Music in Fundamental Churches

[Jkdbuck76]

Yeah. I mean, you can take the tune of "I've Been Blessed" and put in the words 'by my works' and have a nice tune, but horrible theology.

 

[Todd W. White]

Lots of interesting comments in this thread.

While driving back in the storm last night from Dallas to Tulsa, several things came to my mind about this topic, and how to approach it. I would like to offer the following first, and will present the others later.

First, some observations:

1. Some people who disagree with the points Dr. Garlock presents react to them (and, perhaps, him), rather than listen to them with an open mind and heart. I'm not talking about anyone here, I'm just making an general observation based on around 35 years of trying to explain these concepts to people who have never heard them before. So, rather than listen, they often react, and tune out what good might be in the message.

2. Those who have heard them, and rejected them, are often very defensive, sometimes downright antagonistic, towards anyone who holds these as their personal convictions. This makes it difficult to communicate with them in a civil conversation about the topic.

3. Those who have reacted negatively to these concepts can also be prone to become judgmental and derisive of those who have embraced them, and vice-versa. This is not a salvific issue, but it is, I believe, still very important. Yet, there is no place, in my view, of nastiness by one side towards the other, no matter who is doing it.

4. Trying to present these concepts is never easy. This is especially true when the person with whom I am trying to share doesn't know anything about music. It is also true of those who don't know much about the Bible. It has been my experience over the past 40 years, as a church member, church musician, church sound operator, church sound system designer, installer, and trainer of church musicians in proper sound system use, as a church music minister, and now as a pastor, that most pastors don't know anything about music and most music people in churches don't know anything about the Bible. I know that is a broad generalization, but it is nonetheless my observation.

5. Lastly, it has been my observation that perhaps we've been attempting to present these concepts in the wrong way. A better way to say that might be that there could be a more effective way to present them that those who do not know about or understand them might be able to grasp more easily.

This is some of what came to mind last night driving home in the storm.

That said, I'd like to try to go "at it" from a different angle. I believe that it IS possible for Christians to discuss matters of any type without resorting to innuendo, slams, slaps, smart-aleck remarks, etc. I will certainly refrain from it, and would ask everyone who is interested in this topic to do the same.

With that, I pose three questions for all of us, including myself, to answer before I spend a lot of time on this -

1. Will you approach this discussion with an open heart? Is your heart's desire to allow Christ to be in control of every part of your life?

2. Would you be willing to accept as valid any teaching that is confirmed by sound, Bible exegesis, even if it conflicts with your current beliefs and/or practice?

3. If you find it to be correct, would you be willing to change your mind - and your practice - regarding the subject and follow what God teaches you?

I think we need to ask ourselves these questions privately (not looking for public answers, here - I have no interest in "setting someone up" for later ridicule or something like that). If folks aren't willing to take a fresh look at it with an open heart and mind - including myself - then we're wasting our time here.

What say YOU? Should we proceed with serious hearts, truly desiring to know the truth, or do we drop it and go on to something else?

 

[SBCPreacher]

Lots of interesting comments in this thread.

While driving back in the storm last night from Dallas to Tulsa, several things came to my mind about this topic, and how to approach it. I would like to offer the following first, and will present the others later.

First, some observations:

1. Some people who disagree with the points Dr. Garlock presents react to them (and, perhaps, him), rather than listen to them with an open mind and heart. I'm not talking about anyone here, I'm just making an general observation based on around 35 years of trying to explain these concepts to people who have never heard them before. So, rather than listen, they often react, and tune out what good might be in the message.

2. Those who have heard them, and rejected them, are often very defensive, sometimes downright antagonistic, towards anyone who holds these as their personal convictions. This makes it difficult to communicate with them in a civil conversation about the topic.

3. Those who have reacted negatively to these concepts can also be prone to become judgmental and derisive of those who have embraced them, and vice-versa. This is not a salvific issue, but it is, I believe, still very important. Yet, there is no place, in my view, of nastiness by one side towards the other, no matter who is doing it.

4. Trying to present these concepts is never easy. This is especially true when the person with whom I am trying to share doesn't know anything about music. It is also true of those who don't know much about the Bible. It has been my experience over the past 40 years, as a church member, church musician, church sound operator, church sound system designer, installer, and trainer of church musicians in proper sound system use, as a church music minister, and now as a pastor, that most pastors don't know anything about music and most music people in churches don't know anything about the Bible. I know that is a broad generalization, but it is nonetheless my observation.

5. Lastly, it has been my observation that perhaps we've been attempting to present these concepts in the wrong way. A better way to say that might be that there could be a more effective way to present them that those who do not know about or understand them might be able to grasp more easily.

This is some of what came to mind last night driving home in the storm.

That said, I'd like to try to go "at it" from a different angle. I believe that it IS possible for Christians to discuss matters of any type without resorting to innuendo, slams, slaps, smart-aleck remarks, etc. I will certainly refrain from it, and would ask everyone who is interested in this topic to do the same.

With that, I pose three questions for all of us, including myself, to answer before I spend a lot of time on this -

1. Will you approach this discussion with an open heart? Is your heart's desire to allow Christ to be in control of every part of your life?

2. Would you be willing to accept as valid any teaching that is confirmed by sound, Bible exegesis, even if it conflicts with your current beliefs and/or practice?

3. If you find it to be correct, would you be willing to change your mind - and your practice - regarding the subject and follow what God teaches you?

I think we need to ask ourselves these questions privately (not looking for public answers, here - I have no interest in "setting someone up" for later ridicule or something like that). If folks aren't willing to take a fresh look at it with an open heart and mind - including myself - then we're wasting our time here.

What say YOU? Should we proceed with serious hearts, truly desiring to know the truth, or do we drop it and go on to something else?

I have a bachelors degree in Music Education. I had been a full-time Music Minster for over 20 years, and now I am a Senior Pastor/Worship Leader (with a M.Div. and a Th.D.). I know music.

But I have never heard anyone point out to me where it says in the Bible that music with a beat is of the Devil, unless they are doing some kind of Biblical and theological gymnastics and misinterpreting Biblical texts trying to prove their opinion.

Can you show my just one verse that explicitly states that contemporary music or music with a contemporary beat is evil?

 

[Pastor Larry]

One thing that has always bothered me about Garlock's presentation has been that he seems to put a lot of stock in the opinion of secular scientists as if they somehow are an authority on the matter.

But then secular scientists often say we evolved and deny a God at all so why do we trust them here?

We could just as easily say that if an unbeliever can see it, why can't a believer? How much more clear should it be to those who have seen the light of God's glory and holiness.

I won't get deeply involved here, but I think there are some very simplistic arguments being made. Above all, the argument that there is no chapter and verse, or "I can't find it in the Bible" is one of the most unthinking and simplistic arguments there is. There are a great many things that are true that cannot be found in the Bible. There are a great many things that are sin that cannot be found in the Bible. I think God doesn't expect us to check our minds at the door. He rather expects us to use our minds and think very seriously about these issues.

I think it is undeniable that music creates an atmosphere, effects emotions, and has direct effects on the way that we think. Given these self-evident truths, should not we think more critically about the music we use?

 

[rbell]

1. Some people who disagree with the points Dr. Garlock presents react to them (and, perhaps, him), rather than listen to them with an open mind and heart. I'm not talking about anyone here, I'm just making an general observation based on around 35 years of trying to explain these concepts to people who have never heard them before. So, rather than listen, they often react, and tune out what good might be in the message.

That hasn't been done here. There have been some very specific refutations listed, as well as the critical error he makes: No Scriptural support.

2. Those who have heard them, and rejected them, are often very defensive, sometimes downright antagonistic, towards anyone who holds these as their personal convictions. This makes it difficult to communicate with them in a civil conversation about the topic.

Same argument...and same response: nothing like that in this thread. Very civil here.

3. Those who have reacted negatively to these concepts can also be prone to become judgmental and derisive of those who have embraced them, and vice-versa. This is not a salvific issue, but it is, I believe, still very important. Yet, there is no place, in my view, of nastiness by one side towards the other, no matter who is doing it.

Same argument, third time around. My same response still applies.

4. Trying to present these concepts is never easy. This is especially true when the person with whom I am trying to share doesn't know anything about music. It is also true of those who don't know much about the Bible. It has been my experience over the past 40 years, as a church member, church musician, church sound operator, church sound system designer, installer, and trainer of church musicians in proper sound system use, as a church music minister, and now as a pastor, that most pastors don't know anything about music and most music people in churches don't know anything about the Bible. I know that is a broad generalization, but it is nonetheless my observation.

This is quite condescending, and on this thread, doesn't apply. You'd be surprised how knowledgeable many of us are. Please don't talk down to us.

5. Lastly, it has been my observation that perhaps we've been attempting to present these concepts in the wrong way. A better way to say that might be that there could be a more effective way to present them that those who do not know about or understand them might be able to grasp more easily.

The right way would be to present your Scriptural background for Garlock's theses. But, since this is the inherent weakness in his position, that becomes a difficult task.

1. Will you approach this discussion with an open heart? Is your heart's desire to allow Christ to be in control of every part of your life?

2. Would you be willing to accept as valid any teaching that is confirmed by sound, Bible exegesis, even if it conflicts with your current beliefs and/or practice?

3. If you find it to be correct, would you be willing to change your mind - and your practice - regarding the subject and follow what God teaches you?

Most of us here didn't arrive at the conclusions we hold blindly. Many of us--myself included--once held different views; but after prayer, research, and searching the Scriptures, we came to hold the beliefs we do.

This is not about preferences. I will defend all day long your right to not like something. It is when you cross the line and say, "That's not of God," that I must object...especially when you do so without the support of Scripture.

 

[rbell]

Given these self-evident truths, should not we think more critically about the music we use?

I think one extreme is to say, "Oh, it doesn't matter what you listen to." The other extreme is, "XYZ genres are evil; ABC genres are not."

Both extremes are problematic.

 

[SBCPreacher]

I think one extreme is to say, "Oh, it doesn't matter what you listen to." The other extreme is, "XYZ genres are evil; ABC genres are not."

Both extremes are problematic.

I agree.

But, I always get concerned when someone says , "the type of music I like is good, and if I don't like it, it's evil."

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I think God doesn't expect us to check our minds at the door. He rather expects us to use our minds and think very seriously about these issues.

I agree 100%. It means we need to check into what we hear taught and not take it at face value without Bible support.

And that is fine, but the question is, "Is there a Bible basis for this teaching?" as was claimed in the other thread.

 

[annsni]

4. Trying to present these concepts is never easy. This is especially true when the person with whom I am trying to share doesn't know anything about music. It is also true of those who don't know much about the Bible. It has been my experience over the past 40 years, as a church member, church musician, church sound operator, church sound system designer, installer, and trainer of church musicians in proper sound system use, as a church music minister, and now as a pastor, that most pastors don't know anything about music and most music people in churches don't know anything about the Bible. I know that is a broad generalization, but it is nonetheless my observation.

OK - that's all well and good but my hubby has you beat by a mile. Do you have any wireless microphones from Audio Technica? Yeah - my husband did a lot of the design for that and programming and still does side work here and there for AT since he's developed a relationship with them. Have you had a recording studio? My hubby has had a recording studio for many years. Have you worked in the professional audio industry to develop a name for yourself there? Umm - yeah, my hubby is personal friends with those from Skywalker Sound, Todd AO Glenn Glenn, Disney, etc. Were you a pioneer in digital audio recording and develop a digital audio recorder that was the first 64 track digital recorder in history? Oh yeah, my husband did that too. He played in a jazz band under the leadership of Clem DeRosa and still gets together with him and his old bandmates to jam. He's played with Kathy Trocolli and Margaret Becker (although he chose another guy over Margaret for his band so maybe he's not all THAT smart) as well as recently worked with Charlie Hall. He built his own speakers for his band in high school that our church STILL uses 35 years later "Snider-sound" we call it. He's also recently redesigned the sound system for our church and oversaw the installation of it (since he can't climb ladders anymore due to a crushed foot from a fall from our roof 4.5 years ago).

So your you are not the only one qualified to judge music around here.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Lots of interesting comments in this thread.

While driving back in the storm last night from Dallas to Tulsa, several things came to my mind about this topic, and how to approach it. I would like to offer the following first, and will present the others later.

First, some observations:

1. Some people who disagree with the points Dr. Garlock presents react to them (and, perhaps, him), rather than listen to them with an open mind and heart. I'm not talking about anyone here, I'm just making an general observation based on around 35 years of trying to explain these concepts to people who have never heard them before. So, rather than listen, they often react, and tune out what good might be in the message.

2. Those who have heard them, and rejected them, are often very defensive, sometimes downright antagonistic, towards anyone who holds these as their personal convictions. This makes it difficult to communicate with them in a civil conversation about the topic.

3. Those who have reacted negatively to these concepts can also be prone to become judgmental and derisive of those who have embraced them, and vice-versa. This is not a salvific issue, but it is, I believe, still very important. Yet, there is no place, in my view, of nastiness by one side towards the other, no matter who is doing it.

4. Trying to present these concepts is never easy. This is especially true when the person with whom I am trying to share doesn't know anything about music. It is also true of those who don't know much about the Bible. It has been my experience over the past 40 years, as a church member, church musician, church sound operator, church sound system designer, installer, and trainer of church musicians in proper sound system use, as a church music minister, and now as a pastor, that most pastors don't know anything about music and most music people in churches don't know anything about the Bible. I know that is a broad generalization, but it is nonetheless my observation.

5. Lastly, it has been my observation that perhaps we've been attempting to present these concepts in the wrong way. A better way to say that might be that there could be a more effective way to present them that those who do not know about or understand them might be able to grasp more easily.

This is some of what came to mind last night driving home in the storm.

That said, I'd like to try to go "at it" from a different angle. I believe that it IS possible for Christians to discuss matters of any type without resorting to innuendo, slams, slaps, smart-aleck remarks, etc. I will certainly refrain from it, and would ask everyone who is interested in this topic to do the same.

With that, I pose three questions for all of us, including myself, to answer before I spend a lot of time on this -

1. Will you approach this discussion with an open heart? Is your heart's desire to allow Christ to be in control of every part of your life?

2. Would you be willing to accept as valid any teaching that is confirmed by sound, Bible exegesis, even if it conflicts with your current beliefs and/or practice?

3. If you find it to be correct, would you be willing to change your mind - and your practice - regarding the subject and follow what God teaches you?

I think we need to ask ourselves these questions privately (not looking for public answers, here - I have no interest in "setting someone up" for later ridicule or something like that). If folks aren't willing to take a fresh look at it with an open heart and mind - including myself - then we're wasting our time here.

What say YOU? Should we proceed with serious hearts, truly desiring to know the truth, or do we drop it and go on to something else?

The whole thread is simple enough here Todd. It was started to allow you to present Bible evidence that rhythm dominated music is Satan's fleshly counterfeit. That might be a good starting point for this discussion rather that questioning motives of other posters. Do you have Bible evidence for your claim?

No poster on this thread has said any thing negative about Dr Garlock - the point here is the one specific claim. Disagreeing with him does not mean he has been rejected.

 

[rbell]

Do you have any wireless microphones from Audio Technica?

Actually, I've misplaced 10-12 of AT's top of the line mic. Got any extra laying around?














(well, I tried...)

 

[thegospelgeek]

Todd,

For the teory to be true wouldn't music have to have the same effect on everyone. For example, would melodies have to evoke the same emotional response from all who hear it?

 

[annsni]

Actually, I've misplaced 10-12 of AT's top of the line mic. Got any extra laying around?














(well, I tried...)

Actually we have a bunch. Unfortunately, they're the Asia and Austrailia models so they're different radio bands or whatever it is. We needed mics BADLY last year but we couldn't use all of the ones Bob has upstairs because of the foreign stuff. SIGH. Oh well!!

 

[rbell]

Actually we have a bunch. Unfortunately, they're the Asia and Austrailia models so they're different radio bands or whatever it is. We needed mics BADLY last year but we couldn't use all of the ones Bob has upstairs because of the foreign stuff. SIGH. Oh well!!

[hijack] Will they work if we play Australian music? I can play the digeridoo...[/hijack]

sorry...back to the festivities...

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Please folks - this thread has the potential to volatility. The topic is very clear - is there Bible support for the harmony/melody/rhythm teaching espoused above?

If not, it does not mean that the concept is bad, just that we can't defend it as scriptural.

 

[annsni]

[hijack] Will they work if we play Australian music? I can play the digeridoo...[/hijack]

sorry...back to the festivities...

Sure but you'll have the FCC coming after you. :laugh:

 

[Todd W. White]

rbell -

You're reacting to my post, not listening to it - you quote me where I state that I am NOT talking about anyone here, then turn right around and blast me as though I did so. You did the same thing with nearly everything else I said, trying to make it sound as if I said things I specifically did not say.


