Category: Hot Topics

Philosophy of Church Music

5/25/2016

I have been privileged to be able to start conducting a monthly class we are calling "Ministry Training Workshop" where our purpose is to 1) unite our church in the philosophy of ministry we promote, 2) to increase involvement in our various ministries, and 3) to educate and equip our members with the resources needed to begin practicing their ministry skills.

This Friday, we will be conducting a class on "Music Ministry." Naturally, we feel that, as part of the class, we need to review our philosophy of ministry regarding church music. I will be handing the following information out in the class and felt like it might be profitable for others to read who will not be attending the class but are interested in the topic.

We will be covering a lot more in the class about policies, procedures, and what have you, that are obviously not included below, but I hope it is beneficial.

Our Philosophy Regarding Church Music

1. We do not embrace the philosophy of "mainstream Christianity."

We are aware that we can't honestly judge the philosophies and motives of other churches, and it is not our desire to do so. We also realize that nothing is "wrong" simply because it is modern or mainstream. However, we try our best to use godly wisdom and discretion in recognizing certain dangers with some of the trends of the day in regards to church music. It is our opinion that mainstream Christianity tends to have the wrong focus. Music should not be too inward (focused on the style of music that we prefer) nor should it be too outward (focused on the style of music that our community prefers), but it should be focused upward (what best glorifies the Father?).

2. We do not embrace ecumenicalism (the promotion of acceptance of many varying belief systems within the church) in our music.

Songs promote ecumenicalism when they water down doctrinal truths or blur denominational lines. Obviously, we don't throw out a song simply because the writer doesn't believe exactly like we do or because the message isn't thorough enough, but we do try to search the content and sing songs that encourage our fellow believers to continue on in the biblical doctrines that are in line with what we teach.

3. We do not believe music is a "grey area."

Music has a significant effect on our bodies, minds, and spirits. Children recognize how music makes them feel, and you can see it in their behavior as they listen to various styles and rhythms of music. The business world (restaurants, shopping centers, etc) recognizes how music styles affect the way people feel, and they use it to achieve their desired atmosphere. Psychologists recognize how particular styles affect learning. Even plants are apparently affected by music styles.

5. We do not believe church music is about ourselves

"And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit; Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;" (Ephesians 5:18,19)

"Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord. And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him. (Colossians 3:16, 17)

Music in the church is about aligning our mind and spirit with God and it is about teaching and admonishing (warning) other believers. It is in contrast with "drunkeness" which promotes "excess." Excess is defined as,

"(in morals) any indulgence of appetite, passion or exertion, beyond the rules of God's word, or beyond any rule of propriety; intemperance in gratifications; as excess in eating or drinking; excess of joy; excess of grief; excess of love, or of anger; excess of labor." (Webster 1828)

Based on Ephesians 5:18 and 19, we conclude that, If the Holy Spirit contrasts music with something that is immoral (drunkeness), music must not be "amoral." As the improper use of ingredients used to make food and drink can be bad for you, so can the improper use of words, notes, rhythms, and beats used to make music. It is our desire to stick with what we believe to be most acceptable in the sight of God.

"And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God." (Romans 12:2)

0 Comments

What Are They Teaching In Sex Ed These Days?

7/2/2015

0 Comments

SEX, n. [L. sexus; from L. seco, to divide.] 1. The distinction between male and female; or the property or character by which an animal is male or female. The male sex is usually characterized by muscular strength, boldness and firmness. The female sex is characterized by softness, sensibility and modesty (Webster 1828).

I think it was eighth grade when I first heard my Health teacher announce "We are going to be teaching Sex Ed this next semester." She actually warned us that some might be offended. She said if we wanted to opt out of that portion of the class we would need a permission form signed by our parents, and then we would be given another project to work on. Let's be honest! We all pretty much knew how things worked by that stage of our lives. Sure, we all used different names for the reproductive parts, but we were pretty sure we knew what to do in order for the human race to survive.

I really felt uncomfortable with the idea of learning this subject from a female teacher with my female peers in the class; but if I opted out I would be the only one who did, and I would be the laughing stock of the whole class! So, I convinced my parents that it wouldn't be a big deal and that I was old enough to handle such a class with maturity and dignity... Yeah right!

The class was divided (interesting, the word "sex" comes from the Latin word for "divide"); girls sat on one side of the room and boys sat on the other (facing each other...many girls wearing short skirts...you can guess what the boys did the whole time...). You know, now that I think of it, we didn't have one person in the class who was confused as to which side of the room to sit on. There was this one guy who wore nail polish and walked around campus in a dress, but everyone knew by the way he carried himself that he just liked the attention and did it to shock people. And as far as I know every boy in that class liked girls, and every girl liked boys (just maybe not the ones in our class).

Fast forward twenty some years. I'm a youth pastor in a small rural town. I have had the opportunity to minister to many young people who are growing up under the tutelage of our government-run, public education. It remains to be a shock to me that so many, even those professing to believe in God and the Bible, support the idea of homosexual "unions" (I prefer to call it the Biblical word, "sodomy") and transgender expressions (which the Bible calls "abomination" and "confusion").

Besides what the Bible says (which makes no acceptance of sodomy or of transgender expressions and strongly forbids and pronounces harsh judgment against both), the lack of common sense among young people today concerning the very nature and meaning of "sex" just blows my mind. I watch as our government encourages the act of sodomy and legalizes their marital rights. I watch as movie stars and professional athletes are praised and hailed as "heros" for coming out publically and admitting that they are sodomites or confused about their gender. I can't help but think I'm living in the Twilight Zone or something! I've awaken to a nation of perverts and the mentally insane. These people need treatment, not acceptance! What exactly are they teaching in Sex Ed these days? Does anyone know what "sex" means? How about "reproduction?" In an age of scientific "enlightenment" and the evolutionary bandwagon, how can so-called "educated" professors be content giving a diploma to someone who is confused about which gender they are?

Now, if you are a Christian and you are saying "Hoorah! Preach it, Brother!" I hope you won't mind the next part. I say it with all the love I can muster up in my heart. Please think on it!

Why most ladies in our church wear dresses and why others should:

This is a very controversial subject in fundamental, Bible-believing churches...and I'm really not sure why. Our church certainly doesn't go around saying women who wear pants are wicked (many of our women wear pants regularly, and they are not treated any differently than those who wear dresses). I have rarely heard the topic even preached from our pulpit. The only time it has ever become a point of contention is when we have an activity or an outing and a dress code is given (something like "For this activity, we are asking girls not to wear pants and boys, no shorts"). That is how our pastor wants our church to represent ourselves out in public, and I'm perfectly fine with that. That is the basic dress code enforced in my home, most of the time, as well. We rarely make an issue about it, but quite honestly, I think there is very good reason to encourage some stricter dress standards among our brothers and sisters in Christ; and now, more than ever, it needs to be addressed.

I'll give you one good reason why we need to consider making a statement with the way we dress--GENDER CRISIS! Now, more than ever, we Christians need to make a statement regarding our God-given gender. He made you who you are--embrace it! I'm not saying embrace how you feel, I'm saying embrace who you are. I'm sick of hearing women make jokes and brag about being a "Tom boy" and men talking about their "feminine side." I hear Christian ladies say "I just don't like girly things! I like climbing trees and getting dirty." Well, you are more than welcome to climb a tree or get dirty, but you'd better find a way to be a lady about it. We need to shine our light today, the world is so dark!

I totally get that it is possible for a lady to look feminine in a pair of pants, but I also believe it is just about impossible for them to look masculine in a dress. At some point in our (fairly recent) history, women started cutting their hair shorter, wearing more masculine clothes (baseball caps, jeans, pant suits...even ties) and taking on more masculine roles, and I simply don't think it is godly (please realize I am not saying every baseball cap or pair of jeans, shorter hairstyle, etc. is inherently masculine...but I hope you get my point). I think it is time to set a standard and be a light for our world to see that God made mankind. "Male and female created He them." Let's not encourage the confusion!

0 Comments

"A Lesson I Learned From James White"

4/22/2015

10 Comments

In the fight (if you will allow me to call it that) against the King James Only (KJVO) movement, I think it is fair to say that James White is considered a "champion" among the advocates of modern versions of the Bible (although he does acknowledge there is a "glut" of unnecessary translations today). Some may be disappointed to find out that this article doesn't criticize James White, and others may be disappointed to find out I am not defending him either. However, I have indeed truly learned something from James White regarding the preservation of the Christian scriptures (particularly the New Testament). I had never given it adequate thought, until I watched a debate between James White and Jack Moorman. But before I get into the lesson that I learned, I think it would be appropriate to clear a few things up regarding the KJVO
position(s).

