixed rock music (as pagan, in its nature, as anything I can think of) with our worship toward Him. On this matter, did Jesus ever say, “this is what Moses said, but I say to you…?” I think not!
It seems like you are saying that since God created everything, then we have no status as finite humans to judge one thing as more beautiful than another. Since God created both the butterfly and the cockroach, one must be just as beautiful as the other. And if we as humans make the assumption that we know which one God likes more then we have assumed ourselves to be god. Right? Here are some thoughts for you.
We all know that when God created everything he looked at it and called it good (Genesis 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31). Things after creation probably did look good because sin had not yet entered into the world. Once we enter sin into the picture, though, we see that many bad things happened as a result. Any time God has to curse His creation (Genesis 3:14-19), my guess would be those things are probably no longer good. Just a guess, though. We know that God did not consider all creation good after the fall, because if it had all been good still, then there would have been no reason for God to change it. Snakes did not crawl on their belly before the fall, but after (Genesis 3:14). Women did not have pain giving birth to children before the fall, but after (3:16). Even the ground did not produce thorns and thistles before the fall. Only after (3:18).
So isn’t it obvious, then, that the reason why women hate snakes and find them ugly is because of the curse. God said to the serpent, “I will put enmity between you and the woman.” I mean, isn’t it more or less “natural” to think of snakes as ugly? And since death and diesease entered the world because of sin (Romans 5:12) then isn’t the difference between a butterfly and a cockroach the fact that one carries dieases and one doesn’t. Honestly, I don’t think the “cockroach” as we know it existed before the fall. It’s much too ugly and disease ridden. I’m not assuming myself to be God by saying that. It’s called common sense. I think there is a general concensus that butterflies are more beautiful than cockroaches. And I’d be willing to bet God thinks so too, since He made us in His image. The cockroach, along with the thorns and snakes, is obviously one of those changes that occured only after the fall.
You might think I am making a point about cockroaches and butterflies, but I believe what I am saying goes right along with everything else in creation. What I am saying has implications when it comes to music styles. The Bible says everyone has sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). That is to say, man cannot be perfect. Why, then, would I presume that God finds every little piece of music that flows off my fingertips “beautiful.” You said, “If you get hung up on the issue of style and make the assumption that you know what God likes then you have assumed yourself to be god.” But by saying that you are assuming God must like every style of music. Are you assuming yourself to be god? I agree that there are some good styles of music for corporate worship. So why do you have a hard time accepting that there could be bad styles?
All sin is bad, right? Of course. But that doesn’t mean every single sin is just as bad as every other sin. Murdering a person in cold blood is not as bad as cheating on a test. So couldn’t someone also argue that all music is good, but there are some styles of music better than others? And aren’t we as Christians supposed to give God our best? Well, how is offering rock music which is deeply rooted in sex, drugs, rebellion and the occult giving God our best?
da,
your comment is so full of contradictions that even I would rather you not try to help me. You’re making me look bad.
Besides, you didn’t even tell us your denominational affiliation like it commands us to do in the side bar. You’re going to have to do it more than once, so I suggest starting now.
I don’t know what affiliation I am with. I’m just a white guy who grew up in a poor black neighborhood in the slums of Miami, went to a poor black school, and went to a poor black church that taught liberation theology and hatred towards America and all white people. I dropped out of school when I was 15. My dad kicked me out of the house when I was 16. When I joined the Army at 17, I met a reformed southern baptist chaplain who introduced me to Christ and taught me a good amount of theology. Now my wife and I, who is black, have children of our own and study together and worship together at a racially mixed reformed baptist church that has a traditional worship service. But I’m the same as you, Stephen. No church tells me what to believe and not all my beliefs reflect that of my own church. For instance, I believe there is such a thing as good lies, women should wear head coverings, and I’m all about blowing up abortion clinics and other forms of Biblically justified civil disobedience.
Stephen, what exactly makes rock music pagan? How do you define “rock music”? For example, is the style in which Elvis Presley sang even considered rock by today’s standards?
You make reference to what scripture has to say about mixing worship with pagan practices. However, what we see in the OT mostly has to do with the people of Israel falling into the worship of pagan gods. I don’t think that has anything to do with music style.
Let me ask you this: How literally should we apply the principles of worship as laid out in the OT? Since the Bible makes no mention of pianos, pipe organs, or amplification systems, does their use in church make a mockery of worship? I’m not trying to be facetious. There are people who believe that very thing.
When it comes to music, I think of it as any other form of art. If we say that rock music is evil, but classical is fine, can we then condemn Monet’s impressionistic style in favor of Da Vinci’s more realistic paintings? Or does that have more to do with personal taste?
In my opinion, it isn’t the medium or style we should be worried about, but the subject matter. Just because photography is the chosen medium of men like Larry Flynt doesn’t mean we should also shun the awe-inspiring work of Ansel Adams. It isn’t photography that’s evil; it’s how it’s used.
Lee Shelton IV,
Rock-n-roll has a long sad history of being extremely rebellious and pagan in nature and I’m not even going to get started on hip-hop. Christians have managed to create a unique musical style in contemporary worship. It’s still rock but not as hard as the latest secular versions. It’s more laid back with a hint of the Eagles and the worship sets have fallen into a very familiar (boring?) order of service. The traditionals have had some guidelines to restrain them, but contemporaries have no rules, so when things become too familiar they bring in louder, jazzier, edgier and more questionable material. Contemporary worship music will continue to be on this slippery slope and worship leaders will be forced by circumstances to accept any musical style, even that which is distasteful and offends many.
A lot of people seem to think that music in and of itself is amoral. That music isn’t bad by itself, and that it only becomes bad if given the wrong lyrics. As a result of accepting this argument, many contemporary music people see no need for further discussion about musical styles in church. Even in this post Scott said he is “removing style off the table.” In debate, they always change the discussion from music to lyrics. But this does them no good because they refuse to hear any argument that music might be moral or immoral simply in and of itself.
When contemporary worship leaders like Scott say music is amoral they aren’t really speaking of generic notes, chords, melody, rhythms and harmony. They are defending a specific musical style that is represented by a song they like. No one who sings a song is singing just the generic notes and chords. Everyone is singing someone’s song. Since humans write it, the song cannot help but inherit a certain style from that human writer. Now, is it possible for man to corrupt music? To say music is amoral is irrelevant. The real issue that must be addressed is whether or not a particular music style can be associated with a moral dimension. The rock music that is played in churches for praise music also has the same moral dimension as other rock songs. It is clearly and unequivocally associated with immorality, particularly promiscuous and adulterous sex, the glorification of drugs, and rebellion against authority (even parents). Decades of the rock culture have permanently stamped that music style with those forms of immorality. Changing the lyrics and substituting Christian musicians cannot remove that stigma. That is why so many Christians are offended when it’s brought into the church. And instead of respecting the fact that we’re actually offending our brothers and sisters in Christ who hold strong convictions, we usually tell the ones we’re offending to find another churc. That reminds my x-favorite punk songs “Insult to Injury”
When I ask modern worship leaders why they don’t just stick to hymns, I always hear something along the lines of, “Well, we want to play music that will reach the lost and music that people in the congregation can relate with.” But the good news is that all we need to reach outu to the lost is the truth, which God has already given to us. Believe me when I say that no one was more disappointed with the church’s choice of music than I was as a teenager. I was more punk than anybody else I knew. But what brought me to Christ wasn’t a church that had a punk praise band. It was a church and a family that held the truth for all to see and who practiced living that truth daily. I also have a good friend at work who used to be a gangsta. It wasn’t Christian rap that saved him either. Trust me. It was out of a spirit of rebellion that my heart wanted to sing punk. But it is out of a spirit of truth that my heart wants to sing a new song to the Lord.
