OK. Let me try to carry this a bit more to problem. We in the West are facing many issues philosphcally and related theological issues. If you read our American history, we were a people that we clearly marked by religious commitments. That is obvious by the state churches (PA–Quaker, NC–Anglican, SC–Anglican, RI–Baptist, MA–Puritan/ Congregational, etc. As a Christian people, our values were tied to our roots and as true conservatives we have spent generations conserving the best of the past, rooted in our historic denominations and identity in those traditions.
That was mainstay in our land until the 1960’s when the writings of Jean-Paul Sartre, Heidegger, Marcel, and especially Nietzsche began to be proliferated and their influence felt all over the place academically. The trend of the day, was that God was dead and hence, religion was no longer necessary to explain the universe. We loss our sense of corporate identity as a people and began to be focused on individual experience, values, etc. With the rampant rise of individualism and the preeminence of the self over society, my truth and my preception over objectve norms, this began to have terrible effects for religion, whose authrity structure is God, the Church, the family, myself. Our era has seen a revesal of all of that. Typically, you hear people say, “I don’t believe in God so he doesn’t exist.” Out goes logic. I can believe in purpple ponies that poop green and fly, but that desn’t mean that they are real. Religion, like music styles, have become personal preference and people hop churches faster than they choose a burger.
With the rise of individualism and the preference for the self (which is Gen. 3 all over again), the past is judged by the present, history by the now, traditions and vaues by present experience, etc. “Things have changed” they say. yes–but why? This shift is called “post-modernity” because the era in which people used to believe in objective truth (and believed it no matter what) is over. The Reformation produced the modern era and Christendom flourished with the rampant production of public schools, hospitals, higher education, seminaries, the rise of nation-states and the rise of the American experiment.
The worship war is more than preference; it is more than personal taste. There are philosophical commitments and theological commitments to the post-modern trend that are reflected in the worship style and lyrics. Sure. I’m not so naive to think wth a wide brush I can swoop all of them into heresy. Nope. However, to embrace the trend is to fight within the camp. Van Til said the current problem, if we embrace the prevailing philosophy, you know, “meeting peope where they’re at” is like a man driving down a road to a cliff and you pass him going the other way to heaven. The prevailing trend (and why we are failing) is that we turn around and try to talk to the guy who believes we are wrong about everything and he is right about everything–he really does not believe in the cliff and if we keep arguing based upon his way of thinking, we will lose. The Church is losing the culture war because we have embraced the culture. Plenty of the “Emergent” postmodern crowd love it; away with the past and in for the now. What is in is massive suicide rates and loss of identity among Christians, rise in divorce, etc. It seems like the experience of crack wins over the experience of God. The louder and more creative the music and the more piercings, the more tatoos, the more blah, blah, blah.
God has always worked through the simple ordinary confrontation of the Scripture and the sacraments. But that is too traditional; it’s not where we as a culture are at. Some have noticed that the high end worship music has replaced regular use of the sacraments. Jesus said, if you eat his flesh and drink his blood you share and abide in him. But people don’t know what communion is about; the don’t know what happens in baptism; they are usually never confronted with their sins. Our current culture looks at historic Christianity with shock and alarm. Thomas Reeves in his book the Empty Church argues tha those whotake the cultural approach to religion will always lose with their 
marketplace competitors. “They” will always do it better. If people want a feel good service they can always go to the Moose Lodge or the latest concert and “feel” good.
I guess at the end I would have to join the crowd that wrote the book, why I left the contemporary worship movement. Surely, I am NOT saying that anyone that enjoys the modern/ post-modern music is not a Christian. Hello? My ITunes folder will tell otherwise. However, in my venture through the waters, I understand the Gospel to as simple as “Jesus loves me,” but more than that intellectually. No one in our culture wants more than the former. If a Christian service is more than a sound byte they get bored . . . Christianity is more han a relationship; the Bible is more complex than “What if Cartoons got saved.” But it takes time and commitment to dig into those complexities and be changed by them; no one it seems wants to change, because “Me and Jesus got an understanding; he’s my bud and we like to hang out.”
