I hit a nerve last week among readers that I have
traditionally considered to be “on my side.” As you may recall, I suggested
that conscientious abstainers from singing in church should consider not only
verses like Romans 14:23 (abstaining from what is “not of faith”) but also
verses like Ephesians 5:19 (fulfilling one’s covenantal obligation in the
church to “speak to one another in songs”). It’s a thorny issue in which
Christian obligations seem to conflict, and I resonate with those who find
themselves in this difficult scenario. I’ve been there.
I haven’t gotten much hate mail in my sheltered ministerial
career, but this particular post won me the honor. One email from another blogger informed me
my arguments were the pitiful, ridiculous, and debased quackery of a religious
kook, full of concocted piety, willful ignorance, and high-handed humbug that tries to impose my poor taste in music on the more culturally refined. Wow. All
because I have weighed my personal objections against my ecclesiastical
obligations, and have concluded that "not singing" may not the best way of approaching this problem.
Apparently I am a traitor to the cause.
So let’s put this all out on the table again, laying aside
the food analogy that some readers found distracting. The scenario is this: you
come to the conclusion that your church is singing songs set to tunes that are
inappropriate to the text or that detract, in your studied opinion, from the
majesty of the God they purport to exalt. It's not just that you don't like the tunes--you are convinced that they are aberrant. What do you do?
1.
You could become a dissident and not sing, risking
violation of Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16.
2.
You could sing anyway, risking violation of Romans
14:23, enter into dialogue with your Christian brothers, and do whatever part you can to offer positive solutions to the problem
as you see it.
3. You could abandon the assembly, trusting that you will be able to find another assembly that is in agreement with your musical convictions.
3. You could abandon the assembly, trusting that you will be able to find another assembly that is in agreement with your musical convictions.
Having seen this kind of situation from both sides, I confess enormous sympathy both for those in the pastorate and for those in the pew. These are real and serious situations that all parties wish could
simply go away. Ideally, one party or the other will simply adjust his convictions so that harmony may be restored. But such adjustments are rarely so simple, because both sides are convinced, based on their respective understandings of Scripture and its implications, that the advance of Christ's purposes for the church would be better accomplished by the other guy changing his convictions.
In the end, I don’t have all the answers. Not by a long shot. But I am convinced that the scenario of individual church members becoming musical dissidents is not the answer. In fact, of the three options I listed (and I welcome other options) I would argue that this is the least viable solution of all.
MAS
In the end, I don’t have all the answers. Not by a long shot. But I am convinced that the scenario of individual church members becoming musical dissidents is not the answer. In fact, of the three options I listed (and I welcome other options) I would argue that this is the least viable solution of all.
MAS
12 comments:
Count me as one "on your side" who appreciates your thrust in this and the last post, Mark. As I noted in my post on this issue Wednesday (http://bit.ly/nTCzOP), although I didn't buy your food analogy, I do believe that your primary emphasis was an important one indeed---choosing to refrain from participation in an element of corporate worship is a weighty matter and must not be taken lightly. The unity of the church is critically important, and if I find myself having to refrain from singing in my church on a regular basis, something is wrong.
Dr. Snoeberger, you still have not gotten Dr. Bauder’s point in the Nick to which you refer. You state that you have weighed your personal objections against your ecclesiastical obligations, but what leads you to conclude that your personal objections are of the same nature as Dr. Bauder's and thus that they should be weighted equally? You have “personal objections” to certain music (your characterization). What if Dr. Bauder believes that singing certain songs is sinful? Should he (or I, or whomever else) sin out of concern for the body? Is our God so capricious that He would put His children in the position of having to sin, either against Him, or against His church? And what does it do to the body when you hurt a member by urging him to sin against God (1 Cor. 12:26)?
Lyn Marshall
I think this is a very helpful post. The three responses given seem Biblically correct to me.
I would suggest modifying it thus, however:
1. (unchanged)
2. Ends after "Romans 14:23."
3. (taking some of your words from #2 and relocating them) In either case, enter into dialogue with your Christian brothers, and do whatever part you can to offer positive solutions to the problem as you see it. Only if this fails do you abandon the assembly, trusting that you will be able to find another assembly that is in agreement with your musical convictions.
The second half of #2 that you provided most certainly applies to option #1 as well. By putting it only with #2, you inadvertently made one response the "good guy" response and the other the "recalcitrant jerk" response.
#1 may be best in isolated instances, but is extremely detrimental as a pattern.
Option 2 is only an option if you really can sing without sinning. As Lyn points out, option #2 is sometimes no more viable than #1. It depends on the problem.
Suppose that this Sunday your pastor asks you to sing a song explicitly denying the Trinity. Would you decide that "covenant trumps personal judgment"? I think not. I suspect you would do #1, followed by #3 to whatever extent necessary. Option #2 would be off the table entirely.
This is still looking at things from the perspective of the man in the pew (which will now and forever, perhaps, be known as the HSC perspective, for "He Sits in Church" or alternatively "Heather Snoeberger's Cooking" :)).