When people convert to Christianity they’re told to come just as they are. That Jesus will accept them no matter what sin they have and God won’t judge them for it even if people do. So as they infiltrate the church they bring in all the fleshy pleasures from their pagan lives into it as well. I recently received a leaflet inviting me to a local church. The soothing words assured me: “At Such and Such Church come as you are” To some churches this means just casual attire. But at this particular church it meant accepting one another without judgments or agendas. It means helping people connect to God without jumping artificial religious hurdles. The slogan of the church is, “Church the way it was meant to be, because you matter to God and to us” In this leaflet, the church advertised its relaxing atmosphere, its life messages and, of course, its contemporary music. Is it just me or does anyone else see this coming across as bait-and-switch advertising. This is a repositioned Baptist church with AWANA (a weekly children’s Bible club found in fundamental and conservative Baptist churches in America), which would typically place them in the conservative branch of the SBC. If that is the case, then sooner or later any visitors they might have are going to discover, much to their dismay, that there are plenty of judgments in the Bible, and that Christ has a definite agenda for their life that has absolutely nothing to do with their comfort zone. Discipleship is not a self esteem journey. Growth means change, change always includes loss, and loss is always painful. You cannot keep all of your old habits and pleasures. And who is to say that a visitor isn’t going to consider the membership requirement of believer’s baptism as an artificial religious hurdle? The whole “Come as you are, God accepts you where you are at” doctrine is closely aligned with the tolerance movement that is popular in our secular society. That little advertisement I received is laying the foundation for some serious disillusionment down the road. So as they infiltrate the church they bring in all the fleshy pleasures from their pagan lives into it as well. We want people to know that Christianity is about change and that Christ can change the chief of sinners. That’s good news. But, my point was, some of us are saying to our visitors, “You don’t have to change.” Which is what we’re telling them when we play contemporary rock in worship. God does care about how we worship him. Yes, even physical aspects of worship matter to God. A lot of the time when I see someone tapping their foot or clapping in church, I have a hard time believing it’s the spirit of God moving them and not the beat of the drums. It’s hard to not want to feel good about myself when I worship like that. And feeling good about myself is exactly what I don’t want to do when worshipping a holy and just God. Looking upward at projected words on a screen and raising my hands all take away from the true heart of my personal worship experience with the Lord. As a practical matter, I like the words in a hymnal so I can look down and keep my emotions in check easier.
I recently got married. But before I got married I was going through some very good premarital counseling. Our counselor had us read a book by Gary Thomas called “Sacred Marriage.” It’s a great book for couples for any of you married people out there who haven’t read it yet. In one of the chapters, Gary Thomas is talking about people who grow up in a lifestyle of sexual immorality. Often times these fornicators convert to Christianity and get married to really Godly spouses. And it is a well documented fact that when they have sexual relationships with their new Godly spouses, the overwhelming majority of them actually feel guilty about having sex. Even though there’s nothing wrong with having sex with someone who is your spouse. They still feel dirty, guilty and ashamed to do it. The reason why is because of how they used to abuse sex as a non-Christian. It was the fact that having sex with their new wife makes them want to have it more and more, and because of the sinful association that it brings to their minds, they don’t feel like it is good to do it now, even though it’s totally fine within the realms of marriage. To explain his point, Gary Thomas wrote about a young man who used to listen to Johann Sebastian Bach while performing animal sacrifices and rituals in the cult he used to be in. Then, he converted to Christianity and started attending church regularly. But the first time he heard the church organist play “Toccata and Fugue in D minor” he had to run out of the church with his hands over his ears. And the reason why is because of his past associations with that song, listening to that music again made him want to do the things that Christ helped him turn away from. Now . . . he is an extreme example. Most people don’t have those sinful associations with Bach, so I think it’s pretty safe for the church to play. However, there is a whole generation of people out there who have sinful associations with rock music. Rock music brings back good memories of sexual immorality, drugs, alcohol abuse, rebellion and even occult rituals. The reason why so many young Christians have such a hard time understanding this is because a lot of us grew up on dc Talk and Newsboys and have a completely different association with rock and roll than the rest of the world, which is why I think it’s okay for some Christians to listen to rock in their home. But as a form of corporate worship, it isn’t wise. The Bible says not to do anything that will cause your brother to stumble, so what are we thinking by playing music that a whole generation struggles with? I never got into the drugs or sexual immorality associated with rock and roll. But unfortunately for me, I was extremely rebellious because the music I listened to as a teenager influenced me to be rebellious. It’s not enough for me to change the lyrics of that music, Even now as a grown man, I have to listen to a different style of music altogether if I am going to listen to any music at all. If I don’t, I find myself cussing and feeling emotions of anger against my church and family, even my wife. When people come in off the street and into our churches and hear rock music, how are they going to know that Christ wants them to change? And, if they do convert why would we want to make it easier for them to backslide if we keep playing music that they associate with a past sinful life? Think about it.