In the long run, I’m talking about the postmodern worldview is what I and other traditionalists reject. Of course, when I argue for the use of hymns, I’m being as snobbish as anyone else. As a reformed Christian, I believe the reformation recovered or conserved the authentic Gospel, so I dont embrace “hymns” in general but those hymns that reflect the power and energy of the reformation, e.g. the Biblical worldview, and exalt God’s majesty and diminish the power and efforts of man. Part of this is why I became reformed and eventually a Presbyterian.
In all of this discussion and that is what it is . . . regardless of whose feelings get hurt (mine included), we do have to remember as noted to david T, that God often rejects our worship as idolatrous– traditional or contemporary. I pray in whatever context we find ourselves, that our worship is acceptable to God. I have issues with the contemporary trend and others less traditional, have there issues as well. Be convinced by Scripture alone. I could recommend books, but who would read them? Maybe a power point show . . .
April 18, 2009 at 10:01 am
On a similar note, I do believe it is possible to have a contemporary service that rings with the potency of the reformation. It is just hard; I have seen little success in that department. There are people in my presbytery who attempt it regularly are always competing with the culture. Paul confronted the culture in Acts 17–he didn’t compete with it. Also, and another post at that, as I see it, when the dust settles, the Catholics, Lutherans and Anglicans will still be here worshipping the same way because they get it; they understand new covenant worship which is partly why so many Protestants are converting to Rome. They don’t seem to be having this discussion . . . about styles and preference . . .
April 19, 2009 at 6:41 am
So what you really have problems with is not so much just a comtemporary “style” type service, but rather the substance, or lack there of, found in many comtemporary style services?
That is also my issue. What it gets down to is the teaching. The first thing I look to at a church (and I have been visiting many in the past few years), is what exactly are they teaching and how does it match with the scriptures. True, much teaching can be “scriptural” but extremely shallow. This must be what you are getting at?
Suprisingly enough, Richard and I found a pretty contemporary style church, but is very scripturally sound and not wishy-washy teaching. I was pretty suprised that I liked it.
But yes, shallow christian teaching I think has caused this downward spiral and made the so called modern christian movement. A bunch of Christians that have absolutely no idea beyond “Jesus is my bff 4ever” syndrome.
April 19, 2009 at 6:44 pm
Hi Reverend! I visit your blog every once in awhile. We are facebook friends but I deactivated not too long ago. I completely agree with so many of your points, but want to defend REFORMED RAP
!
Here’s a sample of some lyrics by Shai Linne:
Here’s a controversial subject that tends to divide
For years it’s had Christians lining up on both sides
By God’s grace, I’ll address this without pride
The question concerns those for whom Christ died
Was He trying to save everybody worldwide?
Was He trying to make the entire world His Bride?
Does man’s unbelief keep the Savior’s hands tied?
Biblically, each of these must be denied
It’s true, Jesus gave up His life for His Bride
But His Bride is the elect, to whom His death is applied
If on judgment day, you see that you can’t hide
And because of your sin, God’s wrath on you abides
And hell is the place you eternally reside
That means your wrath from God hasn’t been satisfied
But we believe His mission was accomplished when He died
But how the cross relates to those in hell?
Well, they be saying:
Lord knows He tried…
(it’s a song in defense of the doctrine of limited atonement)
Grace and Peace!
~ Jennifer
April 21, 2009 at 6:35 pm
I’m not crazy about rap music but the lyrics are nice; it’s just very difficult in the ethos of our culture that is more informed by trends rather than historic Christian practice and tradition. From another conversation with a PCA elder friend, it would be difficult to do the contemporary thing in our traditionally structured church (architecture and all), but I can see a place aas a church mission using the trends to outreach, but as they mature, I couldn’t see them staying there . . . if I make sense. I would hope thas as a mission moves to a particular church status, so would their church culture mature to match their theology. OK-I digress . . .
April 27, 2009 at 8:54 pm
1) the theme of your website is “vanilla mist”… sniff sniff… I can smell your manhood burning.
2) While I believe the contemporary music movement has accomplished great things for Christianity, much of it is emotional fluff. I just wish there was more “fear and trembling” before God, which I believe he deserves.