The more we see the dilemma for the man in the pew, the more we reinforce Dr. Bauder's point that we must not pressure those who "cannot sing". What kind of pastor wants to put committed and faithful believers in any of these three positions?
Lyn,
I did use the designation "personal objections," but I also specified that the ground of these objections was that of "aberration." So don't hear me talking about mere preference. I am in agreement with you that the trite dismissal of this debate as a matter of personal taste is problematic. I concur quite amiably that more than taste is at issue.
At the same time, I'm not sure that the binary choice between musical "sin" and "not-sin" is helpful either. Not all errors are equal. Most readily admit this when it comes to hymn TEXTS. Some hymn texts are objectionable for their vagueness; others are careslessly worded and unintentionally inaccurate; others are incidentally errant on minor points; others can be biblically demonstrated to be explicitly, unequivically, or emphatically in error; others are downright heresy. At some point in this progression one should undoubtedly stop singing, but most believers feel comfortable in the early stages of this progression simply giving a reading of charity and singing for the sake of the unity of the body. I've found this to be almost universally true of hymn TEXTS (which are objective in nature and which can be measured by clear, objective standards) in almost every church I've attended.
But when it comes to TUNES, which are non-propositional (and to that degree less objective in terms of critical evaluation), this charity is not so readily extended. This despite the fact that musical errors (and yes, I acknowledge them as such) are elusive, difficult to objectively or universally define, and often unintentional. A tune might be in error because it is silly or undignified; or because it contains performance elements that are unsuited for the assembly; or because it has troubling associations. And the degree to which these features are found in songs can be mild or it can be egregious (though never quite "heresy," because the idea of "heresy" cannot be applied to anything but propositions). And yet when it comes to TUNES, there seems to be a confident, binary assessment: sin or not-sin; sing or not-sing.
What I'm suggesting is that the same reading of charity for the sake of the unity of the body be extended for TUNES that it is for TEXTS. And I'd also like to suggest that this kind of response will generate the goodwill necessary to meaningful dialogue in identifying and correcting errors.
Jon,
You're right about me unfairly using the qualifier on #2 and not on #1. That very thought crossed my mind when I proofread it, but I left it in. That was unfair of me.
I think I answered the Trinity question in the last reply I made. Let me know if this is not the case.
I also agree that no pastor wants to put his people into the position where they are choosing between #1, #2, and #3. And the pastor who does place his people into this dilemma on the basis of his own personal preference alone is in error. To be fair, though, most pastors who put people into this dilemma are either (1) unaware of the nature/extent of the dilemma they have created, or are (2) making a principled leadership decision that they feel will further the life of the church. And as I said last time, in the latter situation, I don't think that a pastor needs to be "held hostage" to the will of one or two members.
I agree with you Mark. I appreciate your perspective on this issue.
Thanks for the thoughtful response, Mark. Yes, you answered the Trinity question. I don't have any great problem, in general, with your take on this.
I certainly agree that many times pastors are unaware of the nature/extent of the dilemma. Perhaps you seminary guys need to be educating them on how careful they need to be. ;) I WAS told to be careful about changes in seminary, but never from a "you might put people in a horrible dilemma" perspective, more from a "you don't want to offend people if you can help it" perspective. In other words, caution in changes is a spiritual, not just a pragmatic, consideration. Too often it is discussed pragmatically. But that's very much a side issue, I suppose.
I would like to query one point in your last response: "making a principled leadership decision that they feel will further the life of the church."
1. Does it make you feel a little queasy to put "principled" and "feel" in the same sentence? :)
2. More substantively, wouldn't "principled" be based on Biblical principles, and isn't love for one another one of the most important principles running around?
3. How can it "further the life of the church" if it turns committed and faithful members into those who are violating either Eph. 5 or Rom. 14:23?
4. This one isn't fair for me to ask, maybe, because I'm pastoring a church that will probably always be very small, and I don't want to be shooting at the "big guys". But how often is "further the life of the church" just fancy spiritual-sounding words for "looking for a way to get this thing to grow bigger"?
Given those questions, and conceding that pastors may not realise the dilemma, once they do it is hard to see how this can be a "principled" course of action. You can't further the life of the church by violating John 13:34-35, and to pressure people to violate Rom. 14:23 is not consistent with John 13:34-35.
Finally, as to "held hostage", there is a difference between being "the will of one or two" and the definite spiritual needs of one or two. It may be hard to ascertain the difference, of course.
From personal experience: if you want to break someone's heart, tell them you are being "held hostage" (not in those words) out of love and concern for them. If they are spiritual at all, they become highly motivated to workk with you to find a way not to hold you hostage. If they aren't spiritual, you'll know before it ever gets to that point.
In looking back through these discussions, I feel that I have given inadequate attention to the verses cited as the basis for one's covenant obligations to the assembly. But after pondering them, I am not seeing how they create the obligations necessary to the argument here. First the verses:
"Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord." (Eph 5:19)
"Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord." (Col 3:16)
These verses make general points. Should a believer who is able to sing always refrain from singing, i.e., to choose never to sing, these verses provide a basis for saying that the believer is making an unbiblical choice.
