My wife Heather is a superb cook. Her ability to blend economy,
nutrition, and taste is the stuff of legends. But sometimes the family rebels.
Sometimes we want taste above all else, and we will happily jettison economy
and nutrition to get it. And my dear and faithful wife obliges us. Every
Sunday, she makes us hamburgers—big ones with white bread hamburger buns
covered with mayonnaise, topped with cheese, ketchup and a thick slice of onion.
On the side we have French fries. Other than the onion slice, there are no
vegetables served at this meal.
If she were single, Heather would never do this. To begin
with, she doesn’t like the taste of white bread or onions. But more than this,
she inwardly cringes at the unhealthy abundance of red meat, the lack of fruits and
vegetables, and especially the mayonnaise, which from the standpoint of
nutrition is a horrible substance in every way.
So what has this to do with theology? Well, the other day I
was reading an intriguing essay by my esteemed friend Kevin Bauder. In it, he
argues that there are two features of a hymn/song that will result in him
refraining from singing in the Church—bad theology and an unsuitable tune. The
emphasis was on the latter. I read it with a curious blend of agreement and hesitation.
I agree with the concern that church music be marked by suitable
tunes. In fact, I would say that I agree strongly. I agree extremely strongly. I sympathize
with those who are asked weekly to sing texts that should inspire awe but are
set to tunes that are “awesome.” Or asked to participate in the use of musical
devices that have no function other than to mimic a popular style or simply to
sound “cool.” It’s not just that these things are matters of taste. They are
matters that touch on the health of the Church.
So what is my hesitation? Well, this is where my wife and
the hamburgers come in. She cooks me something that is not only outside the confines
of her personal taste, but also something that she strongly feels is unhealthy.
But she does it because she has a covenant relationship that trumps these
concerns. In just the same way every believer has a covenant relationship with
the church that is necessarily forwarded by the corporate singing of songs for
mutual edification.
Are there limits to this? Sure. If I insist that my wife buy
her meat at the idol’s temple, she should decline. And if I insist that we
have hamburgers every night, she has every right to question my request or to eat something other than the rest of us eat. I get that. And at some point, issues of music
style can, in my opinion, sharply strain or even sever a member’s relationship
to his church.
That being said, however, the impulse to “not sing” should
be weighed very heavily against other obligations of church members and
especially of church leaders. Deciding "not to sing" is a serious decision indeed.
MAS
30 comments:
Mark,
It becomes even more complicated when you have kids, even young children, and you are teaching them one thing but the children's church music leader wants them to sing as part of a musical group/production a song about peanut butter sandwiches or in a style that bothers their young consciences.
I can understand the covenant relationship that you mention and have no problem applying it in certain situations. It's a lot harder for children to understand, and I say this from personal experience. It's one thing to listen to something you find objectionable; it's another thing to be an active participant in something you believe is wrong.
I ended up telling my kids to participate, while still maintaining that they were right to object. I'm not sure I did the right thing.
Mark:
How do you spell non sequitor? You are comparing apples and hand guns. Unless somewhere you are invited, encouraged, admonished, instructed to eat hamburgers in the Scripture, the your argument misses the mark by three planets.
IMHO
Jeff Straub
Jeff, of course all analogies break down, but I think you're missing the point.
Heather's dislike of hamburgers is driven by (1) personal taste but more importantly by (2) personal convictions about nutritional rectitude. But she has covenantal obligations that exceed her personal tastes and even her personal convictions about nutritional rectitude. And yes, I would say that it is a biblically informed sense of rectitude.
Kevin's dislike of certain music is driven by (1) personal taste but more importantly by (2) personal convictions about musical rectitude. But he also has covenant obligations that (in my mind at least) exceed his personal tastes and personal convictions about musical rectitude. And yes, I would say that his is a biblically informed sense of rectitude. I generally agree with him, too.
My concern is that, at least so far as his essay went, he expresses significant concern over personal convictions about musical rectitude, but says nothing about his covenantal obligations. I recognize it is a thorny issue, with apparently conflicting obligations. My concern is that the covenantal obligation is being ignored.
IOW, how can one obey Ephesians 5:19 if he chooses not to sing?
MAS
Also, since you asked, I think it is spelled non sequitur.
:)
Mark:
All you did here was simply restate what you argued for in your blog post. I read it the first time so repeating was unnecessary. And I didn't miss any point but you apparently did (Here we loopity loop . . . yada yada yada yada . . . ) This issue for Kevin is not personal taste but biblical conviction which is hugely different from Heather's "personal" convictions about hamburger . . .
JS
PS. Your analogy didn't break down. It didn't get off the ground to start with, IMO! :)
P. P. S. I'm glad at least that you can spell correctly!
Jeff, you don't seem to be reading what I am writing. I've said over and again that neither issue is (primarily) a matter of personal taste. They are matters of biblically informed conviction about musical/nutritional rectitude. I'm not sure how I can say this any more clearly.
MAS
Ok Mark . . . uncle already! What in the world is "nutritional rectitude"? The Bible says nothing about hamburger. It does however address music in many places. It is still a non sequitUr!
What I mean is that even though the Bible doesn't specifically tell us what to eat, we can rightly deduce that certain dietary practices are right or wrong based on what the Bible does say. We might differ on specifics, but I think I can rightly say it would not be right to eat, say, a 24 ounce bag of Doritos every day--this is an issue of rectitude or propriety. It is something different entirely from saying, "I don't like Doritos," which is a statement of taste.
Same with music. The Bible doesn't give us specifics on music style, but most people would agree, at some level, that certain music styles (say head-banger music or opera) are not the right vehicle for serious religious texts. That is something different entirely from saying, "I don't like head-banger music or opera."
At the end of the day, I think Kevin and I share very similar views about rectitude in musical style (not taste, but rectitude). But what I'm questioning is the decision to "not sing" based on this factor alone. It seems that the covenant obligation to engage in mutual edification through song needs to be more thoroughly considered.
But to reach the covenant obligation point, you must first conclude that the personal convictions about nutrition and music are comparable. Yes, you use the same words for them, but that alone does not show that they are equivalent convictions on the same plane or that you view them that way. (I love my family, and I love good chocolate. Yet while I use the word love for both, they are not the same loves, and I do not think that they are.)
Kevin wrote of the need for "every man [to] be fully persuaded in his own mind" (his emphasis). Add to that another statement from the same Biblical context, "whatsoever is not of faith is sin," and we are dealing, not just with a conviction implicating a serious issue, but with one implicating a sin issue. Are you saying that you and your wife view your weekly burgers as that sort of issue? My hunch is that you do not (that if you did, you would view your wife's concerns differently). If not, then the comparison does not carry the weight you are placing upon it.
But suppose for a moment that we had a corresponding conviction. Turning back to the covenant obligation point, two questions immediately occur to me:
1. What is the scope of the covenant obligation? What things are included?
2. Do one's covenant obligations somehow reduce the need of "every man [to] be fully persuaded in his own mind" and somehow alter application of the point that "whatsoever is not of faith is sin"? What Scripture would lead us to that conclusion?
As I ask, I am thinking of a situation from many years ago in which a church pianist was asked to play something that she could not in good conscience play. As I recall her account of what happened, the church music director indicated that it was OK for her to go ahead and play, notwithstanding her concern, because the moral responsibility was his, not hers. In essence, given his decision and request, she would get a pass. She was not convinced.
Maybe you think that a church musician is not in the same situation as a member in the pew. If so, we can stick to the member in the pew as the hymn is announced. Either way, a covenant obligation that overrides the concern seems to imply a transfer of moral responsibility, and I find that troubling.
You are right. So is Dr. Bauder.
Your comments build on his, they don't detract from them. You have demonstrated why it is absolutely imperative that church leadership ensures that the music used corporately within the church is "edible" (singable) for all.
Any other kind of "leadership" is disgraceful.
Brent . . . for once I am thankful for a lawyer!
Brent, I think you're getting to the heart of the issue. At some point it would seem that we would say, "It would not be right for me to eat X." To eat X would be gluttony, or perhaps would mess up my digestive system, or make my cholesterol levels soar, or even poison me. I should not eat X. It would be wrong to do so.
And yet I have been in ministry settings where for the sake of the church, I have eaten what I should not eat. I have eaten more than I "should" so as not to offend a host. I have eaten foods in foreign missionary settings that I knew would damage me--and they did. But I did these things because my obligation to the church trumped them.
I'm suggesting the same for music. There are music styles that, in my mind, are wrong, or certainly that do not match the words they attend. There was a day in which I would not sing them. I'd sing this song, but not that song, then these two, but not that one, and so forth. But I've since come to the conclusion that that kind of response is deleterious to the life of the church. I'm not sure that it comports with texts like Ephesians 5:19.
As I've said, there are limits to this. I won't drink poison, and I won't affirm theological error in song, but it seems to me that the obligations I have to the church cannot simply be forgotten in this question.
And yes, Brent, I think there is a difference between leading in music ministry and participating in congregational singing. For instance, I was once asked to sing as a solo an arrangement of "There's a Wideness in God's Mercy" (not at my present church, BTW). I declined. Not only are some of the words objectionable, but authorial intent is REALLY objectionable: I could not in good conscience lead in worship with that song.
But if the same song came up in a congregational setting, I could affirm most of the words with a clear conscience, and would. I'd probably have to clear my throat during a couple of the lines, and have to concentrate on not furrowing my brow in consternation. But I'm not convinced that I would accomplish anything by sealing my lips, sticking out my jaw and staring down the song leader...especially when I've got two boys and a ministerial student sharing my pew, watching and potentially mimicking what I do.
IOW, I have to consider not only my individual conscience, but also the health of the whole church.
To those who find flaws with the food analogy, I'm curious how you would advise someone in the following situation:
Church member A is convinced that God's Word is an important matter and should not be dealt with lightly. He is also convinced that the best expression of God's Word in the English language is the KJV, and feels it would be inappropriate to utilize any other translation lest God's Word be demeaned (not b/c the KJV is inspired but b/c it is the most accurate/faithful/excellent translation and, thus, the only one worthy of such a great God). He feels that this is a biblically informed conviction.
One Sunday, a visiting preacher informs the congregation that he will be utilizing the NIV in his preaching. Since "whatsoever is not of faith is sin," should church member A plug his ears whenever the preacher reads Scripture lest he allows God's Word to be adulterated in his hearing? Should he get up and walk out of the assembly? Should he remain in the congregation b/c of his covenant commitments to them?
I suppose I'm not the one to answer the question, Ben, but I'd advise him to stay. I'd even advise him to participate in the responsive reading. Now if I could not dissuade this member of his conviction and it became a regular issue (i.e., not a guest speaker but the regular pulpit translation), I'd suggest that the member humbly request a letter of transfer or at least a letter of good conduct to another assembly, and then give it to him.
I would gladly consider his objection for merit, but I don't think that the pastor/church needs to be "held hostage" to the peculiar convictions of each member. That applies to music too. We've all got our individual soul liberty, but we are also a congregation. And again, that's the issue at stake here.
Ben,
I think your analogy is interesting, but to make it even more relevant to Kevin's original claim, I think we'd need to do more than discuss whether he should sit in the service as the NIV is read.
What if the church makes the NIV the standard for the church (rather than the preference of a visiting speaker)? What if the church's standard liturgy includes responsive readings, in which the entire church is asked to read together from the NIV? (This is probably the most relevant hypothetical.) What if he's asked to lead in the public reading of the text?
I actually think you've moved beyond Bauder's original claim in two of your scenarios. In his scenario, he was not describing someone who led in worship at the church but someone who participated as a member of the congregation (i.e., he's not leading in a public reading). Nor was he describing a church that made a regular practice of using hymns he felt were inappropriate (i.e., it's not the standard Bible of the church). So congregational reading would be similar, but I think congregational listening is also similar (especially if we believe the congregation are active participants in worship even during the reading and preaching of God's Word)
Perhaps another question would be: if it is sinful to sing the song, why is it not sinful to listen as others sing the song? Is it only b/c it is recognized that this is not a clear issue? It seems he considers one to be tolerance of evil while the other is practice of evil, but here merely asserts the two are not the same without explaining why that is the case. I think Snoeberger is simply taking it a step further and saying that my participation in a practice I believe to be unhealthy at best for the sake of my covenant relationship is in essence a toleration of the evil and not a full-blown practice.
Dr. Snoeberger,
I think you're advice matches up well with the advice you gave regarding music. I also agree that the congregation is not to be held hostage to individual convictions. That was an issue that seemed to be overlooked in some of the comments here, which is why I raised the scenario regarding translations.
Brent . . . for once I am thankful for a lawyer!
Now there's a boon for an under-appreciated class—I'll take it! ;)
Mark, you mentioned others watching what you do. That is true ... no matter what you choose: either way, you set an example. As I once heard John Ashcroft say, "In everything we do, we teach."
One final thought. If notwithstanding our lack of full persuasion and lack of faith we go ahead and participate for the sake of these covenantal relationships with other believers, are we not placing these horizontal relationship above our vertical relationship with our God? (This points back to my question #2 above: we have to grapple with that.) We can talk at length about these horizontal relationships—and I agree that they are important—but do they not take second place? (Not that they conflict, as Jon helpfully points out.) Having come back to what I said before, I will close. The lawyer rests.
Brent: "are we not placing these horizontal relationship above our vertical relationship with our God?"
The answer would be, I think, that under God-ordained authority, horizontal is vertical. Did the woman who didn't carry out her vow because her husband nullified it (Numbers 30) place her horizontal relationship above her vertical relationship with God? Isn't the horizontal/vertical dichotomy flawed?
"We ought to obey God rather than man" -- but "obey God" may be broader than we sometimes think when it comes to human relationships. The children of Israel were not free to circumvent their leaders to destroy the Gibeonites in the interest of "obeying God". Acts 5 has to be understood in the light of Numbers 30 and II Samuel 21:1-14.
For a church member, God commands submission to the authority of the church, so submission is vertical, not merely horizontal. Pastors (and "worship leaders") need to get a grip on just how serious their decisions in leadership can be.
Jon, I agree that a horizontal/vertical dichotomy is flawed in that neither can be ignored. They are linked, as you have been reminding us. But sometimes it is hard for us to analyze two issues at the same time. Here I would say that the analysis must begin with the vertical. A correct understanding of the horizontal flows from a correct understanding of the vertical, not the other way around.
As to Numbers 30, we are back to analogies: to what extent is this like that? I am not sure at this point. Dispensational distinctions might also be raised.
Brent,
I'm curious: what advice would you give the church member in the scenario I brought up?
Brent, I agree with everything you said.
Ben, I'm curious: what should the pastor do/have done in the scenario you brought up?
Ben, I think that your translation hypothetical is more distant from the original situation than the food analogy. Listening to the reading involves a lesser degree of involvement than singing a hymn (just as singing a hymn has a lesser degree of involvement than choosing and leading it). I do not mean that there is never an issue with listening (there are, of course, things to which we should not listen), only that as we move further from the original situation raised by Kevin’s article, the analogy and associated analysis become less helpful to our consideration of the original point. Moreover, one’s response to the hypothetical cannot be separated from one’s view of the bibliology issues that we all know are involved, and thus a meaningful answer with a reasoned analysis risks turning this into a KJV discussion. Out of respect for our host and his choice of topic, I will not start down that road here.
However, the tie to underlying substantive issues leads me to a general observation. Suppose a member approaches a pastor and raises a problem with something that occurred at a church service or function, saying that he has a biblically informed conviction against it. Must the pastor immediately respond with advice as to how one should respond to behavior contrary to one’s convictions? Should not the pastor first consider whether there is a biblically informed conviction? Surely the fact that the member thinks it a biblically informed conviction does not itself make it so. When the pastor and member disagree on that point, then has not the Lord provided an important learning opportunity for at least one, and maybe both, of them? Humbly exhorting one another, teaching where that is needed, is also part of our obligation to our brothers and sisters in Christ.
Brent,
Thanks for weighing in. I disagree, however, that the analogy is distant. As I stated earlier, a proper understanding of corporate worship means that the congregation is actively participating in the sermon as diligent listeners. So they are given the task of listening to the preaching in a way that honors God (just as they are active participants in the singing of a song). Further, they are being led in their singing/listening by the leadership of their covenant community and their response to the song/translation will certainly be noticed by others in that congregation.
Regardless of the similarity of the analogy, your response did bring up part of why I used it. You argue that the person's conviction may not be biblically informed, so the pastor may need to determine whether or not the conviction is biblically informed (i.e., you don't hold that conviction, so you find it not biblically informed.) But that undermines (to a degree) your argument about Rom 14. Since your stance did not depend on whether or not the conviction was biblically informed but whether or not the person was able to act in faith.
(As a side note, the answer to whether or not a person should participate in singing also involves a reasoned analysis of many controversial issues, just like the KJV discussion has. Again, that's why I brought it up).
To Jon,
My advice would be similar to Snoeberger's. Since church member A is not unorthodox KJVO (notice again his conviction) it is not really a matter of right/wrong but better/best or healthy/unhealthy. I think most of the issues of music that we would be discussing fall into the same category (as does the original analogy of food). We are trying to draw what we feel are biblical conclusions on these matters, but recognize that we don't have clear biblical teaching. Thus, we must be willing to flex some in these convictions for the sake of the church body. IOW, since these are not clear sin issues, we allow for a measure of latitude within the body. If the amount of latitude grows to where we no longer feel that we can be in covenant, then we look for another church body.
One more FWIW: I think Rom 14 is a poor passage to use fore these scenarios without several qualifications, since it's not directly addressing the issues discussion. Rom 14 does not deal directly with areas of discernment/debate, but with issues of faith in what God has affirmed. Those who are weak do not believe that God has declared certain things to be good (meat, not observing Jewish holy days, etc.). IOW, these were clearly good things that certain Christians (most likely Jews) were struggling to believe were now ok (since they used to be forbidden under Mosaic Law). I would say using Rom 14 in this music debate is definitely more distant than the food analogy and congregational singing.
You might want to check out an article by Snoeberger in DBSJ 2007 for a more thorough discussion.