April 28, 2009 at 8:49 pm
I pretty much agree with everything that you said. I really liked what you said in the paragraph that starts, “God has always worked through the simple ordinary confrontation of the Scripture and the sacraments…” This is something that is completely lost in the average church, where the sacraments have no meaning. They just seem to be some archaic ordinance that is ad hoc to Sunday “worship”. They don’t seem to be all that important or even necessary and in practice are almost always blasphemous. I can’t recall how many communion services that I have been to that only focus on “fencing the table” instead of inviting the people to the table. Instead of it being a table of grace and blessing, it is a table of judgment and cursing. The contemporary church has lost its historical, theological roots. It doesn’t know what the sacraments mean. This is especially disconcerting when it is a reformed church that is having this problem. No longer do pastors pray prayers like Knox’s communion prayer. No longer does the pastor teach the congregation about its meaning, instead he just says a few platitudes and moves on. It is something that has frustrated me to no end, especially while I was attending my former church. I didn’t know what was going on, but I was fairly sure it wasn’t communion as the church has practiced it for the past 2000 years.
JR your comment intrigues me, “While I believe the contemporary music movement has accomplished great things for Christianity, much of it is emotional fluff.” I really don’t know what to make of it. This emotional fluff has been one of the greatest tragedies in the Christedom. The emotional fluff of contemporary music has infiltrated the Lord’s Day Service and ripped out the theological content and thrown it out the window. It has replaced it with nothing but emotionalism. The focus in the service is some emotional response to something, but it rather unclear what that something is (based strictly on the observing of your average contemporary worship service). One of the reasons that contemporary Christian music has been a great tragedy to American Protestantism is that it has really contributed nothing, and yet at the same time is has stripped away much of theological content of American Protestantism. This is no great accomplishment. In my opinion it is nothing but the Barney theme song dressed up with limited Christian terminology. There are certainly some exceptions to this, but it definitely is not the rule. I don’t mean to sound so harsh here, but contemporary worship can and has had a very damaging affect on the modern church and is perhaps one of the reasons that there seems to be surge of Protestants converting to Catholicism. (I am not too sure how true this is, but I think current statistics are have shown an increased move from Protestantism to Catholicism than compared to the past. And then there is the inevitable issue of causation, I can only anecdotally suggest what I have)
April 29, 2009 at 7:17 pm
Jamie, I think you have it somewhat backwards in regards to contemporary christian music.
Could you actually put it:
Shallow church teaching has caused shallow church worship. Not shallow church worship as cause shallow church teaching?
I see way too many attack only the style of worship of a church when it really boils down to what actually’s being taught is wishy-washy theology. Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
April 29, 2009 at 10:37 pm
The belief that worship impacts beliefs is nothing new, it is called “lex orandi, lex credendi.” “the rule of prayer influences the rule of belief.” What we do in worship will have an impact on what the “people in the pew” believe. I think that this is inevitable.
It is not a battle over simply a style of worship, but over a liturgical theology. So yes, it is a battle over theology. I battle with the style of worship, because it is a theological statement. It says something about Father, Son and Spirit and our relationship to them. It tells the people who are attending on Sunday morning something about their triune God and their relationship to him. Is what they are being taught the right thing? If is a Barney theology “I love you, you love me we’re a happy family…” then something is wrong and it needs to be rooted out.
Liturgical theology has an impact on our lives. The way the sacraments are performed are important. The way we are called to worship is important. The way a congregation responds is important. The way the word is preached is important. Everything that goes on Sunday morning is of great importance. Everything that goes on Sunday morning says something theological. The question is what is contemporary worship saying and is what it is saying truly Biblical? Is wholly Biblical or does it only emphasize a small piece?
April 30, 2009 at 5:03 pm
Good point Jamie!
What are you up to these days? It’s been forever since ive seen you! I hear you hang out with Joseph Sisiam. Please give him my greetings next you see him.
May 1, 2009 at 12:29 am
“My question is related to culture. To what extent is ‘culture’ allowed within Church?”
My answer to that depends on how one defines “culture”. Properly defined, culture must be allowed in the Church because culture is inevitable in the Church. I’ll explain that as I answer another related question that often comes up:
Question: Is rap a legitimate vehicle of expression for Christian music? Does it glorify God?
My answers are an emphatic yes and yes. Before I unpack why, I need to address some of the underlying assumptions inherent in the questions themselves. I’ll do so by stating the same question another way.
“I believe that there are legitimate vehicles of expression for Christian music. The vehicle of expression I use, for instance, would be one obvious example. And clearly, my expression brings glory to God. However, as I observe this other vehicle of expression, questions come to my mind. I see nothing but filth coming through the popular secular version of this vehicle of expression. How can someone use something that is usually used to to communicate vulgarity and sin to communicate the glorious truths of a Holy God? ”
To properly address this question we must first define culture. This is because any questions regarding vehicles of expression are actually cultural questions. A simple definition would be:
Culture = A set of behavior patterns that are socially rather than biologically transmitted
The American Heritage Science Dictionary expands on this simple definition by referring to “the totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought.”
The AHSD goes on to say:
“Culture is learned and shared within social groups and is transmitted by non genetic means.”
Defining culture properly is crucial when it comes to understanding how we express various aspects of the Christian faith. If we accept this definition of culture, what we realize is that culture is inevitable for anyone participating in human society. For instance: right now you are reading this blog. You are reading a particular language- English. By reading English, you are participating in a cultural activity, since language is included among the things that are socially rather than biologically transmitted. When you got dressed this morning, you put on a particular outfit. In doing so, you made a cultural decision. The same can be said about the way you cooked your food, how you wore your hair, what you bought at the supermarket, the way you arranged your living room and yes- even the music that you listened to in your car. All of these things are learned behaviors. You did not come out of the womb singing a particular style of music or dressing a certain way. It was taught to you.
How does this apply to Christianity? One of the challenges for the Church in every age has been how to properly relate to the surrounding culture and how culture should inform Christian expression. Our authoritative guide on these things is the Bible, of course. When it comes to music, the Scriptures are interestingly (and perhaps surprisingly) silent about style, but very loud about content. We don’t know what it would have sounded like to hear King David singing one of his Psalms, but we do know what he said. If we were able to go back in time to listen to what it sounded like, we can be sure that it would not have resembled anything we hear in our western churches today. We also shouldn’t be surprised if it had the same sound stylistically as the culture that David lived in. If we were able to go back and see him dance, we wouldn’t expect to see him doing the “Holy Ghost two-step” popular in many Black Pentecostal churches, nor would we expect to see him break dancing or doing ballet. Yet, it shouldn’t surprise us if his form of dancing resembled whatever dancing looked like in his culture.
Back to our questions:
Is rap a legitimate form of expression for Christian Music? Does it glorify God?
Yes. Rap is a form of rhythmic poetry associated with hip-hop culture. It is a medium through which messages are conveyed. The content of the message is what determines its legitimacy for Christian expression. The medium itself is no more inherently sinful (or righteous) than any other artistic medium. The extent to which a rap’s content conforms to what the Bible teaches about appropriate standards of expression is what determines whether or not it glorifies God. The Bible has a lot to say about the content of Christian music. Here are a few passages:
“Praise the LORD! For it is good to sing praises to our God; for it is pleasant, and a song of praise is fitting.” (Psalm 147:1)
Here we see the psalmist exhorting God’s people to make songs that praise God. He refers to songs that exalt the Lord as “good”, “pleasant” and “fitting”. It is the content which is in view here. If a rap, country or classical song “Praises the LORD” then it is “good”, “pleasant” and “fitting”.