Stephen, said I’m going to try my best to answer in this post which style of music God likes the best in regards to corporate worship.
The above is one of them most arrogant statements I have ever read.
The issue is that you can’t see the problems right in front of your face. It is very true God has prescribe how he wants to be worshipped, but mentions nothing, zero, nadda, about music style. He said there should be music and singing. He does mention lifted hands, kneeling, shouting for joy, clapping, weeping all as acceptable forms of worship. Do you do those things on Sunday’s as well?
You are the one who has chosen to judge what is God honoring and what is not and you view it all through Western glasses. There is an entire world out there who worships God every Sunday and they don’t have hymn books and don’t know who Martin Luther is. Are they doing it wrong? Scripture teaches that it is man who looks on the outward appearance, but God looks at the heart. Your arguments carried out to their logical conclusion suggest that no new music can be done in corporate worship. So did God wait thousands of years for the Baroque period before he started liking the music?
And please stop with the OT pagan practices. That is like comparing apples with Cadillac.
and please don’t presume to know me. At no point in these post have I claimed to be a contemporary worship leader. I also have made no claims that music is amoral.
You also said, The traditionals have had some guidelines to restrain them, but contemporaries have no rules
and who makes these rules. If you are referring to the regulative principal let’s discuss the rules. Using the RP Calvin and Spurgeon didn’t allow instruments in their church. Do you have instruments in your church? According to those men the rules stated no instruments. According to the rules some say we should only sing Psalms. Do you only sing Psalms in your church? According to the rules say you should. At least as the some see the rules.
The rules that scripture actually dictates give us room to minister in our setting. We don’t have explicit instructions on the “how to” of communion. So in Russia they pass around on large cup of wine and everyone drinks from the same cup. In America we pour it into tiny plastic cups.
We are told to immerse in water in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It is pretty clear the mode of baptism in scripture is immersion considering the actual word used in scripture is immerse in water, but many don’t follow that rule.
Since the rules you are referring to have only been around a few hundred years, were all the people prior to the reformation doing it wrong?
“A lot of people seem to think that music in and of itself is amoral. That music isn’t bad by itself, and that it only becomes bad if given the wrong lyrics. As a result of accepting this argument, many contemporary music people see no need for further discussion about musical styles in church.”
This is an interesting point raised by Stephen, and I have to concur. Given the fallen state of the world, I don’t think we’re in a position to label anything as amoral.
On a side note, I have always agreed with the statement that, “While we might not all like the same types of music I have never met anyone in my life who said, “I just don’t like music. At all.”
However, a couple of years ago, I met a guy who claimed that he flat out didn’t like music of any kind or form – period.
Patrick
http://www.theologyofomaha.com
Yes, any time that we presume to know what God likes and dislikes from an extra-biblical standpoint, we have opened ourselves up to looking very foolish.
Fundamentalism exists because it has added men’s rules to God’s rules, much like what Judaism did to God’s Law.
One must remember that God isn’t tempted, is never bored, is never out of control of His emotions. Humans judge their likes based on all of the above plus more. But God does not. He likes that which reflects Him.
If you can sing in such a way that reflects characteristics of God, then you should sing in such a way.
So, let me ask these questions: Does God have emotions? Does God have all emotions? Which emotions does God not have? Which emotions does God have? Does God want us to reflect the emotions He has? How do different styles of music help us in this endeavor to glorify God?
“And please stop with the OT pagan practices. That is like comparing apples with Cadillac. “
I’m glad you have a passionate opinion, but it would be nice if you did a better job of explaining how these two aren’t comparable. If you want to convince me all worship styles are acceptable to God, you’ll have to do better than calling pagan practices an apple and rock and roll a Cadillac. Not very persuasive.
“Using the RP Calvin and Spurgeon didn’t allow instruments in their church. Do you have instruments in your church?”
For the record, Calvin did stop using music for a short period of time but did return it to his congregation after further review and conviction. I’m not sure about Spurgeon, but he was a Baptist and I have never cared to study his practices. We do have a nice full orchestra of instruments at my church, though, and I love it.
