Musical Associations and CCM Adaptation

[RSS Robot]

March 1, 2011 (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org; for instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information paragraph at the end of the article) -

When it comes to music, the philosophy coming into ascendance among IB churches is this: as long as the words are right we should relax and be edified and not be critical.

West Coast graduate: “The music was a lot more of a concern to me when I first started to hear it and think of the fact that it was CCM artists that perform it. But seriously, are the words evil? Can a Christian not be edified by these songs? Is it not more important for a person to be edified than it is to be approved by men?”

Hyles Anderson graduate: “I am not against new songs that are theo-centric and doctrinally correct. Who the writer is not my concern. Any music that promotes God for who He is or what He has done without emphasizing the flesh, I am for.”

View the full article

[John81]

If God uses someone to write a biblically sound song (speaking of the lyrics of the song), should we reject that song because we don't hold to all the views the author holds? Should we go through our hymnals and remove all the hymns written by those who held to views we don't believe or had some doctrinal differences than we hold to?

Any lyrics, whether biblical or not, can be put to any music style. Accepted hymns have been and continue to be put to various styles of music. While we might reject some of the musical styles, that doesn't mean we have to reject the lyrics and never sing them with what we deem to be an appropriate musical style.

Singning a hymn written by Wesley or Luther, for example, doesn't mean one approves of, endorses, or even knows their biblical and doctrinal positions. The same applies to others as well.

[Seth Doty]

Any lyrics, whether biblical or not, can be put to any music style. Accepted hymns have been and continue to be put to various styles of music. While we might reject some of the musical styles, that doesn't mean we have to reject the lyrics and never sing them with what we deem to be an appropriate musical style.

Singning a hymn written by Wesley or Luther, for example, doesn't mean one approves of, endorses, or even knows their biblical and doctrinal positions. The same applies to others as well.

Compare it to preaching for example. Would you hand out a CD of or recommended a Pastor like Joel osteen preaching a sermon on the love of God even if it was(and for the sake of an example lets say it was) completely correct? Sure he might have been right in one sermon about one topic, God might even be able to use it in someones life, but would you really want to be responsible for encouraging people to listen to him given the potential for them to fall into error in other areas? There are better choices. I feel the same about songs with biblically sound lyrics that were written by CCM writers in CCM style initially and then "toned down" for more conservative congregations. Sure, it might be possible to "clean them up" and re-do the music to where there might be nothing "wrong" with the music per se any more. Still, one thing to consider is what are the motives for doing that? Most of the time when I see that being done it is being done and encouraged by people who are into CCM already but are in a congregation with stricter standards than their own. The "cleaned up and toned down" CCM is used as a bridge to encourage people to get into "real" CCM. Even if we say that isn't the problem in a given situation and that there is nobody subtly trying to bring anything in is it really a smart t idea to "tone down" CCM songs and take the risks associated with that when there are other choices out there? Not saying that a song with biblically correct words that was originally CCM and has had the music "fixed" is the end of the world or is even necessarily wrong in and of itself. However I don't think it is very wise either and i wouldn't do it or encourage it. Edited March 2, 2011 by Seth-Doty

[Covenanter]

S-D, are people IFB Christians disagree with necessarily wrong, & to be shunned? The KJV translators & great hymn-writers of the past who held to paedobaptism were not ignorant. They were Bible-believers who were steeped in Scripture, well able to defend their faith & give an answer. They certainly weren't paedobaptists because of an ignorant carry-over from Papacy.

The CCM of his day, Independent Isaac Watts wrote his "Divine Songs for Children" with the intent that they be acceptable to Baptists & Anglicans. His hymn-writing met opposition from those insisting on exclusive Psalmody, & the "regulative principle" of specific Scriptural direction for worship.

Most non-conformists including baptists until 1850 opposed the use of any musical instruments in Christian worship.

Your opinion that we should examine the theology of the hymn-writers, & the CCM use of instruments to sing their new hymns, should logically be extrapolated back in time. The result is that most of the old hymns we love, including the Scottish metrical Psalms, would be removed from your hymn-books.

Then you would reject all the non-disp hymns writers, & disps with the 'wrong' trib/rapture timing.....

Your worship would be greatly impoverished.

[John81]

What Covenanter said seems to be what I was trying to say as well.

Another factor, if a CCM singer or band singing a song taints that song by their association, by extention that would mean that hymns they sing on their albums, in their concerts and get radio play, would now be tainted. Many in the younger generations don't even realize the songs being sung by some CCM folks are actually old hymns. To them, it's just another cool song. Do we now have to remove all these from our hymnals?

[Annie]

A few observations:
First, defining "CCM" would be helpful. I think that designation has very little to do with "when" a song was written, and more to do with its style. If we went with the former definition, then any music being written right now is "CCM" or contemporary, and that definition has little value in delineating what we are talking about.

