Showing posts with label legalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label legalism. Show all posts

Monday, July 17, 2017

Can a Christian Drink Alcohol?

July 17, 2017 alcohol , beer 3 Comments



     Recently in the church I pastor this matter came up and it sparked a bit of controversy. Naturally, I’ve been asked my position on the matter and what a Christian should do regarding this topic. Well, as everyone knows it can be a very sensitive and complicated subject to discuss. However, in some circles this topic has become so polarized it’s difficult to have a rational conversation regarding this topic with a pursuit of truth. So, with no further ado let’s jump right into it.

     It’s no secret that alcoholism has been a problem for thousands of years (since biblical times actually) We’ve all heard the tragic stories of the abusive alcoholic father, the broken drunken mother, or the friend that got killed from a drunk driver. These things are horrible especially because they’ve effected other people. However, as Christians asking this question…we must ask ourselves what the Bible says regarding this topic.

      What got me asking this topic was about ten years ago I was in high school and my best friend invited over to his family’s house for Thanksgiving. We arrived and all the festivities had started. I met my friend’s family including his grandpa who was a pastor of a church in town. As we sat down for a meal the pastor got up, reached into the cabinet, and pulled out a bottle of wine to share (as was tradition apparently) I was caught off guard since I knew he was a pastor and I leaned over to my friend and asked “Your grandpa drinks? But I thought he was a pastor…” My friend acknowledged this and said “The Bible only says that we can’t be drunk…not that we can’t drink.” I sat there awkwardly pondering every verse I could think of in my head and decided I’d go home and see if he was right. But I was almost certain he was wrong. Therein started my journey of studying this topic in depth.
  
     Now remember, as we study this we need to have an objective view on what the Bible says. Because the Christian’s sole authority lies in the Word of God. Not in the opinions or fears of man. We have to understand that it is our job as Christians to follow God and therefore follow His word. To add or to take away from it is sin. To ignore blatant commands is also sin.
Warnings in Scripture

      There are endless amounts of warnings in scripture about being drunken or being a drunkard. There is no doubt that according to scripture and the Bible that to be drunk is a sin. Here we can see some of the various warnings in scripture.
Proverbs 20:1 Wine is a mocker, strong drink a brawler, and whoever is led astray (šōḡeh: intoxicated) by it is not wise (KJV)
Proverbs 23:29-31 Who has woe? Who has sorrow? Who has strife? Who has complaining? Who has wounds without cause? Who has redness of eyes? Those who tarry long over wine; those who go to try mixed wine. Do not look at wine when it is red, when it sparkles in the cup and goes down smoothly. In the end it bites like a serpent and stings like an adder.

(Also see: Prov. 23:20-21, 31:1-7)
     When reading these passages, we see there is a large emphasis on drunkards and being intoxicated with alcohol, seeking it early in the morning and desiring it at all times. This is clearly a picture of alcoholism. Proverbs has many passages regarding this. Consider for a moment, what the book of Proverbs is. A Proverb, in short, is a principle of wisdom. This was a text from Solomon to his son. Proverbs are not necessarily commands or promises of God, but more like wise principles. A good example of this is:


Proverbs 22:6 Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it.

      This principle from Proverbs places an emphasis on training your children properly. However, we’ve all known children who were raised right but still went astray. Does that mean this verse is lying? No. It’s because Proverbs are principles. Not promises or commands. Many times, Proverbs reflect a promise or command or reiterate one, but the book of Proverbs is a book of wise principles to help us in day to day decision making. This is what makes Proverbs such a practical book.


Proverb: a short pithy saying in general use, stating a general truth or piece of advice.
     Now all that being said, all these Proverbs really emphasize one thing: drunkenness is a sin. Now what about other passages outside of Proverbs? Well some other popular passages are as follows.


Leviticus 10:9 Drink no wine or strong drink, you or your sons with you, when you go into the tent of meeting, lest you die. It shall be a statute forever throughout your generations.

      This verse is found in Leviticus. Remember, Leviticus was the law to the priestly tribe of the Levites. There were a lot of various commands on what they could and could not do when entering the Tabernacle of God all the way down to what kind of threads their clothes were made out of. However, the law of the Levites does not apply to the New Testament Christian because we are not Levitical priests nor are we under any Levitical Law. 
Numbers 6:1-6 And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to the people of Israel and say to them, When either a man or a woman makes a special vow, the vow of a Nazirite, to separate himself to the Lord, he shall separate himself from wine and strong drink. He shall drink no vinegar made from wine or strong drink and shall not drink any juice of grapes or eat grapes, fresh or dried. All the days of his separation he shall eat nothing that is produced by the grapevine, not even the seeds or the skins.
“All the days of his vow of separation, no razor shall touch his head. Until the time is completed for which he separates himself to the Lord, he shall be holy. He shall let the locks of hair of his head grow long.
“All the days that he separates himself to the Lord he shall not go near a dead body.

      Well this one is pretty clear. This was a special vow for only the Nazarite and they were forbidden to even touch grapes. If you read forward through the passage you’ll find that they weren’t able to cut their hair, touch dead flesh, among many other things. If you remember, Samson was a Nazarite. This was a special vow for a special people. This does not apply to the Christian.

      Then we see that in Proverbs there are commands on when to give someone strong drink. Especially those of a heavy heart. However, most of us would tell people not to drink if they are depressed for fear of falling into alcoholism. But this was written by Lemuel’s mother to him as advice to rule the kingdom. Not a command from God.

Proverbs 31:5-6 lest they drink and forget what has been decreed and pervert the rights of all the afflicted. Give strong drink to the one who is perishing, and wine to those in bitter distress...
(This goes back to Proverbs being principles from a wise parent to a child. Not necessarily promises or commands of God)

      I could go on but in the Old Testament the only parts that forbid it were part of a special vow, and the rest were warnings of not being drunk. In the New Testament, we see the same pattern except all we really see are commands of not being drunk and instead staying sober (I Peter 4:3, Galatians 5:21, Romans 13:13 etc.) If you comb through every verse regarding this topic in the Bible you will find a pattern…it’s only a sin to be drunk not necessarily to drink.

      When I discovered this in my studies I still wasn’t convinced. I mean, after all it probably was still unwise for any Christian to imbibe such a thing, right? I mean, I would hate to be a stumbling block. Well, the next bit is where things became very real for me regarding the topic.


Did Jesus Drink Wine?

     As a child in Sunday School they always said that Jesus turned the water into wine. But the wine was really grape juice. I, as a child, took their word for it. However, when I got older and decided to study it…I found this out. Brace yourself were going to get technical here…

      According to Jewish wedding tradition (even to this day) fermented wine is/was always served. Therefore, Jesus was attending a wedding where alcoholic wine was served. So, when they ran out of wine the people became upset. This is because wine was always expected and wine “makes glad the hearts of men.” This is when Jesus chose to turn the water into wine. In fact, the master of the feast noted that it was better so it was an even finer wine...but wasn't it grape juice?

Read this verse carefully…
John 2:9-10 When the master of the feast tasted the water now become wine (oinos), and did not know where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the water knew), the master of the feast called the bridegroom and said to him, “Everyone serves the good wine (oinos) first, and when people have drunk (methysthōsin) freely, then the poor wine (oinos). But you have kept the good wine (oinos) until now.

(Oinos: Greek word for wine meaning ‘to be fermented’)
(Luke 7:33-35 we see Jesus drank wine and was called a drunkard, but John the Baptist did not drink wine and was accused of demon possession)
     I want us to notice the word used in the Greek here for drunk: μεθυσθῶσιν (methysthōsin) this word means you can get drunk or intoxicated. This word is also used in Acts 2:15 when Peter is defending the apostles against accusations of drunkenness. So, the wine being served was indeed alcoholic since this word is exclusively used when referring to the ability of one becoming drunk.

      Jesus turning the water into wine was His first miracle and there’s a reason for it. Wine was a symbol of God’s blessing and promise throughout the Old Testament. Wine was a symbol of wealth, prosperity, and blessings (not just carnal drunkenness) the miracle expressed that God blessed the works and doings of Jesus and that His promises were fulfilled in Christ. Don’t believe me? Read this passages from the Old Testament.
​Isaiah 55:1-2 Come, everyone who thirsts, come to the waters; and he who has no money, come, buy and eat! Come, buy wine and milk without money and without price. Why do you spend your money for that which is not bread, and your labor for that which does not satisfy?
Psalm 104:14-15 You cause the grass to grow for the livestock and plants for man to cultivate, that he may bring forth food from the earth and wine to gladden the heart of man, oil to make his face shine and bread to strengthen man's heart.
Amos 9:14 I will restore the fortunes of my people Israel, and they shall rebuild the ruined cities and inhabit them; they shall plant vineyards and drink their wine, and they shall make gardens and eat their fruit.
Ecclesiastes 9:7 Go, eat your bread with joy, and drink your wine with a merry heart, for God has already approved what you do.
(How can God approve what you do if what you do is sinful? If drinking wine was a sin then how could God ever accept their works?)

...Or was it grape juice?
In the Old Testament, this was not just grape juice.
Yayin (יַיִן): from the root to boil up or to be fermented. (translated: wine)

      Grape juice is not fermented. Wine is fermented. This actually makes a lot of sense since they had no means of refrigeration so it didn’t take long for the grape juice to become fermented. They had no way to preserve it and they had no way to stop it from fermenting.

     So, to answer this question “Did Jesus drink wine?” He most certainly did if we are being honest with what the Bible actually says. Jesus turning the water into wine was confirming the blessing of God upon Jesus Himself. Read Isaiah 24:9-13, here we see a desolate picture where there is no wine or blessing from God. In fact, everything is down trodden and torn. Jesus committing his first miracle at a wedding feast (the church is the Bride of Christ) and turning water into wine (a blessing from God) is no coincidence.

 Later on, in the New Testament we see that Paul forbids being drunk as it is excessive.


Ephesians 5:17 And do not get drunk with wine (oinos), for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit.

 However, later on we see Paul tell Timothy to drink wine…
1 Timothy 5:23 No longer drink only water, but use a little wine (oinos) for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments

      Back then their water was filthy in comparison to our water today. It was filled with bacteria and would make people sick. So, Paul tells Timothy to drink wine to settle his stomach. Paul wouldn’t tell them to drink wine if it was a sin, would he? No. He wouldn’t. So, one must assume that to imbibe isn’t necessarily a sin.


Stumbling Block Principle (Rom. 14:13-23, I Cor. 8:9-13)

      So, what about being a stumbling block? Couldn’t someone imbibing in wine or other things be a stumbling block to someone else? The first problem with this principle is people apply it to everything without any regard to the context. The first thing I have to mention is that it’s important to note that the stumbling block principle refers to a “weaker brother” (I Cor. 8:13) Paul said he wouldn’t eat of meat or drink of wine if it were to offend someone. However, later we see that he tells Timothy to drink wine. So it wasn’t a blanket rule to all Christians, but instead a choice Paul made while being around those that could be offended. Plus, today Christians get offended by what we watch on TV, what music we listen to, if we go to theaters, where we shop, what brands we wear, if women wear pants, what Bible version we use etc. It’s actually impossible to not offend anyone. Even Jesus and Paul offended the Pharisees.

      We all do this generally speaking. When someone is around whom you know doesn't like something you don't bring it up. If you avoid certain topics with people, or showing certain things to people this doesn't necessarily make you two-faced. It can make you wise. I don't want to offend a brother unnecessarily, especially over something trivial. It's not secret that I love Star Wars, but I have people in my life who find Star Wars evil/offensive. So to be respectful when I'm around them I don't bring it up. If you have someone around who struggles with addictions or just got out of AA it would be a stumbling block to bring out alcohol around that individual. This would seem a practical application to the weaker brother/stumbling block principle.

      The key is to pay attention to the weaker brother and treat carefully to not stumble them in their walk. To not trip them and instead to uplift them. We all live our Christian lives differently. We shouldn’t be offended by that. Instead, we should just be respectful of other people’s strengths, weaknesses, preferences and not stumble them if we can avoid it. It's also important to note that a mature Christian should not allow themselves to be tripped up by things that fall under individual soul liberty.
2 Cor. 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.

(Also see Romans 14:12-16)


 In Conclusion

       There is no verse in God’s Word that states one cannot drink alcohol (Besides the Nazarite vows) We see many positive pictures of wine. We see many negative pictures of wine. We even see Church leaders endorse the use of it. All the negative pictures we receive of wine is when it is used in excess. This would be the same as gluttony. Food isn’t bad, obviously, but it can be in excess. In fact, anything can be evil or even become an idol when used in excess. (Prov. 23:2, Eph. 5:18) Plus, the idea that every time wine is used in the Bible negatively must mean it’s alcoholic and every time it’s used positively it must be grape juice is faulty and ignoring history, language, cultural context, and not being intellectually honest.

      Many people say “Well, families have been destroyed by alcohol!” No, they have not. Families have been destroyed by people making poor decisions. When someone is shot with a gun we blame the individual. Same should be with alcohol. It’s never an object’s fault for the choice of an individual. To blame the object is to create a scapegoat where people do not take responsibility for their actions. People make poor decisions and must take account for those decisions. Not blame the alcohol, not blame the gun, not blame the food, but instead blame themselves and become better for it. God teaches us we are responsible for our deeds. No one else and nothing else. We are all individually responsible for the self.

     It’s important to take scripture at face value and not add any more to it. We will all live our Christian lives differently and we should not take offense by that. To claim it’s a sin is to overstep a bound that God never did. In fact, it appears God made it as a luxury and a symbol of blessing, but it's mankind’s sin that perverted its usage. God is not the author of confusion and makes clear what is sin and what is not. If drinking alcohol was a sin He would lay it out plainly before mankind. He wouldn’t send mixed messages. God created language and knows how to communicate clearly. When it comes to alcohol God communicated it perfectly clear. It’s not sinful to drink, but it is a sin to be drunk.

     It would appear that this view is biblically sound as presented above and is also more biblically consistent than any other view. It makes sense the wine/alcohol could be used in a luxurious and enjoyable manner. Also, that the excess of it would be sinful (since food is the same way) Christians should also be mindful of their weaker brother and if they choose to drink they should do so with wisdom, discretion, and caution. Remember, we are to care for our own bodies as the Temples of God. However, when we care for ourselves in excess it becomes selfishness and pride. We are to eat and sustain ourselves, but in excess it becomes gluttony. We are to provide for our families, but when we focus on an excess for money it becomes greed. We are to care about our testimonies, but in excess we become man-pleasers. We are to be good stewards about our futures, but in excess we have a lack of faith. Likewise, someone can drink an adult beverage, but in excess it becomes drunkenness.

      I can now say with confidence that after careful study and being corrected about my previous stance years ago, that technically speaking to imbibe is not a sin. Keep in mind that no Christian should push something on another Christian for risk of making a Christian brother compromise his own conscience. A Christian is free to drink casually, but they are also free not to. How you decide to apply these principles in your life is your choice. Abstention or moderation: it’s your decision. For me to forbid its use is to overstep a boundary God never did and I am not comfortable with that nor do I have the authority to do that. Because once I start applying other standards without a clear statement in scripture we start sliding down a very slippery slope of applying people’s opinions over the commands of scripture. That’s how legalism and Pharisaical behavior sets in. By applying principles/rules to people’s lives that God never did. By telling God “Your Word is not enough so I must apply a rule here where you didn’t.”

     So, can you drink? I can’t answer that for you, but I can tell you what the Bible says. Be careful, be cautious, stay sober, stay vigilant, and make wise decisions regarding this topic.

By at 3 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, September 22, 2014

Skirts Vs. Pants

September 22, 2014 legalism , modesty 4 Comments


     In this post, I will make note that I won't be covering much in modesty regarding skirts and pants. Everything covered in the post is applicable here. So for further study you can refer back to here.

     Next thing to mention is that these are not opinions as much as they are are the conclusions of deep Biblical and cultural study. Truth is truth and there is no way around the truth. People can defy the truth or follow it. Two opposing sides of an argument can’t both be right; one must be wrong. Please understand that anything I say does not intend to be disrespectful. Remember to humble yourself, your thoughts, your opinions and see what God’s Word says for itself.

     The thought behind the concept of women not wearing pants seems to derive from Deuteronomy.
Deuteronomy 22:5 A woman shall not wear a man's garment, nor shall a man put on a woman's cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God.


     Many interpret this as “pants are for men, and skirts/dresses are for women.” Is this just a claim by blinded traditionalists? Or is this a truth that God designed from the beginning? Whenever studying scripture it’s important to compare scripture with scripture, the time period in which it was written, and contextualize that which is a moral issue and that which is a cultural issue.

     In the Bible men and women both wore robes of similar fashion. In fact, during some periods of time, the only differences were the undergarments men/women would wear. Now that we’ve read that Old Testament verse, let’s fast forward to the New Testament. Here, when Paul is talking about the proper clothes to wear, he uses the Greek word “katastole.” This word literally means “To let down or to lower/drape down”. This is referring to the type of garments they would wear that would drape over their body.


1 Timothy 2:9 "likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel (katastole), with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire..."

     Due to this word “katastole,” many believe this means that if it "drapes down" then it must mean women are to wear skirts/dresses. This is a slight misunderstanding of Greek nouns and how they work grammatically. Whenever reading the Bible, and especially when digging into the Greek, we must be careful to apply the cultural interpretation and understand how the Greek works linguistically. Every word referring to clothes or apparel in the Greek/Hebrew refers to “being let down” because that’s all the clothing did back then. Roman soldiers wore skirts, men wore flowing garbs, this is why our English translation says, apparel, and not, flowing garbs. This is why you need to be careful when digging into the Greek. As a man once said:
“A little bit of Greek is a dangerous thing”

     Cultural discernment is very important. The Greek language, like any language, is heavily saturated in its culture. So before you start digging into the Greek you must have a good understanding of Greek culture and customs. Seeing as everyone back then wore long flowing garbs it doesn’t prove anything one way or another. To say katastole means that women should wear skirts because the Greek meaning is "to let down" would be to totally overlook the context. Paul clearly brings the focus to modesty, not the katastole. Plus, the translation to English is "garments" or "apparel." The Bible translators already put cultural context into play. Hence the translation of God's Word we have today.

     However, if we dig deeper we see the word katastole is in the feminine tense. When some see this they believe that this means it’s referring to women only. This is simply a misunderstanding of the language and why it's important to understand Greek. Greek has masculine and feminine tenses for a number of different things. Often times nouns appear in feminine tense, other times in the masculine tense.

Note: this can be confusing to English speakers so I will do my best to explain...

     Aphesis is the Greek word for forgiveness and it's spoken in the feminine tense. Also, alétheia is the Greek word for truth and it's also in the feminine tense. Does this mean that forgiveness and truth are only for women? No...such a thought is ridiculous. It's also worth noting that the angel standing outside Jesus' tomb was in a "long white garment." (Mk. 16:5) This word for garment is stolé which is also in the feminine tense. Does this mean the angel was cross-dressing? Or that the angel was female? No, it does not. It a linguistic issue. So katastole being in the feminine tense has nothing to do with it commanding only women. It's all about the grammatical structure of that which is written.

     English doesn't change tenses (male to female) in the way many other languages do. This tripped me up when I used to study German because its tenses and words would change a lot depending on many factors (present, present perfect, simple past, etc.) Some languages change from "male/female/neuter tenses. There is only one English example of this and that is if we are referring to an object with endearment, we may refer to it in the feminine tense.

Example: "That Bentley over there? She's a beauty"

     Does this actually mean that his car is female? That the car should only relate to women? No, it's a common practice when referring to an object with endearment that we speak about it in feminine tense. Just like grammatically speaking in the English language, if you don't know the gender of an animal or baby, we resort to using masculine pronouns. These are simply the structures and rules of the English language. Just like Greek has its own rules and structures. So it's not enough to say "that word is in a feminine tense," because the rest of the surrounding context is what actually dictates if it's referring to a specific gender or not. In this case, the context is telling women to dress modestly. It is not referring to skirts/dresses at all.

(For more information about Greek and its noun usage click here)

     The problem is that if we view things from within our own culture, confusion can set in. If we say skirts are for women and pants are for men we are viewing things specifically from a Western cultural perspective. Let me break down the logical progression here. Today, if we say women wearing pants is a woman "wearing that which pertains to a man," then a man wearing a dress/drape today would be considered a "man wearing that which pertains to a woman." Yet, we know in the Bible men actually wore long flowing garments, as did women. In fact, Jesus wore a robe so long that a woman was able to grab the tail of it. (Matt. 9:20) Does this mean that by our Western mindset Jesus was wearing something that pertains to a woman? Cross-dressing? Don't be ridiculous. Has it ever occurred to you that the skirts and pants topic is more of a Western Cultural issue than a Biblical one?

     So if it’s not Biblical, why is it an issue? Well, most traditional thinking refers back to the Women Liberation Movement of the 1960’s. Oddly enough, that's not true. In fact, women started wearing pants in the early 1900's. Women wearing pants only came in vogue during the this movement as a move to level the gender gap. However, this movement was more about eliminating the objectification of women, civil rights, ethnic empowerment, increasing employment opportunities for women, redefining women as more than just wife/mothers, along with many other things.

      Girls, those of you who were raised to believe that this time was evidence of rebellion, let me ask you this: do you like voting? What about having a career? Better paying jobs? Equal rights and opportunity? All this was made possible during movements like this. Women weren't even able to vote until 1920. African-Americans couldn't vote until 1956. These type of movements were vital in creating a country with equal rights and freedoms. Not everything was negative; of course there were extremists, but we must acknowledge that all the rights women enjoy today were made possible because of that movement. Now women have equal rights and opportunities. Many of the rights women enjoy today are because of those women who took a stand and said "enough."

     Let’s push that movement aside and look further back in history. Were skirts/dresses always worn by women in the world? The answer is no. That was only prominent in European cultures. Take China for example. Women wore both pants and dresses depending on their duties. Women on farms would wear pants. Native American Indian women also wore pants. Many cultures had both men and women wearing pants. Other cultures, to this day, have men wearing flowing garbs. Why? Because there is a large amount of cultural application to be considered here.

     I live in Michigan (Born and raised.) Recently, we had one of the coldest winters of all time (coldest in over 100 years) and it was freezing. It was so cold that if you were outside for more than three minutes, with any exposed skin, it would cause frostbite. If my wife had only worn skirts, she would’ve had frostbite from her shins to her thighs.  The very thought of my wife having to endure that is insane. God is not unfair, nor does He set unrealistic expectations. Some people say "Just wear pants under the skirt when it's cold." This is still wearing pants. If pants are that which pertains to a man, wouldn't you be forbidden from wearing them at all? Otherwise, we're saying it's okay as long as other people can't see it. 
Matthew 5:37Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil.


     As a pastor, I've seen girls wear skirts all the time, even in winter. All these poor girls received were strange looks, laughs, and scoffs. When these girls would try to talk to new members of the youth group -a girl from public schools let's say- they were treated with odd disdain. This wasn't right, but it says something about how that presents yourself. People in in whim we are ministering have to feel like they can relate to you. Yes, we are to be separate from the world, but not to run from it. Present yourself in a modest way, but in a way where someone can feel comfortable sitting next to you without thinking, "Why on earth are they wearing that?" or, "What kind of cult is this?" and I promise you that's what they are thinking. Is it right? No. But will this kind of thinking continue? Yes. So be mindful of how you're presenting yourself.

     I firmly believe that both pants and skirts can be either modest or immodest. Many have disagreed with me on this. Let me inform you, as a man I am visually attracted to a woman (as all men are). I will tell you now and true that there are many times women should just wear pants when doing certain activities.

     My first Bible college I ever attended was in Indiana. During the winter, ice started building up. I was walking up to the college for my early morning classes. Two lady friends of mine were walking in front of me and they slipped on the ice. I dove forward trying to catch them, but I was a bit too slow. (My ninja skills were not on par that day.) When they fell, their skirts came all the way up and I saw more of my two friends than I ever wanted to. Later, they expressed how hard it was to navigate the ice in skirts due to the lack of mobility. So let me tell you: skirts are not always modest/appropriate.

     I have seen culottes fly up in girls' sports, dresses fly up in the wind, skirts fly up while on the ice, and don’t get me started about women wearing skirts/dresses while riding a bike (who ever thought that was a good idea?) I’ve seen a lot of girls who are going the “extra mile” to be more modest by wearing skirts, but end up revealing more of themselves because of it.

     Even in Bible college, I'd hear guys talking about how they love seeing girls in skirts all the time. Mind you it was not because it was more modest. They would talk abut how the skirts made girls' butts look rounder, or when the wind would blow it could force the skirts to blow up or against the body, revealing more than a pair of pants ever would, or even how a skirt was 'easy access.' I want to stress this point here: men can be attracted as much, if not more so, to a woman in a skirt. I am not talking about those little skanky skirts...I am talking about those "Bible College Approved" skirts.

     Now, I am not discrediting skirts in any way. I am simply stating that men can be attracted to a woman in skirts or in pants. This is not because men are perverted...this is because men tend to be visually stimulated. I can promise you that no matter what you wear, a man can find a reason to look. It's not right. Men should have more decency, but the bottom line is this: just dress modestly and let God do the rest. Doesn't mean you have to wear a potato sack every day either.

     The problem is that we Christians seem to think that in order to live modestly/conservatively, we have to hold on to traditional things when we don’t. In fact, we are instructed to cast aside traditions of man in order to seek the truth.
Colossians 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.


While in Indiana a friend of mine said:
“William, look at it this way: if a woman is seen always wearing a skirt it allows her to show people openly that she is a Christian before they even talk to her. It’s great for testimonial purposes.”

     At first, I thought that he may have a point. Women can show they are Christians before people even talk to them. Then reality hit me: women, both believers and nonbelievers, will wear skirts. So that doesn’t help any more than a man wearing a tie every day. How many men wear ties? Plenty! It’s not just a Christian thing and neither is wearing skirts or dresses. The argument falls apart before it even starts.

One time, my sister came by to pick me up from high school. This was back when my she was peer-pressured into wearing skirts all the time. Well, the second time my sister came to pick me up someone blurted out:
“Why does your sister always wear skirts? Is she like Amish or something?”


     I defended her as any brother would, but I could tell that the awkward stares bothered her. People could tell she was different, but not in a positive way. Everyone thought my sister was a freak or part of a cult. This deeply bothered me. Shouldn’t we Christians leave a positive testimony? Should we leave a “bad taste” in someone’s mouth? No. The sad part is that this is not even a biblical topic to begin with. God is not the author of confusion and He gives clear and concise commands in His Book. The command to women is: be modest.

     Remember, people do judge us by our appearance, not our heart. No one can see your heart or personality from across the room.
I Samuel 16:7 But the Lord said to Samuel, “Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him. For the Lord sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart.


     It's important that we are presenting ourselves in a way that honors Christ and also welcomes others to us. If we entirely alienate ourselves from other over a tradition we are going to seriously hinder our effectiveness for Christ. 

     When in Indiana, I had the privilege to talk to two young men about Christ. They were shocked when I told them I attended Fairhaven. They said, “Wow, you’re a normal guy! I thought only crazies went to that cult...”


I want to address two things here.

1. They considered me normal because I dressed like them and talked to them like anybody else. Like they were my equals. Not making it awkward to talk to them about God, but to simply get to know them. Find out their struggles, personality, passions, and then find a way to introduce God to them. Our biggest failure in evangelism is that we go up to people and just hand them a tract, or go right into the Gospel message without building any personal relationship. Jesus first built relationships and so should we.

2. They referred to the Bible College as a “cult.” This was the term I heard widely when I was down there. Even good Christian people I met would refer to them as a cult. That tells me something about the presentation of the people, church, and Gospel being done there. This isn’t to put down anyone because there are some great people at that school. However, it proved that their outward testimony had been destroyed due to more concern on rules, regulations, and traditions rather than that of truth.

     We have to be careful not to allow our Western culture to influence our view of the Bible. We should look through the Bible with the screen of truth. Not looking at it from lenses of bias or traditions. There is no Biblical support that women can’t wear pants. We are only instructed one thing:
Deuteronomy 22:5 A woman shall not wear a man's garment, nor shall a man put on a woman's cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God.


(Even this command was given to specifically to Israel. However, similar morals are brought up in the New Testament.)

     This verse simply means not to be cross-dressing. You know, there is a huge difference between women’s pants and men’s pants. If a man put on a women’s pare of pants you would notice. Paul only emphasized modesty. No more no less. Let’s not put lines where God never has.

     Due to such pressure from their church, friends, family, ministers etc., I have seen grown women with children still emotionally, mentally, and spiritually hurt from the treatment they received for wearing pants. I have seen a girl disowned from her family due to that. This is not biblical in any way nor does it honor God, whom we claim to love. That is not Christianity, that is legalism. (Legalism: Excessive adherence to law or formula.) Because of this mentality, I have seen girls leave the church and go off the deep end because they were set to an unfair/ridiculous standard. Churches should encourage women, not push them away. Ought to build them up, not tear them down.

     Let me challenge you, reader, to look into the truth of this as I have. Read the Bible from a non-biased perspective. Humble your heart and mind to seek that which is the truth in the Bible. Women, if you want to wear dresses and skirts that is fine! There is nothing wrong with that. If you even prefer them, that’s great! But we have to stop pressuring, guilting, and requiring other women to conform to this unbiblical standard. Both pants and skirts can be immodest. Both can also be modest. So let’s keep the focus where God keeps the focus: modesty.
Galatians 5:16 But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh.


By at 4 comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Friday, July 4, 2014

The Music Controversy

July 04, 2014 clapping drums , controversy 4 Comments





     Music is obviously huge in today’s culture and it’s not going away anytime soon! Churches seem to continually be approached with the questions “Out with the old and in with the new?” or “Out with the new and stick with the old?” In fact, this issue hasn’t just stayed inside the church building, but has really been imprinted upon people in their homes as well. So let me tell you a bit about my struggle with this issue.

      Growing up in traditional churches, all my life I heard this issue brought up more times than I can count. I was told that rhythmic music was wrong, if it was in a minor key, if it was syncopated, or had a set of drums (or any percussion instrument for that matter), and guitars (especially electric) were bad. It seemed each person told me something different about where I should stand with music, and why it was all evil. This started to keep me up at night in thought. "What was wrong with it? Was it bad? What does the Bible say?" For years, I reserved a tight music mindset. I never listened to things with drums, electric guitars, digitization etc. Finally, I saw some major division take place over the topic and it shook me enough to start studying this topic.

     Before I dive into this, please note that I have studied music for over fourteen years now. I play violin, piano, guitar, and I sing (melody and harmony.) I played in a very well qualified orchestra, sang in a pristine acappella choir in Michigan, pit orchestras, musicals, and even studied it while in college. I do not say this in any way to boast about my musical resume. In fact, I was rarely the best musician in any group. However, I want you to know that I am qualified to speak on topics musically related, and being a pastor I believe that I am qualified to speak on things of a theological nature.  So for about a year, I studied the Bible; searching for anything that pertained to the topic. I tried to find something against drums, minor keys, rhythms etc. Also, I studied history of music during this time, trying to find the reasoning of what I had been taught. 

 The Bible makes perfectly clear that music is important to God...
Psalms 104:33 I will sing to the Lord as long as I live I will sing praise to my God while I have being.

     Christian music should, at its core, bring praise to God. To which any Christian in the world would probably exclaim, “Duh! We know that!” But how well do we know that? Has it ever occurred to you that maybe your Christian music does not praise God? Or maybe music that you condemn actually does praise the Lord? This is a line that many Christians do not seem to think about. Do you accept any music thrown at you with the label of 'Christian' slapped on it? Do you condemn music and its listeners to be sinful and worldly when there is nothing inherently wrong with what they are doing? Both sides of this can be dangerous.

     All throughout history we see many different styles of music. Take a look at this Classical Music Timeline. This is only dealing with Western Styled music (IE: from Europe/North America)


     Now I am not gonna bore you with explaining each period and what genre did what and where. However, I will say this: Music has changed drastically throughout history and cultures. Many of the styles introduced were originally disliked. Take J.S. Bach for example. Today he is praised for his musical genius, but in his time, he was only famous for one thing: controversial worldly music. He was the organist of a few churches and he was nearly kicked out of these churches because his music was worldly. Yet, he continued to write despite the resistance.





      Fast forward to the future...

      Today, his music is praised and listened to by both Christians and non-believers alike. What’s my point? Today the very same thing is happening. As soon as someone comes up with something new, it is instantly compared to that of the worldly artists and immediately condemned (guilty by association.) This is a sad truth to see that this issue is not recent, but many years old. Ironically, we see even today people compare modern music to that same exact pagan root that Bach was accused of.

      Exodus 32 is used frequently against modern Christian music. This is when Moses comes down from the mountain and sees the people worshiping a golden calf and singing praises to the false god. Moses threw down the tablets of the ten commandments, and destroyed the idol. There is a section in the passage that compares the Israelites' false praise as ‘songs of war’. Their praise was as a loud noise and the cry of battle. So many use this verse to 'prove' that there is evil styled music (especially if it is loud.)

     Upon closer examination, this verse is really talking about their cries of false worship. I find it to be stretching the truth a bit to apply it to modern day Christian music. In fact, the Bible only talks about singing praises to God and condemning false worship. The Bible says nothing about various music styles.

       It amazes me how such a simple issue has exploded to becoming such a destroyer of Christian unity, lives, churches, hearts, and souls. Where does the Bible place this emphasis?

Ephesians 5:19 Addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart...


I have heard this verse defined as:

 Psalms: The Book of Psalms

 Spiritual Songs: Choruses we sing

 Hymns: Songs we sing in our hymn book

       This is not an accurate interpretation. This false definition actually has no grounds of truth. They did not have a chorus book or a hymn book back in ancient Ephesus in the way we think today. It was everything they could do to get a copy of any Bible manuscript, let alone making up little booklets such as hymnbooks. This verse is ultimately referring to praising our God and singing songs that glorify Him and exhort us as Christians.

     As we continue to check the validity of claims against modern worship, I wish to be clear in my terms, I will often refer to Contemporary Christian Music as CCM.


“Are Drums Sinful?”


Psalms 150:1-6 Praise the Lord! Praise God in his sanctuary; praise him in his mighty heavens! Praise him for his mighty deeds praise him according to his excellent greatness! Praise him with trumpet sound; praise him with lute and harp! Praise him with tambourine and dance; praise him with strings and pipe! Praise him with sounding cymbals; praise him with loud clashing cymbals. Let everything that has breath praise the Lord! Praise the Lord!
(Also, see Isaiah 55:12)


      Besides the emphasis on praising the Lord again, we see he mentions specific instruments to praise the Lord with, and he does not seem to discriminate which ones either. He mentions wind, string, and percussive instruments. David, nor God, seemed to have an issue with them. Yet, some of these are frowned upon by churches today. Despite how you may feel about drums personally, the Bible has nothing against percussive instruments. In Psalm 47:1 it even mentions “The clapping of hands.” Many of these thoughts against such things come from the wrong application of separation and how that applies to the Christian.

     I have heard mention that the beat overwhelms all the other music. Which this can be true in some cases, but it all depends who playing the drums. This tends to be more about poor musicianship than it does about being sinful. I sang once in my church and my pianist completely drowned out my voice with the piano. This does not make it evil. It simply means poor musicianship (or not enough rehearsals if you throw things together like I do.) I should also mention that there is no Biblical validity in this claim either.

     I have also heard that the beat, in general, is evil and pleases the flesh. Of course, to state the obvious, every song has a beat. (besides traditional Gregorian chants) Next time you are singing in church, look around you. Upon observation, you may notice many congregation members swaying side to side when singing a song. If you look closely, you will notice that the swaying is generally in perfect sync with the beat. The beat helps musicians and singers stay in the correct timing, which proves to be beneficial to everyone. Feeling the music does not mean it is wrong, it means one is engaged in the music.

     Another claim against drums is they emphasize the ‘off-beat’. First off,  percussionists can emphasize whatever beat they choose. But for those of you who are not musicians I will try to explain this as easily as possible.

     In most traditional songs, there is a 4/4 time/beat pattern. Basically, to keep this simplified, this means there are gonna be 4 beats per measure. In traditional music they always emphasized the 1st and 3rd beat (IE: 1, 2, 3, 4.) and in modern music they emphasize the opposite beat (1, 2, 3, 4) It is often claimed that this is wrong because it is imitating the sounds of the world during the rock and roll movements of the '70-'80s and therefore feeds our flesh. Once again, this is a false claim. There is a lot of older music that does this same setup and is accepted openly because it is a classical piece. Take Irish styled music as an example. It has both beat patterns in it (among others.) We hear Irish styled music all the time in churches and people love it. Why? Because it’s beautiful! In southern Gospel, the off-beat is emphasized all the time, (especially by the stand up bass.) I have heard it emphasized in classical music anywhere from the medieval period to the romantic period. Off-beat emphasis has been around for a very long time. You will even notice some hymns do this if you pay attention. Oddly enough, the Bible says nothing about such beat patterns either.
“Is Syncopation Wrong?”
     Syncopation is defined as “displacing the beats or accents in music or rhythm so the strong beats become weak and vice versa.” This is pretty much the exact same thing as explained above. Even in Vivaldi’s Concerto in A Minor, there is syncopation. It has been around for centuries. It is generally used to create a musical emphasis. This is not always the case, but often times it is.

     There was a young man at my Bible college who was really ragging on syncopated music. Yet, his favorite song was "I Have Been Blessed." I looked at his sheet music and saw that it was entirely syncopated. I pointed out the syncopation in his music and he started saying, “Wow, this song is corrupted too, I don’t think I should play this anymore...” I attempted to reason with him, but sadly, the roots of his traditionalist mindset would not be uprooted. This was a shame since  God clearly used the song to bless his heart along with many others. Syncopation should not eliminate a song from being a blessing. Ever.

     Many of these issues exist because of ignorance. We need to educate ourselves on these topics, especially if you even consider the idea of debating these issues. Remember, God says to praise Him! If God wanted a specific beat structure I am sure He would have communicated it clearly.


“The modern movement is repetitive and has no theological depth."
      Often times those who use this form of argumentation call contemporary music 7/11 music (same seven words repeated eleven times) I personally do not find much enjoyment out of repetitive music. However, there is nothing actually wrong with it. What is ironic is that some will accuse songs like "Awesome God" of being simplistic and repetitive, while saying songs such as "God is So Good" are good and acceptable for worship. Despite the fact that "God is So Good" is written simplistically in both theory and lyrics, not to mention that song's repetitive nature. However. there is a level of beauty in repeating a holy and simple truth about God. It is also worth noting that the Bible says the angels sing “Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God almighty” all throughout eternity.

Revelation 4:8 And the four living creatures, each of them with six wings, are full of eyes all around and within, and day and night they never cease to say, “Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty, who was and is and is to come!"


      If God finds it acceptable to sing it in heaven, then one can safely assume it is okay within our churches. Christians should not be so harsh as to put down believers for repeating a truth about God. God can be praised by repeating a simple truth about Him, or by stating a long and in-depth poetic song filled to the brim with doctrinal and theological truth. We must keep the focus on Christ, not our personal musical preferences.

      As a side note: not all modern songs constantly repeat themselves. In fact, some of them have deeper meanings than many traditional songs.
“The CCM Artists are worldly and you can’t tell the difference between them and a normal rockstar."
(Please read my Appearance of Evil and Separation from the World for more information)

      This is an interesting point to bring up. I can see the concern here, but one's physical appearance does not dictate one's spiritual state. (Unless they are entirely immodest, but even that has some subjectivity) It is also worth noting that not all of these Christian artists look like worldly rockstars. Like any group of individuals, you will find all different types. Look at the very church you attend and you will see what I mean. The church is made up of individuals and each individual is different and rightfully so. Some of us are at different points of our spiritual walk, some of us have different conviction/beliefs about various different topics, and due to all these differences, many of us can reach people that the other cannot. After all, are we not the Body of Christ?

     Jeremy Camp is a well-known song writer and CCM artist and he has an incredible testimony. Many accusers would say he is worldly, but if you take off the judgmental lenses you may actually see a genuine person here.

Jeremy Camp's Testimony

      Plus, if someone spikes their hair, has a piercing, or even eight tattoos, does that really make them less of a Christian? The Bible really does not speak against these things (within proper context) so why are we making a bigger deal about it than even God did? Remember, you do not know these people. They do not know you. To judge them from a distance is within direct violation of popular passages like Matthew 7. God looks upon the heart, do not get caught up in the over critical nature of man to look down on someone because they do not present themselves in the way you think is best.


1 Samuel 16:7 But the Lord said to Samuel, “Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him. For the Lord sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart."


 “CCM Music doesn’t say the name of God and sounds like it could be sung to/about anyone”
     Actually, there are a lot of songs that openly and clearly testify Christ. It is also true that a lot of songs use the personal pronoun you. Now first off, you will see in the book of Psalms that David uses the word thee, thou, you, etc. A lot of these songs are sung as prayers to God so, naturally, they would use personal pronouns (As King David did.) Below are links to a few songs within the CCM movement with amazing messages that clearly demonstrate that the above accusation is false.


      Even if the accusation was true, there are traditional songs that never use the name of God, but simply describe His attributes, or poetically describe the person-hood of God. A famous example of this is: Amazing Grace. "Amazing Grace" never once mentions the name of God directly. It mentions "God's praise" in the last stanza, but never directly refers to the personhood of God. This is fine! The song is about the human journey of experiencing God's grace. That is the entirety of the message.

     Obviously, there are many songs that are shallow. Take Get Back Up Again as an example. Does it talk about love? Yes. Does it encourage you to press on? Yes. Is its focus on Christ? Not really. Although, it is sung by a Christian artist and played on the station. This song is more of a positive message than a spiritual one. However, if we are going to bash music for being positive in its message, we may need a heart check. There are plenty of songs both old and new that can be shallow. Of course, this is basic argumentation. The most important part of all this is that there is not an ounce of Biblical support to this claim.

     Ultimately, we have to be careful not to generalize new or old Christian music. No one likes to be generalized or painted with a broad brush. That being said, be careful on what you are accusing and be sure it is consistent within your own position.


“We have to avoid music that reflects a worldly culture.”
Many people define worldliness as follows...

 Worldly: of or concerned with material values or ordinary life rather than a spiritual existence. (traditional interpretation.)

      However, this definition is too vague. What is "too concerned?" what is a healthy "material value?" where is the line? At what point do I cross the threshold between, "providing for my family" and, "not being spiritually focused?" Obviously, this could become subjective quickly. Which is why I have previously written on this topic. In short, what the Bible really means is much simpler than what tradition says.

Worldly: To be enamored or ensnared by the sinful nature of the world. (Biblical interpretation)

      To be clear, we are to be separate from the world. This does not mean that people cannot be engaged within their own culture. What that means is not falling into the habits/sins of the world. It does not mean to avoid everything within your own culture/society.

      We commend Hudson Taylor (missionary to China) for adapting to the Chinese culture. This did not make him worldly, but instead made him trusted by the people. This is why it is increasingly important that churches adapt to the current culture without sacrificing Biblical truth or the content of the Gospel. Everything in this world is attached to some form of culture. So everything we do could be considered worldly. Traditional music, modern music, clothes, entertainment, books etc. all originated within a culture. That does not make it evil. The content, however, can.


“Didn't CCM emerge because of the Rock and Roll movement in the 70-80's?”
     Yes and no. Music is always evolving and adapting. But yes, it is true that a lot of what we hear today became popular during that time. But even today’s music style sounds very different than that time period. Even classical music has roots that might shock many. Most of the old classical styles are deeply rooted in sensuality. Even the styles of songs played in our Hymn books are strikingly similar in structure to those that were played in taverns/brothels of the 1700’s and onward.

      You see, music styles change according to the culture in which they are a part of. This is because that is the music people hear and are familiar with. Naturally, people write what they know. Then, over time the music changes and evolves into something else. This is a natural progression all throughout music history.

     There is an amazing book that opened my eyes to this and it is entitled "Bruchko." It is about an American missionary to the Indians in South America. There is a part where he finally witnesses to the Indians and they accept Christ as their Savior. It shocked the missionary when they were singing praises to Jesus in their typical tribal music styles. He was going to intervene, but he felt convicted by the Holy Spirit not to. He realized that the Indians did not want his style of music, but they had their own. In fact, later the Indians said that hymns sounded similar to "Wailing at a funeral." This is a great example of cultural differences and adjusting to the culture in which you are in.


“These people are always trying to put on a show and bring attention to themselves.”

     This could be true to some, but false to others. Again, it is a general claim. We cannot condemn the multitudes for the deeds of a few. Also, we cannot judge these motives for ourselves. People perform in traditional churches same as modern churches. To be the sole arbiter of someone's motive is disconcerting at best. Whether in a contemporary environment or a traditional one people can perform for their own self interests or for the Lord.

      There was a girl I knew who sang all the time at Bible College and was commended highly by the pastor/president and the entire 3,000 member church. The thing was, when you talked to her she was extremely self-absorbed. I even heard her tell someone "I'm one of the best singers here. I think some people are just jealous of that...” (she did not say this out of an attempt to be humorous either.) It would appear that certain people, even traditionalists, might be in it for the thrills and attention as well. 

      I have also heard the argument that all there hand gestures and facial expressions are to bring attention to themselves. When we get to some of these claims, it honestly feels like people are just grasping at straws to nit-pick. People make facial expressions while singing and are actually encouraged to do so by most any vocal coach (classical or otherwise.) It is often a psychological technique used to help someone reach higher notes, use better tone etc. The hand gestures are basically the same thing. There is nothing Biblically wrong with this. So why do accusers say otherwise?


Luke 16:15 And he said to them, “You are those who justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts. For what is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God."

      I have heard this verse used against all these artists. This is taking this verse out of context and running with it. There are good preachers, singers, Sunday school teachers etc. that are all looked highly upon. Being looked up to is not a sin. This verse is talking about a person’s heart. 
James 4:6 But he gives more grace. Therefore it says, “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble." 

       This goes all the way back to what was discussed earlier. In order to praise God in Psalms, Hymns, and Spiritual Songs, our hearts must be right with God. For God knows our hearts. Our lives do not have to be perfect, but our hearts must be in the right place. Otherwise, if it is all about our own skills and pride, it is vanity. The Bible says we must do our best in all things for the Lord. So use your talents and gifts humbly for Him.
“CCM Focuses on emotions”
     It is not entirely emotional. Again, this is a general claim. However, if you are singing about a God who created the world, loved mankind despite its shortcomings and betrayals, sent His son to live a perfect life, endure torture and death for you, and you do not get a little emotional from time to time...you may want to take a spiritual inventory. God created emotions and He created us in His image.

      This claim has no Biblical grounds and is ridiculous to assume something is wrong just because it can have emotions. Most music that is written is inspired by a highly emotional event such as loss or heartbreak. It is often when we are broken that God reveals His unending grace and mercy to us which results in inspiration for many Christian musicians to write.


“Christians can only listen to Christian music"
     Again, there are no Biblical grounds for this claim. The Bible never says music is only for Christians to praise God with. It simply tells us to praise the Lord with music. If you do not want to listen to secular music that’s fine, but nothing is essentially wrong with listening to secular music. This would even make love songs to a spouse or the "Star Spangled Banner" worldly and sinful by this logic. Few people would say poems about love or loneliness are wrong. So what is wrong with putting that poem to a piano or other accompaniment? In short, a song is only sinful when it encourages or praises that which is sinful.

     Even orchestral music or straight classical music has nothing to do with God, yet is generally more accepted even in the most conservative circles. This would appear to be a hypocrisy. Which would be more spiritually uplifting? A CCM song? Or a violin solo composed by Paganini?
Philippians 4:8 Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.

       Whatever music you do choose to listen to, it should help encourage us to think on these things. I believe I can testify for numerous believers that CCM does encourage us to think upon these things.
“CCM artists say their primary reason for singing is evangelism, when God says it is to praise Him.”
      Let’s actually take a second to think this through. If someone is fulfilling the Great Commission (Matt. 28:16-20), travels, sings, and testifies Christ...does that not ultimately bring glory God? This argument, again, is a stretch. What could possibly be wrong with evangelizing with music? If they are testifying Christ and singing music to Him; God will receive honor and praise. Even the most conservative churches have Teen Meetings/Revivals and use games, pizza, skits, and competitions to reach out to teenagers. Is it mentioned in the Bible? No. Is there anything wrong with it? No. People are coming and hearing the Gospel message. In fact, I would find a Christ centered musical experience to be more spiritual than a game night with teenagers. Yet, we have the nerve to say musical evangelism is wrong? Let’s be honest, if we were as concerned about lost souls as we were these kinds of topics, there would be a huge revival in our world. However, so many prefer to tear down Christian people who are trying to influence lives than to pray for their ministry.
“Electrical Instruments are Worldly”
     Outside of using the word worldly out of context again, there is further issue with this statement. It does not matter if an instrument is electric or acoustic. My church has an electric pipe organ and I grew up using an electric piano. How the instrument functions really is of no consequence. You will find that music styles have much more in common than one might originally assume. All music styles use the same notes and scales, sheet music, beat structure, and they all play in the same keys. At the end of the day, a G chord plays 3 notes G, B, D. The G chord can be played on piano, violin, or any guitar. It can be played in any style in any place. Music instruments and their notations are really amoral. It would seem that the only consistent position would be to acknowledge that musical instruments and the notes/style they play have no real moral value.

       I would argue that it is all about the balance of the music vs. lyrics. Lyrics should be about God and praising Him, testifying Him, or praying to Him. The music should reflect that which is being sung or else it does not fit its message. Have you ever heard a song where the melody/style did not fit the lyrics? It can be jarring. This would seem to be a more appropriate complaint than the types of instruments it is played on. However, this would still be under a musical preference, not necessarily a moral issue, and certainly not a Biblical issue.


Conclusion
      We cannot be so tight that we shut down anything that has a new sound to it. All of these claims against CCM have no Biblical grounds and fall apart upon further inspection of music. Sure, some CCM artists are not good examples of Christianity. However, we as Christians should be able to discern that, but not all traditionalists are good examples either. If the world judged us just as harshly for our few bad apples, could you imagine the devastating result that would have on the ministry of churches today? Maybe our entire focus on this is wrong. Maybe it is not about the drums, guitars, styles etc. maybe it is about something deeper. Maybe it is about the heart of the worship itself.


Colossians 3:23 Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men


By at 4 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,