Due to spam issues and the difficulty visitors are having with the comment system, I have moved my blog to Wordpress.  The new address is http://musingsonmusicinthechurch.wordpress.com/

Should Christians listen to "Secular" music?

Recently on a forum where I regularly participate someone asked a couple questions regarding a christian's response to "secular" music.

1. Is secular music evil?
2. Should Christian musicians perform secular music?
3. Should Christians listen to secular music/musicians?

If you were to ask most Christians this question their initial response would probably be "of course not!" However the truth is that almost no Christian actually believes and lives it. Part of the problem lies in what a Christian initially thinks of when they hear the term secular. Often we think secular = worldly = wicked/evil. However if we carefully begin to consider what secular actually mean this preconceived notion that secular is bad begins to fall apart.

Secular- 1: not sacred or ecclesiastical. 2: not bound by monastic vows. ( The Merriam-Webster dictionary)

So if secular literally means "not sacred" then we have to understand what sacred means to understand what secular means.

Sacred - 1. Set apart for the service or worship of deity 2: devoted exclusively to one service or use. 3: worthy of veneration or reverence 4: of or relating to religion, religious.

This means that secular is anything that is not considered sacred. Anything that is not set aside for worship of deity, devoted for one use, or of or relating to religion. Seeing as how sacred is a very limiting narrow term that includes only that which pertains to worship/religion this means that secular is a very broad general term that means anything not used for worship or religious in nature.

So then let's apply what he have learned to music. Secular music is any music that is not worship or religious in nature. While most Christians think of popular music such as "rock" music (or jazz, rap, r & b, metal, etc.) when they hear the term secular music, in reality it is much broader than that. Secular music includes folk music, classical music, children's songs (the alphabet song), camp songs, and many other types of music. Now to be clear some classical music is sacred, however not all classical music is sacred and therefore much of it is secular. The same goes for many other genres such as folk and children's songs. They have some sacred music but by and large have much secular music. Should a Christian only listen to those particular songs that are sacred, or is it okay to listen to some secular music?

Hopefully at this point you have realized that not all secular music is wrong to listen to. When we sing "Happy Birthday" to someone in Sunday School or at a birthday social after church in the fellowship hall we are singing a "secular" song in church and I don't think there are many who would say that is wrong. When we are listening to Beethoven's 9th symphony on the radio as we drive to work we are listening to secular music and even the most conservative Christians I personally know or have read would not think that is wrong.

So if it isn't wrong for a Christian to listen to/sing secular music then that means we can listen to pretty much whatever we want, right? Hold on there just a minute. While there is nothing wrong with secular music in general, that doesn't mean there isn't anything wrong with specific secular music. There is secular (and even "Christian") music that a Christian should not listen to. Well then, how do we know what we should and shouldn't listen to?

I could spend quite some time discussing the answer to this question but I'll save that for another time. The short answer is that we need to determine which music is okay to listen to the same way we make decisions regarding what books we read, what movies we watch, where we go for fun, etc. We need to evaluate their message, philosophy, and theology using scripture and if the message of the song is incompatible with the message of the Bible then we ought to avoid that song. Philippians 4:8 gives us a good rule of thumb to use when deciding these things.


Philippians 4:8 (KJV)
Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.

If a song contradicts scripture then we as Christians shouldn't listen to it. If it is proclaiming a worldly philosophy then it is not right for us to listen to. We need to be filling our minds with the good, pure, virtuous things. They do not necessarily have to be sacred or Christian, but they ought to be good and right before the eyes of God.  One things that I see often is that some Christians rail against all new secular music, but think all classical music is good and fine to listen to. However, there are many classical opera songs that a Christian should not listen to, songs about lust, murder, hate, etc. etc. Just because it is classical does not make it right to listen to. Neither does the fact that it is a top hit in today's world make it wrong. We need to carefully consider what the message of the song is, or whether or not it contradicts scriptural teachings. "Butterfly Kisses" and "Christmas Shoes" are a good example of two pretty new secular songs that have a wholesome message. They are both about the love between a child and parent. They are not "christian" songs, but they teach a message that is compatible with scripture and therefore even though they are "secular" songs, they are good songs.

What is Worship?

I am currently working on an in depth series of posts on this subject. Right now I am doing a lot of word studies in the OT and NT to find out how the Israelites and the early church viewed this subject.

Here are some things to think about in regards to worship. I will hopefully be discussing all of these questions/issues throughout this series on worship.

1. What is worship?
2. When do we worship?
3. How do we worship?
4. Why do we worship?
5. What do we worship?
6. Is music worship?
7. Is music the only way to worship?
8. does all music a Christian listens to/plays need to be worship?
9. does all Christian music need to be worship?
10. the difference between corporate and individual worship.
11. How did the Israelites worship?
12. What can we learn/apply from the OT temple worship system?
13. How did the early church worship?
14. Does the NT propose a new "worship" then the OT?
15. What can we learn from the early church/NT about worship?
16. Does God accept any and all forms of worship?
17. Are there specific ways in which God wants us to worship him?
18. Are there ways in which God does not want us to worship him?

