Why do we remain silent?

Disclaimer: In this post, I am NOT advocating that we need to try to change the music standards or doctrine taught by our pastors. For the purpose of this post, I am assuming that the pastor's music standards are correct, but he is unknowingly (and innocently) using factually incorrect or misleading arguments to promote them.
------------------------

Something an anonymous person posted on my blog recently got me thinking. Why do we as church musicians sit and listen to sermons about music standards (for both church and home consumption) that make absolutely no sense, and never say anything to the pastor about it? Why do we allow our pastors (whom we admire and love) to continue to sound ignorant on a topic that we are so familiar with? Is this how we should be reacting? Should we sit and say nothing? Should we remain silent?

What am I talking about you may wonder? I am talking about the many sermons that I have heard (thankfully never from a pastor of a church I attend) where the preacher makes broad statements that make absolutely no sense if you understand anything about music. Such statements as: We don't use CCM because it is syncopated, and syncopation is a sign of rock music, or we don't use CCM because it uses a lot of "jazz" chords (usually they mean 7ths).

And yet any person who understands music theory and/or history will see that these statements are misleading or even just plain false.  Are pastors purposely using illogical arguments to get their point across? Are they intentionally misleading their congregation? I don't think so. Most of them are just repeating what they have read or heard on the issue. Where do such statements come from then? As I see it they come from two sources:

1. musicians who, believing that most pastors and people could never understand the complexities of music theory, come up with a simplistic over generalized "rule" by which to measure music.
2. People who, having a little bit of knowledge regarding music, see something that is true, but misapply that knowledge.  For example, Jazz theory is based in part on the use of 7th chords, so many come to the conclusion that 7th chords are Jazz and therefore are wrong. (My Sophomore music teacher had to straighten out a few of my fellow music students at college on this particular one). 

And yet a musician can tell you that syncopation is a part of almost all music, and even the "back-beat" type of syncopation can be found in Bach, Beethoven, and Brahms, and that 7th chords are used in all music, not just jazz.
So then why do we who know the silliness of such "rules" remain silent when our pastors preach them as truth? I think perhaps there are many reasons we remain silent.

1. We don't want to contradict our pastor(s) and evangelists. 
2. We agree with the pastor's ultimate standards of music, so we don't think it is really necessary to correct his erroneous reasons. After all he agrees with us in the end and that's all that matters.
3. We really don't care
4. We don't believe that our pastors could handle the truth 
5. We are afraid of the possible outcomes of talking to the pastor about it. 
6. We don't know why we have the standards we do, so we don't want to say anything, lest we get put in the hot seat. 
7. We just don't want to take the time to articulate (or don't believe it necessary) a good thought out reason for our (and our pastor's) music standards.

I have to admit that I am guilty of remaining silent in these areas. And as I have been thinking about it, I have begun to think that perhaps I have been wrong in doing so. Some reasons why I think perhaps we ought to say something.

1.  A wrong justification for a right action or standard will often lead to many abandoning that standard when they realize the justification they have been taught is not valid.
2. I, who am called to be not only a musician but a pastor as well, would never want to be unknowingly say something foolish or untrue. (for example many pastors use illustrations in their sermons that are not factually accurate, it is easy to do, especially with the multitudes of "illustration" books available that do not check to make sure their facts/illustrations are accurate) If I were to proclaim a false fact I would want someone to tell me so I could not only apologize, but not repeat it.
3. When we do not say something because we do not think others can handle the true complexity of the issue at hand (specifically music standards in this discussion) smacks of elitism and intellectual pride. If it is a difficult issue then we need to put the time and effort into finding a way to make it not as difficult, rather than coming up with a over-generalized broad statement that really isn't true.
4. If our churches do not have an understandable legitimate set of standards to judge music by, they will abandon their standards when the current generation is no longer in charge.
5. If a pastor sounds foolish and ignorant on one topic, many will begin to doubt the rest of what he says.

So then should we go up to our pastor after a message in which he says misleading things about music and confront him in front of everyone? Of course not. That will only create discord in the church and put the pastor on the defensive. But perhaps we should invite him out for lunch one day and discuss our concerns with him. This can be done in a gentle and considerate way, provided we have the right motives. (seeking to improve his ability to minister to his flock, rather than showing him up or proving him wrong)

There is one catch though. If we are going to inform our pastor that his reasons for his music standards don't make sense, then we need to be willing, ready, and able to provide him with reasons that do make sense. And this ultimately means that we personally need to understand why we hold the music standards that we do. If we do not know why, we need to figure it out. We as church musicians ought to have a clear philosophy of music that guides us in the music we use, the standards we hold, and the way in which we "perform". Until we know what our philosophy of music is (what, why, and how to keep true to it) we have no right to correct anybody on their erroneous reasons for their standards. And ultimately I think this is why we remain silent, because we don't know why we believe what we believe either, and we are afraid to let anyone know.