“1Oh sing to the LORD a new song; sing to the LORD, all the earth! 2Sing to the LORD, bless His name; tell of His salvation from day to day. 3Declare His glory among the nations, His marvelous works among all the peoples! 4For great is the LORD, and greatly to be praised; He is to be feared above all gods.” (Psalm 96:1-4)
In this passage, we see specific instructions concerning the songs we should sing:
The type of songs- New ones (vs. 1)
The object of our songs- God Himself vertically (vs. 1) and the gentile nations horizontally (vs. 3)
The subject of our songs- God and His salvation (vs. 2)
The purpose of our songs- The glory of God (vs. 3)
The foundation of our songs- The greatness of the true God over against the false gods of the pagan nations (vs. 4)
Perhaps the clearest New Testament instructions regarding Christian music are found in Colossians 3:16-17:
16Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God. 17And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him. (Col. 3:16-17)
I know that there is an in-house debate among Christians concerning the words translated “psalms, hymns and spiritual songs”- but regardless of how you understand those words, there is almost universal agreement on what this passage is teaching concerning content and the heart behind our musical expressions. Our songs should be Biblically informed (vs. 16), edifying to the saints (vs. 16) and done from a heart of gratitude that seeks to direct glory and attention to the Lord Jesus (vs. 16b-17).
With that said, I’m aware that some people are not able to enjoy Christian Hip-hop because they were entrenched in the sinful aspects of the culture before conversion and it’s a stumbling block for them. Others have a hard time seeing the artistic value in it. In cases like this, the principle of Christian love should prevail. Out of love for Jesus and that person, I’m called to lay down my cultural preferences for the sake of their conscience. Of course, I have to recognize it as a preference before I can lay it down. I’ll gladly rejoice in the finished work of Christ while singing another style of music with such a person- provided the content fits Colossians 3:16-17.
A word for those who say that a medium used to transmit vulgarity shouldn’t or can’t be leveraged for the glory of God- don’t forget that the God of the Bible has always done just that! Words on a page or language from the mouth can communicate filth- God used both to transmit the Holy Scriptures. What’s more vulgar than the cross as a form of execution? God leveraged the cross for His glory and it stands as the indispensable centerpiece of our faith. What’s more vulgar than an unregenerate, sinful human being such as me or you before conversion? Yet, God chooses to indwell sinners via the Holy Spirit and then leverage us for His glory! Be careful that you don’t cling so closely to cultural preference that you inadvertently argue against God’s glorious design in redemption.
We all have a tendency to assume our culture is the standard for Christian expression and to correspondingly view other cultures as inferior at best or sinful at worst. This is partly because our culture is so closely tied to our very identity. And no one wants to see their identity as a mere preference. In subtle and not-so-subtle ways, we try to find righteousness in the fig leaves of our culture. Biblically, however, believers are called to find our identity in Jesus Christ alone. As tempting as it is, we should not allow our language, artistic taste, style of dress or musical preferences to define us. If we are Christians, our primary identity is as children of God who, by the grace of God, have been united by faith to Jesus Christ and therefore recipients of all the benefits that Christ purchased for us through His sinless life, atoning death and glorious resurrection. We are called to use language, the arts and music to spread His fame among the nations so that His great name might be exalted in all cultural contexts, whether we like them or not.
Much more could be said, but I’ll stop for now. I welcome your comments.
grace and peace,
shai
(shai linne, the rapper) from his blog: http://lyricaltheology.blogspot.com
May 1, 2009 at 1:12 am
is jamie that guy that used to play on our soccer team?
May 2, 2009 at 8:45 am
I’m not up to much. I work at the voter registration and election office in Greenwood and currently looking for a denomination that will accept my theological views, at least enought that I have a possibility to be ordained.
May 5, 2009 at 7:53 am
@ Jamie
ya know, there is always room for one more traditionalist in our presbytery
If you were to join Rock, you could come under care fairly easily . . .
May 6, 2009 at 9:47 pm
I have thought about it, but I am still not too sure about the EPC. We should probably talk about that sometime, I’ll try to give you a call one day.
May 4, 2009 at 7:07 pm
@ Clemsonwill Rise
yes
May 4, 2009 at 8:39 pm
@Jen: I just saw your comment.
The question is not whether or not these various forms of modern contemporary Christian music “can” glorify God, the question is whether or not they actually do? I will certainly grant that some of it does, but at the same time a lot of the contemporary music that I have sung in churches in the past have been bordering on blampheous (that is ceratinly the case with hymns in some hymnals as well, I think that I could go the rest of my life without hearing “Just as I am” ever again). I don’t think that a lot of modern contemporary music is judged on its theological content. It is judged by whether or not it sounds good. If it sounds good then it must be good, right?