“We are told to immerse in water in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It is pretty clear the mode of baptism in scripture is immersion considering the actual word used in scripture is immerse in water, but many don’t follow that rule.”
Actually, when Jesus was baptized he was sprinkled. I can prove that too, but I don’t want to get off topic. Maybe in couple days you can post about that, too.
Wow. What an amazing collection of views. I’m certain that God likes the music I like. He doesn’t like things I don’t like (e.g rap, hip hop, anything that sounds like Whitney Houston is singing it). God likes hymns because they sound churchy. He likes classical music (but not the new dissonant stuff) because the Messiah is classical. He likes rock, but not metal. Folk music is OK because old people like it. Same goes for Gospel Quartets, but I think He can only take that in measured doses. Medeival chants are cool, but do you think God understands Latin – oh wait – that’s CATHOLIC!!! Yep, I’m certain of all this because, well, umm, because I know I’m right. I’ll have the scripture references later when I find my Bible. I know that in each of the categories I don’t like, there are many examples of people who do un-Christian things, like drugs and stuff. So, the style of music is guilty by association, right?
Oh yeah, I’ve got a picture of Jesus being baptized and it’s the real thing taken by one of the other disciples and passed down secretly. It’ll be on eBay soon…. Does anyone know if Jesus was a Democrat or Republican?
Seriously, God enjoys whatever gives him glory. The styles will change as time moves on. God has given us the incredible ability to create wonderful things, even though not all may find that thing pleasing to their ears. I love singing Handel’s Messiah, I love singing hymns, I love Reliant K, and I love David Crowder. All (and more) give glory to God. We are truly blessed to have such a diverse selection of music and styles available to us. God is good.
The style will change as time moves on? How come hymns were good for hundreds of years and all of a sudden it’s the 20th century and we think we don’t need or want them anymore? How come we think we are special?
Oh yeah, Jim, I’m sure a Relient K really brings a lot of glory to God by singing about how marilyn manson ate his girlfriend. If it brings so much glory to God, let’s sing that song on Sunday mornings.
Hoo boy. Jesus was sprinkled. Maybe Bigfoot was too. I’m sorry, Stephen, I just looked at your blog, and I am concluding that you have a few too many things on your mind to deal with this issue in a rational manner.
God deals only in reality and truth, being the source of them.
You wanna talk bigfoot, come on my blog and talk bigfoot. Stop taking cheap shots when you have no idea what you’re even talking about. You wanna talk about sprinkling? Since no one else wants to address my comments on worship:
John’s baptism of the people was a “baptism of repentance for remission of sins.” Since Jesus was without sin, a baptism of repentance for remission of sins would have been hollow mockery. If His baptism is to be considered as an example to his followers, then why are not his circumcision and keeping of the feasts also considered as examples for us to follow? See, if He was only trying to lead by example, to receive the same kind of baptism as the people would have made Him guilty of acting out a lie. this is why John the Baptist refused to baptize Jesus (Matthew 3:14) until Jesus explained to him that He was being baptized, not as evidence of faith or repentance for remission of sins, but “to fulfill all righteousness.” According to Deuteronomy 6:25, the definition of righteousness means obedience to the law. In the time of Christ, there was no law other than that of the old testament. if the Old Testament law is the only law that Jesus could have been referring to, then Jesus was baptized to fulfill the old testament law.
In Galatians 4:4 paul states that Christ was made under the law. In luke 2:21 Jesus was circumcised in obedience to leviticus 12:3. Jesus was presented in the temple in Luke 2:22-23 which says it was “according to the law of Moses.” A little later in verse 42 Jesus went up to jerusalem to observe the passover which was in obedience to exodus 34:23 and he also observed the jewish feasts in john 7:10, mark 14:12, and luke 22:8 which were all commandments in the law of moses. Now, the part of the law that Jesus was obeying when He was baptized is found in Numbers 8:6-7. “Take the Levites from among the other Israelites and cleanse them. Thus you shall do to them to cleanse them: sprinkle the water of purification upon them.” the levites were priests. Jesus was (and is) our High Priest forever (Hebrews 3:1, 4:14, 5:5, and 9:11). Just like the Levites, Christ’s baptism was the ceremonial act of His ordination into the priesthood. It was the physical rite that set him apart as priest and a minister of spiritual and holy things. however, before a man could become a priest, three things were required. First, he must be thirty years of age (Numbers 4:3, 4:47). Secondly, he must be called by God, as was aaron, the first high priest (Exodus 28:1). And thirdly, he must be sprinkled with water (Numbers 8:6-7) by one already a priest. Now let’s see if Jesus meets these requirements. Was Jesus thirty years old when he was baptized? Yes (Luke 3:23). Was Jesus called? Yes (Hebrews 5:4-10). Was Jesus sprinkled with water by one who was already a priest? Yes, isn’t it obvious that Christ’s baptism by john (an essene) was his final step into becoming a priest? Now to hit the point home. How do we really know Jesus’ baptism was the same kind of baptism in the OT given to the priesthood? When Christ cleansed the temple, he had the priestly authority to do such a thing. We note that when Jesus cleansed the temple (Matthew 21:12, Mark 11:15) the jews came to Him asking who gave Him the authority to do such a thing, Jesus cited them to john’s baptism, which He had received and asked: “was it from heaven or of men?” Clearly, in the mind of Jesus there was a direct connection between his priestly authority and His baptism by John. He indicates that if John’s baptism was from heaven, and He truly believed it was, then He had truly been ordained a priest and thus possessed authority to cleanse the temple.
Scott, David, why don’t you let me stick with UFO’s and Bigfoot and leave worship and baptism to the real theologians
This blog’s a joke. Y’all have the last word. I’m outta here.
You can thank me later, Scott.
d.a. –
I did not say that one style would replace another. But tastes change over time. Hymns still are and will be relevant. Chants are still relevant, but we rarely use them any longer (except “Let all mortal flesh keep silent”, which is a “near chant”).
As for Reliant K music, most if not all of it is not “worship” music, but it is good and edifying. The song you are referring to is not crude. It is about a girl who once believed in the Truth, got wrapped up in MTV, and Satan stole her mind – hence the Marilyn Manson reference. She now believes in sin. Go read the lyrics yourself – they are available on the internet.
In case you did not notice from my post, I like satire and humor . Reliant K frequently employs satire and humor (Sadie Hawkins Dance), along with some serious themes (Be My Escape). Best of all the music is edifying and sounds great (to me).
Scott, how come when Stephen posted a comment about worship on a forum about worship you told him he was off topic and told him he had to comment on a different post? How come when you bring up baptism and bigfoot, on a forum about worship that is all of a sudden on topic? How come the side bar says this blog is meant for discussion, when all I have seen is people building themselves up by tearing down what someone else believes? How come Stephen was corrected when he went off topic, but David will get away with it and thinks you will thank him for it later? How come all my questions about worship have been ignored? How come Stephen’s questions about worship get answered with cocky attitudes about baptism and bigfoot?
Stephen, that was a good comment about baptism. I never thought of it like that before. I’ll be looking forward to seeing how people try to refute it. Though something tells me it was so good they might not even try
D.A., Stephen didn’t appreciate your comments. In fact, he said you were making him look bad by agreeing with him, so it seems odd that you would rise to his defense.
While my comment was directed to Stephen, I think it applies to what you said. What it boils down to is a matter of taste and (dare I say it?) cultural relevance. For example, I certainly wouldn’t expect a church in India to sing the same songs and hymns that we sing here in America. I don’t really care for the twangy sound of the sitar, but if that’s what they choose to use in their worship services, does that mean their style of music is bad or somehow inferior to ours?
If you’re going to condemn certain styles of music, then what standard should we use? The Bible isn’t specific on this issue. Granted, if the music being played in church is so loud and dissonant that it distracts you from worshiping, then it isn’t appropriate. That doesn’t necessarily make it bad or wrong.
Just because many rock musicians engage in sinful behavior doesn’t mean that rock music itself is “deeply rooted in sex, drugs, rebellion and the occult.” If that’s how you determine whether or not something is good or bad, then, considering that sex, drugs, rebellion and the occult have been with us since the fall of man, you would have to deem just about all forms of music evil.