But that is not the issue here. Rather, to use Kevin Bauder's words from his article, the focus here is one's decision as to a song that "subverts right doctrine in the way that it expresses the doctrine." That leads to two questions.
1. If we acknowledge, with regard to error in the text, that "at some point … one should undoubtedly stop singing" and if this choice is not contrary to the teaching of Eph 5:19 and Col 3:16, then how and why do these verses implicate a decision not to sing a song because of error communicated by the meaning of the music? What in the text provides a basis for distinguishing the applicability of these verses to the two classes of situations?
2. What in the text provides a basis for application to our choices of individual psalms and hymns and spiritual songs? Without this, on what basis is there a covenant obligation to the congregation to sing individual songs?
I enjoyed your post on music. My wife and I have often reflected that eating at McDonald's and singing CCM are two things that we would never do if we weren't on deputation. However, we had never thought about drawing an analogy between the two.
We eat at McDonald's
1. When that's the only acceptable/accessible option to eat where God has placed us
2. Because there is some nutritional benefit in the food
3. Because other than the food we're at a great restaurant (it's clean, has a playground, and has changing tables in the bathroom).
We sing CCM
1. When that's what's being sung at the church where God has placed us
2. Because there is some spiritual value in the songs
3. Because other than the songs we're at a great church (it's doctrinally sound, is missions-minded, and loves God).
Sometimes the lyrics can be almost comically inappropriate. For instance, one song a couple weeks back had the line: "You were the King of Kings; Yeah you were; Yeah you were" (it continued to speak of Christ still reigning). I couldn't bring myself to acknowledge Christ as the King of Kings and give him an attaboy in the same breath. However, it was appropriate in that style of song service to bow and pray during part of a song, so I prayed in agreement with the intent of the song. We haven't figured this issue out completely, but we never refuse to sing out of protest (I guess we might if there was profanity or outright heresy, but that's never the case). If for some reason we cannot sing (don't know the tune, can't stomach the lyrics), we attempt to sing as much as possible and participate throughout at least in prayer. We wouldn't walk into McDonald's and complain loudly about the food. We chose to be there for good reason.
Anyways, thanks for your thinking on the issue. Great analogy.
Jon--Your Questions:
2. More substantively, wouldn't "principled" be based on Biblical principles, and isn't love for one another one of the most important principles running around?
Sure, love is an important principle, but at some point the best interest of the congregation enter in. Suppose, to be ridiculous, someone thinks all songs should be sung in monotone accompanied by a tuba. Is the pastor forced to oblige out of love?
3. How can it "further the life of the church" if it turns committed and faithful members into those who are violating either Eph. 5 or Rom. 14:23?
It can further the church if the church decides that the whole congregation is best served by that song or style of song. For example, the insistence of a single member that a church sing nothing but psalms need not place constraints on the whole church.
4. This one isn't fair for me to ask, maybe, because I'm pastoring a church that will probably always be very small, and I don't want to be shooting at the "big guys". But how often is "further the life of the church" just fancy spiritual-sounding words for "looking for a way to get this thing to grow bigger"?
I suppose it can mean that, but it's not what I mean.
Brent--your questions:
1. If we acknowledge, with regard to error in the text, that "at some point … one should undoubtedly stop singing" and if this choice is not contrary to the teaching of Eph 5:19 and Col 3:16, then how and why do these verses implicate a decision not to sing a song because of error communicated by the meaning of the music? What in the text provides a basis for distinguishing the applicability of these verses to the two classes of situations?
Because unlike texts, tunes can never be heretical or explicitly affirm theological error. At best this would be implied. That's the nature of non-propositional media like tunes. I suppose that there might be a tune that is so bad that I won't sing, but it's hard for me to objectify the criteria for identifying such a tune.
2. What in the text provides a basis for application to our choices of individual psalms and hymns and spiritual songs? Without this, on what basis is there a covenant obligation to the congregation to sing individual songs?
It seems to me that the whole tenor of the passage deals with a corporate obligation. It seems pretty unlikely to me that Paul was anticipating clusters of church members individually determining whether or not to song this tune or that one irrespective of the will of the body.
Mark,
Thank you for engaging with me on this. I'll need to drop out now, I'm very short for time, but I just want to challenge your thinking one more time.
It is not loving to condone bizarre behaviour, and it is not loving to let someone dictate to the church. That is not consistent with a Biblical definition of love.
If a church restricts itself due to the weakness of a brother, that is love. If a brother tries to dictate, that is not love.
Thus, I could never say as you did, "Sure, love is an important principle, but at some point the best interest of the congregation enter in." That sets love in opposition, at times, to the best interest of the congregation. Love practiced Biblically is always the best interest of the congregation.
Thank you for a good discussion. Lord bless.
Post a Comment