1. There are many different views within the "KJV only" movement

All KJV advocates (as far as I can tell) clearly agree in our love for the King James Bible and in its sufficiency in portraying to us the Words of God, though some may consider it more a matter of preference and others may consider the KJB to be as "inspired" and "infallible" as the original writings that were penned by the human authors themselves.  One can have a number of convictions within that range and still fall under the KJVO label.

So many arguments between the KJVO crowd and the supporters of modern versions could be eliminated if we would first define our position. Unfortunately, I have to admit that many of us who trust in the final authority of the KJB know very little about the facts involved in the debate, and we cannot give a good explanation of our exact position. I totally confess to being ignorant of many of the issues myself, primarily based on the lack of any previous conviction to study out those details.  Whereas such a faith in God's Word is certainly commendable, it doesn't warrant any credibility in giving a proper defense on our own KJVO position.

2. The "preservation of scripture" is an act of God, not man

I am pretty sure every believer will agree with that, whether we agree with the "freewill" of mankind or we hold to any particular position of "sovereign determinism." The fact that God has had His "hand" in the process of preserving His Word seems obvious to any of us. That being said, it is important to admit that, in whatever capacity we have God's Word today, it doesn't necessarily matter by what means they were preserved.

3. The whole debate, though it may necessitate certain levels of division among God's saints, is over very few and insignificant variations within manuscripts.

That is not to say it is a meaningless debate to have. I personally give my full support in the defense of the KJVO position. Neither am I against there being divisions over the issue, to the following extent: I believe pastors who stand on the KJV as their final authority should not have to fight with their congregation over such matters. If co-laborers within the church have a problem with their pastor's position, I believe they should be willing to assemble elsewhere so as not to cause division among the congregation.  However, I personally see no reason to treat Brothers in Christ with different viewpoints on the subject as enemies or heretics, as long as they are not teaching false doctrine (I mean more than minor interpretational teachings) or living in open sin as a result of their position.

Now, all that being said, here is the lesson I learned from James White:

Being taught the Bible at a young age, or shortly after one places their faith in Christ, it is fairly easy to simply trust that God has given us His Word. But as we grow, and our faith is challenged, we are faced with certain questions that are hard to answer. For many, that question is "If the Bible is God's Word, why are there so many versions of the Bible" or "If the Bible is God's Word, why has there been so many revisions and corrections made over the years?" In the debate I mentioned above, James White gave a very clear and excellent answer to that question.

First, White gave his explanation as to how all the various manuscripts and texts came about. We know that the early church was persecuted, and was caused to spread out throughout the world. During this time, in order to have the scriptures, Christians would have hurried to hand write (obviously the printing press wasn't invented yet) copies of copies of the originals. These copies were used around the world and translated into various languages in time. Naturally, there were typographical errors, and occasionally words were unintentionally added or left out.

Here is what White said that really got me thinking. It is a concept that I knew but hadn't given proper thought. He said,

"If we only had one manuscript, we would have to trust that whoever controlled the manuscript didn't tamper with it..."

He added, "Instead, what we have is a manuscript tradition that goes all over the world..."

Then he explains how his "Muslim friends" say to him "You Christians added the deity of Christ to your scriptures." And he points out to them,

"that is absolutely impossible... There has never been a time when anyone had control over ALL the manuscripts of the New Testament,"

White concludes that by textual criticism (the careful examination of the thousands of existing texts) we can sufficiently prove whether or not any false doctrines have been added to our scriptures. To all of this, I say "Amen," and I contribute this wonderful truth to the working hand of the Lord! Consider the following points as they apply to this concept:

1. The same God Who divided the languages at the tower of Babel, united them on the day of Pentecost.

2. The same God Who allowed more than one Creation account (presumably) to be passed down to Moses, united them in the book of Genesis.

3. The same God who allowed two separate accounts of The Law to be recorded (Exodus and Deuteronomy), united them with the Pentateuch (first five books of the Old Testament)

4. The same God who allowed several accounts of the life and works of Christ to be recorded, united them in the four Gospels (first four books of the New Testament)

5. Surely the same God who allowed His Word to be spread throughout the world in multiple editions and variations, could unite them all in some way in which we can all have His entire Word available to us in our generation and for generations to come.

My conclusion, however, is that the KJVO crowd has the best of both worlds. We still have access to those surviving manuscripts, some of which were not available to us for many years after the King James Version (which had pretty much stood alone as the Word of God for the English speaking people for hundreds of years and had a phenomenal impact on worldwide evangelism). And we still have textual critics who say "the differences among all the texts and manuscripts that have been found are so insignificant that they do not affect major doctrine." And yet, we are very comfortable in our stand that the KJV is more than sufficient as our final authority. Despite what exactly our position is within the umbrella of "King James Only," we can rest comfortably on the fact that God has preserved His Word for us in a remarkable way, through the King James Bible.

10 Comments

Why 'Force' People To Learn Another Language (KJV)?

4/17/2015

12 Comments

Before I move on with this article I want to make something clear. There are certain feelings I have about the whole "King James Only" issue that will not apply to this article, and therefore the reader may wonder where I stand, based not so much on what I say but on what I don't say. That is fine, but please judge righteously. Following are a few arguments I will try to avoid in this article, regardless of my feelings on the matter:

1. The argument that Satan, from the beginning, has had an agenda to twist the very words of God and to challenge them.
2. The argument that God has promised to preserve His words perfectly, and that the preservation of those words seem unlikely to be present only within a variety of versions that disagree with one another.
3. The argument that modern versions use corrupted manuscripts whereas the KJV uses only the pure, preserved manuscripts.

As with all my posts, I also don't want to pretend to be any kind of an authority on the subject. I simply want to express my feelings and engage the minds of my readers to search their feelings on particular subjects. Lord bless you for taking the time to read this article. I hope that it brings honor to His name and no dishonor.

I recently posted a link on my Facebook page to an article that taught a quick lesson in Seventeenth century English (the era of Shakespeare), and recommended that people who have a difficult time reading the King James Version of the Bible take time to learn some basic rules that will help them to understand the KJV. In return, I was asked a very reasonable and honest question from a friend who is not only in favor of the use of modern versions but very much against those who promote the "King James Only" position. The question was this, "Why force people to learn another language when there are plenty of good translations out there?"

Now, I don't believe that a certain level of comprehension of the English language is the crux behind the Bible version controversy, but I believe this is a very fair and reasonable question to ask. Therefore I want to give a few points that lay out my feelings in regards to any answer I might give to this question.

1. No one is "fluent" in any language
I just read a great article by a teenager that taught himself 20 foreign languages and was considered "fluent" in each of them. He explained how he learned these languages by listening to music, watching movies, and spending time around people who spoke those languages. The point of the article, however, was that no one is actually fluent in a language. I tend to agree.

An engineer, a rocket scientist, a medical doctor, or just about anyone in any field of study could be speaking English to me and I would likely not know many of the words they use. Therefore, I would argue that any study of the Bible (in any English translation) is most likely going to require someone to learn some new phrases and rules. When I first started going to church as a 7-year-old little boy, I certainly didn't speak "King James English"...but I picked it up fairly easily.

2. An older form of English is not another language.
I will agree that "Old English" is incomprehensible to English speakers today. For example, here is a copy of Beowulf in Old English

I would also agree that "Middle English" is a different language. Here is a sample from the Canterbury Tales from the end of the fourteenth century:"

"Whan that Aprill, with his shoures sooteThe droghte of March hath perced to the rooteAnd bathed every veyne in swich licour,Of which vertu engendred is the flour;Whan Zephirus eek with his sweete breethInspired hath in every holt and heethThe tendre croppes, and the yonge sonneHath in the Ram his halfe cours yronne,And smale foweles maken melodye,That slepen al the nyght with open ye(So priketh hem Nature in hir corages);Thanne longen folk to goon on pilgrimagesAnd palmeres for to seken straunge strondesTo ferne halwes, kowthe in sondry londes;And specially from every shires endeOf Engelond, to Caunterbury they wende,The hooly blisful martir for to sekeThat hem hath holpen, whan that they were seeke."