I am sure there are other good questions that need to be asked as well. If you can think of any yourself, please post them as a reply. It will help me to develop my ideas and perhaps give me some directions to pursue I have not yet considered.

The importance of developing a philosophy of music

The necessity of having a thought out philosophy of music is a subject I briefly touched on in my last post and would like to discuss in further detail now. Why is it important that we have a philosophy regarding music ministry? Is it something we can do without? I believe that much of the confusion regarding music standards in the church could be solved if every pastor, musician, and church were to take the time to develop their philosophy regarding music and the church. It of course would not result in all churches and pastors agreeing on music standards, but I do believe it would help all of us to understand exactly where we stand and why, thereby giving us a way to communicate clearly and effectively our views in this area. Unfortunately today most churches today (and most pastors) have not given this issue the time or thought it needs. This leads to the following problems.

1. A church without a philosophy of music ministry will base their music standards and choose music to be used in church based on personal preference; not on biblical precept or principle.
2. Without a philosophy of music, music standards will not make sense and will either be abandoned or cause many to leave the church in frustration.*
3. Without a philosophy of music our worship services will be haphazard and lack any clear purpose.
4. Without a philosophy of music it will be hard to create a standard that makes sense. This often leads to different people in the church/ministry applying the music standards in completely different ways. **

But not only are there problems with not having a philosophy of music, there are also many benefits of having one.

1. When we have a philosophy of music for the church it gives us a solid foundation upon which to build our music standards.
2. This means when we are asked why we do or do not use a particular song or style in our services we will have a coherent answer to give the questioner based on our philosophy (which hopefully is based on biblical precepts and principles)
3. It will help us give a purpose and unity to our service.
4. It will help get everyone in the ministry on the same page regarding our music standards.
5. It will help (not completely fix) us to not allow our personal preferences in music to dictate the standards that we set. (i.e. No CCM allowed, but all Southern Gospel is A-OK)

How then can a person/ministry develop a philosophy of ministry? First, one must be ready and willing to put a lot of thought and effort into the process, it will not be a quick five minute problem, it will most likely take weeks, months, or even years to develop fully. (And one should always be seeking to refine and better their philosophy, it is not something that once accomplished will never need to be thought about again.) Secondly it requires an open mind. We need to be willing to abandon our "pet" standards if we find they do not hold up to scriptural precept or principal. (I am not implying that they will not hold up, just that we need to be open minded enough that we are willing to change our views if necessary). Thirdly we need to do a careful study through scripture on music, worship, Christian liberty (with a focus on the needs of the "weaker" brethren), for principles and precepts that we can use to shape our philosophy.

One of the reasons I began writing this blog was to help me shape and develop my own philosophy of music. I have not yet figured it all out. Part of my purpose for this blog is to force myself to do what I am advocating here. In that vein of thought, sometime in the near future, I am going to be posting the results of some scriptural studies I am beginning on worship and music in both the NT and the OT to help us as we begin to develop a scriptural philosophy of music.As with all philosophies we develop for use in the church (i.e. philosophy of minstry, philosophy of youth ministry, philosophy of counseling, etc. etc.) we need to start at the source, the Bible, and work our way out from there. 


-------------------------------------------
* I think this is one of many areas in which a general unwillingness within IFB circles to truly explain the why's of our doctrines and practices is leading to the abandonment of our churches by youth today. Too often the answer is simply "because the Bible says so!" when we should be explaining how and where the Bible says so. I worry that the source of this reluctance is that many of us don't know why either, but do not want to find out why for fear of finding out we are wrong. Or, perhaps because we are too lazy to find out why and are content to accept "because the Bible says so" without actually looking to see if the Bible does say so. As I look back in the history of the fundamentalist movement I see that  many of the "fathers" of the movement were very intellectual and knew why they believed what they believed. However over the past generations, while the beliefs have been retained (although many times mutated)  the reasons have been lost and our beliefs are based on what our predecessors believed, not on our own careful study.

** The College I attended had very strict music standards. However, not everyone who "checked" the music applied the standards in the same way. It was common knowledge which Resident Managers to take your music to and which ones not to. A CD that wouldn't pass according to Miss. A, was considered perfectly fine by Mr. C, or Mrs. Q. I had a friend who was not allowed to sing specials in Sunday School for quite a while because his "style" did not pass. However, one day a certain person heard him sing (who had a good deal of influence in the music department) and suddenly he was one of the "favorites" for church and Sunday School specials. He didn't change his style, he merely was heard by someone who interpreted the "standards" differently.

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.