Without getting in too deep, I'll say that I think there are a few different things we have to consider when we are evaluating music for personal listening and/or public performance. First, what is the style of the music? What does the style communicate? Out of what culture was that style birthed? Does that style appeal to our baser passions or to our righteous,ordinate affections? The answers to these questions will help us in determining whether or not the style of the music (not lyrics) is appropriate.

Second, there is the question of lyrics. Are they doctrinally accurate? Are they shallow? Do the words do justice to our holy, loving God, or are they inspired by the perspective of pop culture? Is Jesus presented as a lover? Is He "cool"? etc.

Next, there is the consideration of "association." Let's take "How Great Thou Art." Although many CCM artists have at one time or another performed this song in any number of styles, the dominant association of this song falls squarely under "old hymns of the faith." It is not associated with one particular artist or group. In contrast, let's consider "Before the Throne of God Above," a wonderful, doctrinally rich song* written long ago, but recently re-styled and popularized by Sovereign Grace Ministries, a charismatic organization, and performed by tons of CCM groups (just check the song out on youtube; it's VERY popular right now). So, anyone who performs this new tune of the song is automatically associating himself (whether intentionally or unintentionally) with these groups. BTW, I LOVE the new tune of this song (not the CCM style, but the tune itself), and I cry every time I read/sing the words to this song, because they are so very moving and rich. (At our church, we sing the song to the tune of "Jesus Shall Reign," to avoid being mistakenly associated with Sovereign Grace, et. al.) Even though I love the new tune, and have enjoyed listening to "cleaned up" arrangements of the new tune, I personally (the institutions with which I am associated) have chosen not to sing/produce the song with the new tune, in order not to lead undiscerning people astray (into Sovereign Grace/CCM/charismatic movement).

This is just an example of one application of the "associations" consideration. When you are in a position of influence/leadership (as is my husband) you have to be more careful.

*Lyrics
Before the throne of God above
I have a strong and perfect plea:
A great high Priest whose name is Love
Who ever lives and pleads for me.

My name is graven on His hands;
My name is written on His heart.
I know that while in heav'n He stands
No tongue can bid me thence depart.

When Satan tempts me to despair
And tells me of the guilt within,
Upward I look and see Him there
Who made an end to all my sin.

Because the sinless Savior died,
My sinful soul is counted free;
For God, the Just, is satisfied
To look on Him and pardon me.

Behold Him there, the risen Lamb,
My perfect, spotless righteousness,
The great, unchangeable I AM,
The King of glory and of grace!

One with Himself I cannot die.
My soul is purchased by His blood.
My life is hid with Christ on high,
With Christ, my Savior and my God.

Edited March 2, 2011 by Annie

[Brother Rick]

:goodpost: Not sure I've heard that song before, but the lyrics gave me some chills. Good chills. You know what I mean.

[HappyChristian]

Not sure I've heard that song before, but the lyrics gave me some chills. Good chills. You know what I mean.

Indeed, that was very well put, Annie. I have heard the tunes you mentioned and agree with you - but in reverse. I actually like the original tune best. I think you pegged what CCM is nicely.

[Annie]

S-D, are people IFB Christians disagree with necessarily wrong, & to be shunned? The KJV translators & great hymn-writers of the past who held to paedobaptism were not ignorant. They were Bible-believers who were steeped in Scripture, well able to defend their faith & give an answer. They certainly weren't paedobaptists because of an ignorant carry-over from Papacy.

The CCM of his day, Independent Isaac Watts wrote his "Divine Songs for Children" with the intent that they be acceptable to Baptists & Anglicans. His hymn-writing met opposition from those insisting on exclusive Psalmody, & the "regulative principle" of specific Scriptural direction for worship.

Most non-conformists including baptists until 1850 opposed the use of any musical instruments in Christian worship.

Your opinion that we should examine the theology of the hymn-writers, & the CCM use of instruments to sing their new hymns, should logically be extrapolated back in time. The result is that most of the old hymns we love, including the Scottish metrical Psalms, would be removed from your hymn-books.

Then you would reject all the non-disp hymns writers, & disps with the 'wrong' trib/rapture timing.....

Your worship would be greatly impoverished.

I think you're comparing apples and oranges here, Covenanter. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) We're not talking simply about disagreement over baptism and whether instruments should be used. To be sure, this isn't the first time Christians have disagreed over music...but this (modern) disagreement is different in that there is a whole other culture (pop culture) which has infiltrated the church. The church now takes its cues from popular culture instead of the other way around, as was the case in Bach's day (when Watts lived). The current styles of music commonly used in the church do not find their roots in the church--or in Christian culture at all, for that matter. In addition, Isaac Watts was not primarily a musician/composer of music, but a poet. Others put his poetry to music rooted solidly in church tradition...not some "new" kind of music sourced in counterculture and rebellion to norms. For these reasons, I don't think it's accurate to refer to Isaac Watts as the "CCM artist of his day." Although there is a bit of similarity, the issues were completely different than they are now, and nowhere near as significant. Edited March 3, 2011 by Annie

[John81]

What about all the hymns which were put to tunes of popular songs of their day; everything from tavern tunes to folk songs?