As for the question asked by SBCPreacher -

Can you show my just one verse that explicitly states that contemporary music or music with a contemporary beat is evil?

No. But you can't quote me one verse that explicitly states that it is wrong to drive your car over the speed limit, either, but that doesn't mean it's OK to speed!

There are a LOT of things that the Bible does not explicitly state are right or wrong, but we understand them by understanding the principles/truths that are found in it. Contrary to what a lot of baptists think, the Bible is not a book of rules & regulations: it's a book of principles, and if you take a truth, a principle, found in God's Word, and understand it, you will find out that it applies to many more areas of life than just the one it was specifically written for originally.

Your question is the standard straw-man used by those who refuse to discuss the matter rationally, biblically, or with an open heart and mind.


Sister Ann,

I wasn't trying to toot my own horn - I was trying to establish a basis on which to speak to the issue. I'm not out to "beat" anyone else with my credentials, not am I trying to assert that I am the only person qualified to speak on the issue. Why are you being so defensive? I have not attacked your husband, or anyone else, for that matter...

Let's get back to the three questions:

1. Will you approach this discussion with an open heart? Is your heart's desire to allow Christ to be in control of every part of your life?

2. Would you be willing to accept as valid any teaching that is confirmed by sound, Bible exegesis, even if it conflicts with your current beliefs and/or practice?

3. If you find it to be correct, would you be willing to change your mind - and your practice - regarding the subject and follow what God teaches you?

I learned a long time ago that if we aim at nothing, we'll hit it with incredible accuracy. That said, if we can't all agree on something as basic as these three simple points, anything else we might attempt to discuss here is a waste of time.

If we can agree, then I will be most happy to proceed and provide the evidence so many think doesn't exist to support Dr. Garlock's - and my - position.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

r

If we can agree, then I will be most happy to proceed and provide the evidence so many think doesn't exist to support Dr. Garlock's - and my - position.

Please - just proceed. You are dealing with brothers and sisters in Christ. Are you not going to provide your evidence unless every individual here agrees to your conditions? Your Bible defence of the position will silence all the critics.

You have said that rhythm dominated music appeals to the flesh and will weaken the spiritual life of those who listen to it. You have said you have a Bible basis for that teaching. Please show us that teaching.

 

[rbell]

Please folks - this thread has the potential to volatility. The topic is very clear - is their Bible support for the harmony/melody/rhythm teaching?

If not, it does not mean that the concept is bad, just that we can't defend it as scripture.

In research I have done, the originator of the harmony/melody/rhythm teaching appears to be the Greek mathematician/philosopher Pythagoras. Plato picked up on just a few of his thoughts.

It doesn't mean that Garlock is pagan. Nor do I imply that Garlock simply copied Pythagoras' work. It's that Pythagoras' thoughts serve as a basis for this approach.

The other teaching we've seen a bunch in these circles, focusing more on rhythmic dominance, often assignes a Hamitic or African influence (always meant negatively) to the "rock beat." There are other folk (not Garlock, to my knowledge) who do this quite a bit. There seems to be a subtle play on racial prejudices in some folks' approach on this issue; there's also usually some urban legend involved--involving a former missionary to Africa, a "rock beat," and allegations of conjuring up demons. Once again...Scripture is left out of the mix.

Thankfully, this doesn't seem to be the focus much anymore 'round these parts.

 

[Dale-c]

We could just as easily say that if an unbeliever can see it, why can't a believer? How much more clear should it be to those who have seen the light of God's glory and holiness.

This argument fails when you consider the unbeliever has a different measure of morality that the Bible has.

To the unbeliever, many things are wrong that the bible says are right.

This argument only works as a supplement to a biblical argument.
An example is: The Bible says murder is wrong, and even pagan governments for centuries have agreed that it is wrong.
Why? because the law of God that is written on the hearts of man says murder is wrong.

There is no law of God written on the heart of man or in the Bible that says that music with heavy rhythm is sinful.

There is a level of common sense that should be employed. We should be reverent in our music. we should be serious in our worship but until someone can find scriptural evidence for something, it is just a personal opinion.

What seems common sense to one man is foolishness.
That is why we MUST rely on sola scriptura as our guide.

Otherwise we are left in the realm of opinion.

Garlock has his opinion, I have mine. Who is to decide the tiebreaker here? The Bible.
Plain and simple.