Throwing the Baby Out WIth the Bathwater

This past weekend I visited and candidated at a church that was looking for a music director. And whether or not I and they decide I am right for the job I learned a lot and had a wonderful experience there. The church does not have what I would consider a contemporary worship service. (And no CCM fan would consider it a contemporary service either). Yet, I know many IFB's (Independent Fundamental Baptists) who would have condemned them as going contemporary. Why? Because of a few methods that they use.

They only used a piano (Keyboard on grand piano setting) for the accompaniment of the congregational singing, and the  "soundtracks" (for lack of a better word) were recorded on a Yamaha synthesizer by the church pianist, and would be considered by most as very conservative in instrument choices and lack of heavy rhythm. However, there were many aspects of their song portion of the service that many IFB's would have been upset over. 

1. The format of the worship service: They sang the songs in 2 groups of 3 songs without a break between the songs in each section, they just went straight into the next song.
2. They used song sheets, instead of hymnals. 
3. They used prerecorded "sound tracks" for their accompaniment of singing groups. 
4. They used keyboards instead of actual pianos. 
5. The song leader was joined by a group of 6 church members on stage to lead the singing. (they did not call it a worship team because of the associations with that phrase) 
6. They used some songs that were at one time popular CCM songs. (mainly from the 1980's). 
7. the group held microphones while leading singing.

Now, there are many who would condemn this church for going "contemporary", but the truth of the matter is that they haven't. They are merely using different methods then they used to use. They had very good reasons for everything that they did.

1. They changed the format of their song service because they noticed a lot of "dead" time between each song. They are now able to sing more in less time than before when they announced each song separately and waited for everyone to find the song in the hymn book. In addition they have found that this new format seems to lend itself to creating an atmosphere conducive to worship better than the old way. 
2. Because of the change in format, hymnals were no longer practical. They still have them, and sing only songs in their hymnal, but they use the song sheets to once again get rid of dead time in the service. They wanted to use a projector screen, but due to the shape of their sanctuary this was impractical.
3. They used pre-recorded sound tracks because they needed the pianist in their singing groups. However, because they were having trouble finding conservative enough sound tracks to buy, they began creating their own with the Yamaha synthesizer. 
4. They used keyboards instead of pianos because they were having to tune their piano at least 4 times a year (sometimes even more!) due to the climate variation in their location and after the initial investment, keyboards are more cost effective for them. 
5. They had the group lead singing because they noticed that once the choir was disbanded (they didn't have anyone to lead it anymore) the congregational singing was dead and really only served the purpose of filling time. Now that they have 6 people lead singing (singing parts) the congregational singing is alive and vibrant, and is now more than just a time-filler, it is a vibrant and important part of their worship service. 
6. They used old CCM songs that were good theologically sound and beautiful songs (especially once stripped of the CCM trappings). They also used the "old" hymns as well, and it was a good mixture that really lended itself to worship. 
7. Their sound man insisted they used microphones so that he could get better recordings of the service.

I personally like using hymnbooks better than song sheets, but that is only because I like to be able to sing the parts, and song sheets with words only don't allow me to do that as easily. I personally prefer using a piano over a keyboard, because no matter how good a keyboard is, it just can't compare to a Steinway 9 ft grand piano. I also like live accompaniment rather than sound tracks because it gives much more flexibility to the singers and instrumentalists. However, in this church I would agree that their choices in these matters were not only acceptable, but the best choice given the talents they had and their situation. In truth their group that helped lead singing was no different than having a 200 member choir behind the music director (with area microphones) helping bolster the sound. Yet this very method is the one I am certain would be the most offensive to many IFB's. (In fact they had their music director leave the church over it).

What then would many have against the way this church did their music? There are many who would claim some or all of the methods I mentioned are "CCM" and shouldn't be used by good IFB's. And, yes it is true that these methods are often used by "contemporary" churches in their worship services, but that does not necessarily make them wrong. Just because they were even the ones who first started doing some of these things does not make them wrong. We as church musicians need to be careful that we do not throw the baby out with the bathwater. When we are looking at an idea for use in the worship service our question should not be, "Does the CCM church down the road do this?" (And if they do I shouldn't!) Our question should be "Is there something wrong with this particular method?: Biblically or Practically?  If not, then we should at least be willing to consider it and should weigh the positives vs. the negatives. Change for the sake of change is not a good reason, but neither is staying the same because that's the way we've always done it. There are some good, useful ideas (and even songs) that have come out of the Contemporary movement, and we need to be able to look at them carefully and be able to realize that just because a CCM church started it doesn't make it wrong. Just because the pope is against abortion doesn't mean I am for it.

Let's at least be open to considering and thinking about new ideas and methodology in our church music and the use of it in the worship service. Just because we adopt or use a method first used by a "CCM" church does not make us a "CCM" church, neither does refusing to do it make us a good "IFB" church. Instead of using our traditions and preferences to dictate what we believe is right and wrong, let's use the Bible to guide us in our decisions about the music and methods we as church musicians use in the worship service.