"Give Me That Old Time Religion"

How many of us have heard this song growing up in Conservative Christianity, either in our home church, on the radio, at the school/college we attended, etc. etc.?

Give me that old time religion
give me that old time religion
give me that old time religion
it's good enough for me.

And the verses are usually something like this:

It was good enough for Father [replace with mother, sister, grandpa, etc. for other verses]
it was good enough for Father
it was good enough for Father 
it's good enough for me.

Now, let me ask you this, have you ever actually thought about this song as you were listening to it? Have you ever considered what it is saying, what is meant when it is sung, or even whether or not we ought to sing it at all? I know when I first started thinking about what music is used in the church, this song quickly rose to the top of my list of songs I will never use in a worship service, will never use at a summer camp, will never listen to in the car, will never use period.

A few thoughts about this song.

1. What old time religion are we singing about?

• the song never states which religion we want.
• it could easily be talking about paganism (whose followers claim it is the oldest religion, btw)
• or any other religion for that matter.
• This song could easily be sung by anyone, a buddhist, a moslem, a pagan, etc. etc.

2. Why do we want this "old-time religion?"

• according to this song we are Christians (or whatever religion we are) because it's the "good old religion"
• according to the verses we are Christians (or whatever) because that's what our parents were.
• thought doesn't seem to be important in this process. Just the fact that it's what my daddy believed, so that's what I'm going to believe.
• according to the logic of this song we should just stay whatever religion our parents are, because it was good enough for them wasn't it?

3. Are we satisfied with it being "good enough"?

• just because something is good enough for me, doesn't mean it is the best choice for me.
• are we satisfied with the religion that is "good enough" or should we seek the one that is best?

And yet if I were to sing this song as a special in most conservative Baptist churches I would get a lot of hearty amens and pats on the back.  Very few would question the words or meaning of this song. Very few would wonder if we should be singing this song. Very few would question the song at all. They would just agree with the sentiment that we need to stick to the "good old-time religion" and not any of this new-fangled stuff. I have news for these people. There was a time Christianity was considered the "new religion." Could the early church have sung this song? Most of them were ostracized and even disowned by their parents for believing in that "new-fangled" religion. According to this song you should stick with whatever religion your parents follow, whether it's buddhism, taoism, paganism, islam, satanism, etc. etc. What matters is it is the good old time religion that our parents follow. According to this logic then the early Christians should have just stayed Jewish or pagan, and not switched to this "new" religion.

But even more importantly this song completely misrepresents why we should be a Christian. If you are a Christian merely because it's the "Old-time religion" or because "it was good enough for Father" then you really aren't a Christian, are you? To truly be a Christian one must make a conscience choice to accept the work of Christ upon the cross for redemption of our sins.  It is a personal choice, not something we are born into, and if we choose to be a Christian merely because it's the good old religion, then we don't even truly understand what Christianity is, nor are we truly saved!

So then why do we sing this song? Why do we fill our children's heads with ideas that directly contradict scripture? I want my children to choose Christianity because they understand that they are a sinner, that the punishment for sin is death, that their works will never make them righteous enough for God, that the only payment for our sin is death, that Jesus Christ died on the cross to pay for our sins, and that he rose again victorious over the grave. I do not want them to choose Christianity merely because Daddy is a Christian.

I think the answer to why we sing this song lies in the fact that it expresses the true reason many of us do many of things we do (especially those things we do in the church) for specifically this reason. We've always done it this way, it's the good old fashioned way, and we aren't a a part of the "new" crowd. I however submit that we should never do anything merely because it is the way it's always been done. If the people who started doing it had thought that way, it would never have been done in the first place! Furthermore, how do we know that it is right? The ones who started doing it could have been wrong! God help us if we do wrong the first time! I personally am glad that Martin Luther, John Calvin, Martin Zwingli,, Menno Simons, John Smith, John Huss, Wycliffe, Tyndale and many others didn't stick with the "old-time religion" of their parents or the accepted institution known as the church in their day. We as Christians and musicians ought to be testing everything we do according to the standard of the Word of God, not the standard of time, or acceptability in our "circles".

Why am I a Christian? I can tell you one thing for sure: it is not because it's the good old-time religion that was good enough for my parents.