Ben: "Since church member A is not unorthodox KJVO (notice again his conviction) it is not really a matter of right/wrong but better/best or healthy/unhealthy. I think most of the issues of music that we would be discussing fall into the same category (as does the original analogy of food)."
I agree, under your scenario, and under the food analogy as well.
Dr. Bauder would not agree re: music. He said it would be sin to sing -- at which point we've moved from "healthy/unhealthy" into a completely different realm, and a very serious one, even if he is mistaken.
Under what possible scenario can it be appropriate for a pastor to encourage a church member, or even use his authority to pressure a church member, to do that which the church member is persuaded to be sin?
How much of your response is based on your assumption/conclusion/conviction (whatever we want to call it) that the music in question is not a matter of right/wrong? How far would it be appropriate for you to push your judgment on that matter onto those under your authority who do assess it to be a question of right and wrong?
Ben, I fear that we are talking past each other. I did not say that your analogy was distant. In saying “more distant,” I made a comparative statement, not a positive one, and the difference in degree is significant. Also, we seem to be using “conviction” differently. For example, maybe I am misinterpreting you, but I sense that your usage includes what I would term “preferences.”
My response to your hypothetical does not undermine my prior use of Romans 14, for this post and my earlier one deal with two distinct situations. The earlier one, in which I cited Romans 14, dealt with what a person should do when facing the doubtful situation and needing in that moment to decide on a course of action. This post responded to your hypothetical in which such a person seeks my advice on how to deal with a doubtful situation that occurred in the past or that may occur in the future. The key question that you posed is how I counsel such a person about their past or future decision. Both the person and the context are different, and that alters the analysis.
If a person comes to me claiming a “conviction” about the preacher wearing white shirts in the pulpit (because white is most formal and thus the only appropriate expression of respect for God) and asking how to respond the next time the preacher enters the pulpit wearing a blue one, I am not going to talk about “whatsoever is not of faith is of sin,” nor would I begin with his obligations to his brothers and sisters in the assembly. I would focus on the misplaced sense of conviction, the resolution of which would eliminate the need to address the doubt/faith issue.
That leads me to observe that what I think is really at issue here is not so much significantly different views of our obligations to others in the church as differing views of the nature and significance of music and thus how big an issue we should make over it. But we will not resolve that difference here and now.
With that, I need to bow out and return to seminary projects. I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the discussion.
Thanks for the responses. I agree that we will have a tendency to go in circles here, so at the risk of making another arc on the circle, I want to make one last observation.
Both Jon and Brent point out that part of the discussion depends on the significance of what we are talking about. Bauder calls this singing sin, but I don't really believe he thinks that. IOW, my categorization of better/best and healthy/unhealthy is really more what he believes, in spite of what he says. After all, he says it's alright to tolerate a "perceived" evil. This admission that the evil is merely perceived and allowance for tolerance means that it is really more of a strong preference than a strong conviction. (fwiw, I think music can be right/wrong, as does Snoeberger. I just don't think Bauder is really addressing that issue.)
I seriously doubt Bauder would "tolerate" members doing grinding dances on each other as part of their worship. Why? Because he believes strongly that it is sin. Why would he tolerate certain non-verbal elements of music to be acceptable? B/c he doesn't believe as strongly that it is sin.
So, I agree that one of the major differences is the significance of music. And I think Bauder equivocates on this matter--by talking as it if is very significant, then backing off to the degree that it shows it's not as significant as we might first think. Unfortunately, this leads to people only reading part of him and then creating unnecessary division in churches over their personal preference/conviction regarding music. That's why I prefer Snoeberger's approach.
I know I said one last comment, but I wanted to add one other thought. Brent, you argue that your statement doesn't contradict your use of Rom 14 earlier b/c you are giving advice, not talking about someone in the situation needing to make a quick decision. But the whole discussion has been about advice concerning singing. You were giving advice regarding whether or not someone should sing if they found themselves in a situation where they believed the non-verbal element of a song made it wrong for them to sing. That's why I said it contradicted what you said--your advice to someone in singing was to abstain, but advice to someone regarding situations where you don't share their conviction was to reconsider their conviction.
Granted, this merely shows again that the issue at stake is in part the importance of these convictions/preferences in music. But it's at least worth noting that your advice is different regarding convictions you disagree with. (B/c just as you might consider those convictions to be unbiblical, maybe you should think through your own convictions again...as well as being careful about throwing Rom 14 out there.)
The real question you should want answered, Mark, is if she makes sure she paid your life insurance policy on Saturdays before she goes to Moschecks Meat Co. for your Sunday dinner?
Post a Comment