This blog is for “helpful” and “respectful” conversation as noted in the sidebar. Some people’s views aren’t helpful and/or respectful.
Some comments in the last few posts remind me of the worship wars at large. They are filled with many opinions and very little theology. Most people refer to their own preferences that have no probative value, biblically speaking. Usually the whole thing goes from being a discussion about ecclessiology to non sequitur issues.
I affirm what Scott has tried to do in these posts: focusing our minds upon what the true meaning of worship is and what the value of music is in relation to worship.
And I am very suspicious when people say that they submit to no one or nothing but their Bible. Ironically such attitudes are not consistent with biblical ecclessiology. And that issue is very applicable to how certain individuals are treated in such discussions as those in these threads.
I would encourage such men as those who find themselves as odds with this to first find themselves affirming and being affirmed by a biblical local church. And then enter this discussion of what passes as biblical worship in the local church.
Grace and peace.
Just a quick note on the “sprinkling” of Jesus…
I’ll be the first to admit that I’m no expert on the ancient cleansing baptismal rituals of the Levitical priests. All I know is that “In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. And when he came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove” (Mark 1:9-10).
Lee shelton, I have come to know Stephen a lot in the last couple years. He didn’t do anything toward that I have not done to him in the past. I can take what I dish out, and Stephen knows that.
Funny, how everyone wanted to jump the gun on that baptism thing, and now that Stephen has commented on it no one is even mentioning it. Are you people that badly defeated that suddenly this post is about worship again?
“”In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. And when he came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove” (Mark 1:9-10).”
I don’t think anyone denies that Jesus was baptized in the river. The issue here is was he sprinkled in the river or dunked? That verse when it says “came up out of the water” could refer to Jesus walking out of the river
John says in 3:23 of John the Baptist’s baptisms that he baptized in Aenon near Salim “because water was plentiful there.”
You don’t need plenty of water if you are sprinkling. End of debate.
Affusion and sprinkling proponents admit that John’s baptism is a problem for their position.
Jesus not only was immersed by John, but Jesus’ ministry also baptized like John’s — even baptizing more disciples than John.
Luke recorded all of this and then wrote Acts. He began the book of Acts with a reminder to Theophilus that what is written in Acts is based upon what is written in Luke’s Gospel. Thus in Acts Luke did not address mode issues anymore. Immersion was already established.
And the Didache (c.100) affirms that this was the norm of the New Covenant church.
Again, lets look at the text: BECAUSE there was much water there.
End of Debate.
Now lets get back to that which Scott has addressed that some do not want to deal with for whatever reason.
Keep up the good writing Scott. Most of us are reading, learning, and reforming our minds to God’s Word.
D.A. says Scott, how come when Stephen posted a comment about worship on a forum about worship you told him he was off topic and told him he had to comment on a different post?
The off topic comment you are referring to was on a post that had nothing to do with music. Stephen asked a question about music (he called is worship, but misspoke) and I asked him to keep it on topic and I would address his question later. Which I did under this post.
I brought up Baptism as part of the discussion about rules governing corporate worship. Which is appropriate and on topic. Stephen then took what I said and didn’t address the point of the comment about rules. He made it about modes of baptism. Again that is on a post Jason did last week. So if you want to discuss whether or not Jesus was sprinkled (and can prove it) which is more absurd and arrogant than the previous comment about knowing what kind of music god likes, then take that discussion there. I am sure Jason would be more than willing to discuss it.
and last, but also most important. It’s my blog, so I do what I want.
In fact I will help this baptism discussion along.
Now that we are back on topic:
Scott was is the validity of these questions:
Does God have emotions? Does God have all emotions? Which emotions does God not have? Which emotions does God have? Does God want us to reflect the emotions He has? How do different styles of music help us in this endeavor to glorify God?
And how do those question OR do those questions relate to this discussion? If so, how?
In other words, is it possible to start with Theology Proper and the characterisics of God himself and then work our way towards what music He likes?
I simply want to make the point that, if Jesus were baptized by John ‘for the remission of sins’, it is probaby because Jesus Christ came to die for our sins. “For our sake He made Him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Cor. 5:21). So Christ identified with us in His baptism as we are identified with Him in ours. That’s hardly “hollow mockery”. It’s imputation, and it’s a good thing.
And, for the record, the Bach illustration actually makes Scott’s point, in my mind. Even more so the sex illustration. If I follow Stephen, then because someone’s spouse thinks sinful things after sex we ought to give up sex altogether in order to avoid sinful memories. Not very redemptive. For my part, I will not encourage our married folk to give up sex or Bach…or power chords. I almost had to give up the organ once because I saw a monkey do something lewd while dancing to a ditty. I got over it, and thank God I did, because “A Mighty Fortress is Our God” just isn’t the same without it.
I think you are pushing a point too far when you say that all styles of music were created by God. By the same argument, the pornography that some people call art would also be something created by God. I do not believe that God created pornography or has any tolerance for it.
You spent quite a bit of time extolling how music is our opportunity to create something ourselves. Why on earth would you think that every song that is written by a man would bring praise to God? Do you think every book that is written brings praise to God? Every picture that is painted? Every photograph that is shot? Every sculpture that is carved? The nature of fallen man is that he twists his God-given abilities and uses them for evil rather than good. Isn’t that something of the essence of sin?
I thought both DA and Stephen had some good points and others trashed their views without stating any good reasons. Stephen also said something negative about DA, which I did not understand, but then I am merely a middle aged mother, in December (read: Christmas season), and I have about a million things I should be doing rather than reading blogs right now.
If you want to focus on the lyrics rather than the style, then please be my guest. Some of the songs that are presented to us in church have riduculously stupid words. I, personally, stumble more on the stupidity, man-ceteredness, wrong theology, unintelligible nonsense and bad grammar of these songs than I do on the style of the music.
One song that used to drive me up a wall (before I made a covenant with myself to try to stop noticing) was in the song “Days of Elijah”–it says, “These are the days of your servant David rebuilding your temple of praise.” Excuse me? How about if we ask the song writers to, um, READ THE BIBLE before they write songs about it.
That’s a nit-pickie point, but there are many others. How about the otherwise very pretty song that ends with the line, “Like rose, trampled on the ground, You took the fall, and…” (WHAT?) “thought of me, above all.”
Another one, “You are brighter than my darkest night…” Well. I should certainly HOPE so. Brighter than the brightest morning star goes a lot farther as a sentiment of worship, in my mind.
I’ll stop now. I have Christmas cards to write. Wow. I am not exactly in the mood.
I just re-read your original post, so please, don’t jump all over me if you think I misinterpreted it. There were a lot of comments between your post and my comment. At one point you all completely stopped talking about what kind of music God likes and started discussion the baptism of Jesus (?). (Which I believe was a foreshadowing of His death and resurrection.)
So if I lost a little grasp of what you originally said, please forgive me. I had remembered that you said something that sounded like you thought that every kind of style of music was a creation of God and somehow beautiful to Him, but when I went back and reread it, I couldn’t find where I got that. I apologize.
While we cannot say what style of music God likes, I think we can make wise judgments (yes, I will dare to use that word) about which styles of music are good to use in corporate worship based on how we see people responding.
If music makes people feel comfortable coming to church in spaghetti strap camisole tops and bouncing around until their breasts jiggle (I am mainly referring to women), I would say it was not a wise style of music to use for worship.
If the music is loud enough that it does not require congregational input for its “life”–so that people can come in late, with their drinks from the coffee bar in the foyer, and turn around and have full-voiced conversations about yesterday’s soccer game with the family in the row behind them without feeling the least bit self-conscious, then I would say that it is not a good style of music to use for worship.
If some people are putting their hands up to their ears for protection while others leave the sanctuary and still others were waiting outside the sanctuary from the beginning, then I would say it is not a good style of music to use for worship.
When the music does all of the above and the Worship Pastor says, “Yes, but all these newcomers are responding and loving it. God is honored by this music. Let go of your inhibitions and worship…” Let go of your inhibitions? Isn’t there a secular song that says that? Or how about “Give me the beat, boys, and free my soul. I wanna get lost in your rock and roll, and drift away…” I heard that in the grocery store the other day. It reminded me of church.
I know there is good worship music and bad worship music. I know there is a line that divides what is good from what is bad. I think we need to find it. I don’t know how we do that.