What about the fact the piano was once considered to be a worldly instrument, not accepted in churches, with the music coming from a piano viewed as being fleshly, worldly?

[trc123]

Accepted standards for sacred music have changed in both the culture and the church. It has always been that way and will always be that way. Even amongst the most traditional separated conservative fundamental believers. It is undeniable. All kinds of standards of acceptability change and move along a spectrum continually as each generation comes and goes. It is undeniable.

[Annie]

What about all the hymns which were put to tunes of popular songs of their day; everything from tavern tunes to folk songs?

Good question. I think it depends on what period of history you're talking about. If you're talking Luther's day, then the style of the tavern tunes was most likely borrowed from the church/high culture (with lyrics changed, of course), not the other way around. IOW, there wasn't a "counterculture" or pop culture at work that was creating its own style of music which then made its way into the church...There was "common music," to be sure, but the tavern tunes and folk tunes weren't substantively different in style than the church tunes.

BTW, I've never seen airtight documentation that Luther actually borrowed specific tavern tunes. But it's a favorite argument among uninformed teenagers who want to borrow today's club tunes for "Christian" music. My point is that even if Luther did borrow tunes, it's not the same thing as borrowing a completely different musical style--not to mention a style which was birthed out of a massive, rebellious counterculture which eventually became mainstream popular culture. It's apples and oranges.

What about the fact the piano was once considered to be a worldly instrument, not accepted in churches, with the music coming from a piano viewed as being fleshly, worldly?

Again, you're not talking musical style here...just instruments. A parallel would be someone today who thinks that a drum (the instrument itself) is worldly, or that, because it is associated with rock music, it should never be used in Christian music. This opinion is misguided, in that it focuses on the wrong thing. So, the point you've made here, while accurate, does not parallel the kind of issues the church is facing today. Again, it's apples and oranges. What is happening today is completely unprecedented in church history. (Well, I'd say that "what is happening today" actually started in the 1800's, maybe in Fanny Crosby's day. But, again, even with Fanny Crosby/William Doane, who did indeed borrow styles from currently popular ballads, the style was nowhere near as different as it is today. And, with Fanny Crosby's hymns, the current dominant association is not worldly, since ballads aren't the "going thing" these days. IOW, we don't associate her songs with ballads; that association has died out with the ballads themselves. That said, our church doesn't sing a whole lot of Fanny Crosby's hymns, as there are a whole lot of other songs which are doctrinally richer and better suited for worship.)

I say it is unprecedented because never before the nineteenth and twentieth centuries was there an organized counterculture, complete with its own entirely new and different musical style, which infiltrated the church. The Industrial Revolution, advanced technology, mass public education, the birth of the "teenager" and the "generation gap," and a whole host of other events came together in an unprecedented way to form what we now call popular culture. The ideals of this popular culture are diametrically opposed to Christian principles. And popular culture has overwhelmed the church's influence in society at large. Never before has this happened, nor could it have happened, since the technology just wasn't there in previous centuries to "bring people together" in this way. Sure, there have always been disagreements about music in the church, but never before have those disagreements been focused on a style birthed from counter/pop culture. Edited March 3, 2011 by Annie

[Covenanter]

What about all the hymns which were put to tunes of popular songs of their day; everything from tavern tunes to folk songs?

What about the fact the piano was once considered to be a worldly instrument, not accepted in churches, with the music coming from a piano viewed as being fleshly, worldly?

Don't forget the "West Gallery" music of 200 years ago beloved by Thomas Hardy & played by a variety of instruments.

American "Sacred Harp" music is similar.

Why should the devil have all the good tunes?

[Annie]

Don't forget the "West Gallery" music of 200 years ago beloved by Thomas Hardy & played by a variety of instruments.

American "Sacred Harp" music is similar.

Why should the devil have all the good tunes?

Innovations in music and music notation are not the same as stylistic differences. Both the West Gallery and Sacred Harp music were similar stylistically to what was already being sung/played in the church setting. By way of contrast, the kind of music the church is dealing with today (at least the kind we're talking about: CCM) did not originate from within the church (the innovations of believers) or even from within the confines of Christian/high culture. It is stylistically different, borrowed from a culture whose ideals are diametrically opposed to Christian principles, and which has no concept of absolute standards of beauty which should govern art...no belief in God's transcendence and holiness...no moral footing at all, really.

I don't know what you mean by your question "Why should the devil have all the good tunes," but that begs the question: what is "good?" That's what we're talking about. Edited March 3, 2011 by Annie

[Brother Rick]

Why should the devil have all the good tunes?

:jaw: