Greg Gilbert - Against Music

[christianyouth]

This is a really insightful post.

Church Matters: The 9Marks Blog

What do you think? Is he right in his assessment?

 

[bradofshaw]

I agree.

 

[Sonoftheday]

Since I started attending my new church I have been very excited and trying to encourage all my friends/family to visit (none of them are regular church attenders).

After encouraging my aunt to go there she replied "I have to go to church where they have GOOOOD music" Meaning Happy Clappy makes me wanna dance music. Its very sad that she attends a Free Will baptist church because they have better music than the Southern Baptist Church.


I would be perfectly satisfied if my church dropped all instrumental accompanyment(sp?). It could be a great step forward the church in america if we all did.

 

[Seb]

What do you think? Is he right in his assessment?

I think he's right on the mark.

Good article. We might would even see some previously split Churches reunite.

 

[moral necessity]

What do you think? Is he right in his assessment?

I think he makes a good point about the trend today in some people. Some think church is about a worship experience, rather than a worship service. I heard it said that, the Puritan idea of church was that it was a time for God to service his children. Hence, the term "worship service." God services his children at the meeting. He equips them with renewed grace, through means of the word and the sacraments. He ministers a renewed sense of forgiveness and oneness with him through the gospel message and the bread/wine, he corrects them as needed through the Word, and he cheers them and gives them new strength and courage through his actions displayed in scripture. What an incentive to not be absent on Sunday morning; and what an incentive to enter into the Sabbath rest, as he intends to service us in such ministry the entire time!

Blessings!

 

[Pergamum]

Let's put a moratorium on all baptisms then too!

 

[JBaldwin]

While I think Greg is right when he says that many make music idolatry, his comments leave me feeling that he thinks that there are only two groups of worshipers, those who make music idolatry and those who worship with their music stripped bear of anything but bland tunes. The fact is, there are many good churches out there who have reached a healthy balance between stark worship with nothing but "Isaac Watts hymns" as he puts it and the over achieving praise and worship bands. These churches sing a combination of psalms, hymns with sound theology and praise/worship music thoughtfully and prayerfully choosen. Sometimes the music is accompanied by praise and worship bands and sometimes a guitar or piano is used. Sometimes they sing unaccompanied. This type of worship not only engages the mind of the worshiper but also his heart.

Music with good words and good theology need not be stripped of everything musically interesting in order to be spiritual. Some of the poorest quality music ever written for the church is the hymn tunes (often set to the psalms) that we have regurgitated for the last 150 years. And whether they are accompanied by instruments or sung a capella, they are horrible. Don't get me wrong, there are some lovely ones out there, too. When I sit in a service where the songs are sung to these wretched tunes, I am as distracted from my worship as I am from an overpowering praise and worship band. As a musician, I marvel that some churches continue to sing poorly written music, and then go even further to insist that anything new and more musically singable is less spiritual, because it is accompanied by an instrument.

The fact is musical style has very little to do with good worship. Singing in worship involves singing to God with a whole-heart, whether it be unaccompanied or with a praise and worship band.

 

[moral necessity]

I guess I didn't really get such a bad impression from the man's comments at first. I saw him as ranting for much of the post, especially at the beginning. Then, after he was finished venting, he seemed to moderate his tone to a more neutral position, perhaps. His closing comments should be read alongside of his opening ones, as they more than likely reveal more of his sincerity. He says: "*I'm being facetious with the title of this post and the call for a moratorium on music, of course. The Bible tells us to sing. God gave us music precisely because it affects our hearts and emotion, and that is a good thing. But every good thing can be and will be misused by sinful humans. My sense is that "excellent music" has become something of an idol. No, we don't worship it. But alot of people need it to worship, and that may be just as bad. Music is a part of our lives as humans; in a certain way we'll always depend on it. But as I see it, there's ample anecdotal evidence out there to suggest that for many Christians, the dependence has become unhealthy."

Although I tended to agree with him that some churchgoers seek a church meeting that enables them to get swept up in some emotional experience there, I would personally lean towards viewing music on a greater level than his statements here. I think God invented sound, and the arrangement of such to produce notes and chords that are pleasant to the ear for enjoyment and worship of the Maker of such. Pleasant sounds ought to be valued as much as pleasant sights and pleasant smells. And, as God is the greatest perfectionist, those with such skills to use means to produce such sounds should strive for his standard of excellence in doing so, especially in the church service.

 

[timmopussycat]

I guess I didn't really get such a bad impression from the man's comments at first. I saw him as ranting for much of the post, especially at the beginning. Then, after he was finished venting, he seemed to moderate his tone to a more neutral position, perhaps. His closing comments should be read alongside of his opening ones, as they more than likely reveal more of his sincerity. He says: "*I'm being facetious with the title of this post and the call for a moratorium on music, of course. The Bible tells us to sing. God gave us music precisely because it affects our hearts and emotion, and that is a good thing. But every good thing can be and will be misused by sinful humans. My sense is that "excellent music" has become something of an idol. No, we don't worship it. But alot of people need it to worship, and that may be just as bad. Music is a part of our lives as humans; in a certain way we'll always depend on it. But as I see it, there's ample anecdotal evidence out there to suggest that for many Christians, the dependence has become unhealthy."

Although I tended to agree with him that some churchgoers seek a church meeting that enables them to get swept up in some emotional experience there, I would personally lean towards viewing music on a greater level than his statements here. I think God invented sound, and the arrangement of such to produce notes and chords that are pleasant to the ear for enjoyment and worship of the Maker of such. Pleasant sounds ought to be valued as much as pleasant sights and pleasant smells. And, as God is the greatest perfectionist, those with such skills to use means to produce such sounds should strive for his standard of excellence in doing so, especially in the church service.

As a musician and helper in church music for over 30 years or so, I read Greg G.'s post with special interest. I agree with much of it and with most of Moral Necessity's comments but MN's last sentence makes me uneasy. Although God deserves to be praised and that with instruments, according to the psalms, and those who have skills to use them should seek to do so as well as they can in the church service, we dare not forget that our heart's attitude is far more important than our musical skills. If, in our hearts, we are not worshipping the Lord in Spirit and in truth when we guide the congregation's in worship, we are not helping and may even be hindering congregational worship.

 

[moral necessity]

As a musician and helper in church music for over 30 years or so, I read Greg G.'s post with special interest. I agree with much of it and with most of Moral Necessity's comments but MN's last sentence makes me uneasy. Although God deserves to be praised and that with instruments, according to the psalms, and those who have skills to use them should seek to do so as well as they can in the church service, we dare not forget that our heart's attitude is far more important than our musical skills. If, in our hearts, we are not worshipping the Lord in Spirit and in truth when we guide the congregation's in worship, we are not helping and may even be hindering congregational worship.

Sorry if I made you uneasy with my statement. I'm glad you added that we dare not forget our hearts and our attitudes, and I very well agree with you, for it is of primary importance. All of our instruments should be properly "tuned", especially that of our hearts!

Blessings!

P.S. - I used to lead church music also, guitar.

 

[R Harris]

The History of Musical Instruments

Christians would be absolutely stunned if they knew the history of worship over the last 2000 years, especially with regard to instruments.

For the first 665 years, there is not one instance recorded of a church using musical instruments in its worship. In 666, the pope Vitalius decreed that instruments could be used, and so it began. When the reformation came, the reformers threw the instruments right back out. It really wasn't until the early 20th century that instruments found their way back into the majority of reformed churches. If you do not believe me, I would seriously suggest researching the matter.

But regarding "bad tunes" set to Psalms. Of that there is little doubt. On the other hand, how does one sing a "snappy tune" to the psalms of lament? How can one put an "upbeat tune" to Psalms 31, 42, 88, or 90? The tune should always reflect the character and content of the Psalm.

The Psalms are real, as opposed to other "hymns" which pretend that we are to carry around a "happy face smile" all of the time. Those simply are not real, and burden Christians when they should not be burdened with existing troubles and sorrows.

 

[JBaldwin]

But regarding "bad tunes" set to Psalms. Of that there is little doubt. On the other hand, how does one sing a "snappy tune" to the psalms of lament? How can one put an "upbeat tune" to Psalms 31, 42, 88, or 90? The tune should always reflect the character and content of the Psalm.

The Psalms are real, as opposed to other "hymns" which pretend that we are to carry around a "happy face smile" all of the time. Those simply are not real, and burden Christians when they should not be burdened with existing troubles and sorrows.

When I speak of poorly written tunes, I do not necessarily mean that the tune needs to be "snappy", but well written. A good tune draws attention to the words, is easy to sing and does not contradict the text. A poorly written tune has unusual intervals that are difficult to sing, it may have numerous repeated notes, or it's style may "say" something contrary to the text.

Not all hymns are as you describe them. Many are well-written both theolgoically and musically and are taken directly out of the Scriptures. A perfect example of a good tune that fits the words is the new hymn "In Christ Alone" written by Stuart Townend. Here is a melody which draws the singer into a text which is theologically sound. It is also easy to sing.