We are not just talking about a different font or typeset, this is not even really readable for us today. However, even if you go back to 1611, when the Authorized King James Bible was first completed, it was written in what we call "early modern English." Other than a few changes in grammar, spelling, and the definition of some words, the language remains the same.

Example:

Notice in the example above that an "s" was written like an "f" and the usage of the "v" and the "u" were switched. Otherwise, it is fairly readable. Still, changes have been made over the years, and even those who are "King James Only" today still use an updated version of the 1611. In today's KJV (1769 is the edition that is typically used), some spelling, punctuation, and capitalization changes have been made. Even these minor changes have been the source of some debate among KJV Bible scholars. However, the words (never mind the spelling of the words) are still the same.

3. If you trust that the KJV is God's words, who do you trust to update those words?

A commentary on the Bible is one thing. That is why a modern "paraphrase Bible" or a "devotional Bible" is not as big of an issue to me as long as it is clear that it is NOT the word of God. It some cases, they are slightly more than Hollywood movies depicting Bible stories. However, I would be very careful not to shape my belief system off of a man's "artistic license."

However, a word-for-word translation is quite another issue. If these are claiming to be the very words of God, I would want to be very careful who I trusted concerning the revision of those words. For hundreds of years, the KJV was basically the only English translation of the Bible available for the common man. The KJV was used in a mighty way in spreading the gospel, making disciples, and evangelizing the world. It wasn't until the 1940's that men found it necessary to revise the words, and as a result many would argue that the words have been watered down, it's beauty marred, and it's purity sacrificed.

It is for the above reasons (along with other reasons not spelled out in this article) that I recommend everyone learn a little bit of "King James English" and study a King James Bible. If you come across words that are confusing, ask your pastor or teacher to explain them. If they are not sure, they can study and get back to you. You can even learn how to conduct the same word studies your pastor does through the use of Old dictionaries, Greek and Hebrew lexicons, and by "comparing scripture to scripture (in other words, the Bible interprets itself in most cases)."

In closing, if I understand right, schools are now teaching Shakespeare's works in modern translations. I agree, that is a totally different subject, but it is sad to me. So much is lost in modernizing that which is timeless, whether it is music or literature. All other arguments aside, teaching people to appreciate the King James Bible is not advocating that they learn a different language in order to understand the Bible (I don't even necessarily advocate learning Latin, Greek, or Hebrew). If for no other reason, teaching people to appreciate the King James Bible is teaching them to appreciate History and Culture.

12 Comments

An Antibiotic Fundamentalist

3/21/2015

1 Comment

I am a Baptist. Most people don't have a problem with that. Furthermore, I'm not "Southern Baptist" or "American Baptist," I'm not "Freewill Baptist" or "Reformed Baptist"...or whatever other kind of Baptists are out there...I'm an "Independent" Baptist. Most people don't have a problem with that either. But now I'll use a word to describe myself that will upset some people, it's the word "fundamentalist." Yes, I admit...I'm an Independent, FUNDAMENTAL, Baptist! (There, I did it! I used the F-word!) Please forgive me, and allow me to explain why I think that being a fundamentalist can be both a bad thing and a good thing.

First of all, let me define what I mean by fundamentalist. At the very least, a fundamentalist is one who has an unwavering attachment to a certain set of beliefs.  A step further would be a person who is outspoken and even militant in their stand against modernism and conformity to other beliefs that oppose their own. In my opinion, neither one of these is necessarily a bad thing, but I want to address a few negatives about fundamentalism before I can talk about the positives.

Antibiotics are a good thing. They fight against certain viruses and bacteria that would make us very sick. I certainly am not against someone going to the doctor to get a prescription for an antibiotic. However, there are at least two potential problems with using antibiotics.

The over usage of an antibiotic can ruin a person's natural ability to fight off these bacteria with their God-given immune system. This causes a person to become very susceptible to more severe and longer-lasting sicknesses. It has been said that the first rule of antibiotics is to try not to use them, and the second rule is to try to use as little as possible.

The second problem is similar. The frequent use of an antibiotic can give the bacteria a chance to adapt and to build a resistance to the antibiotic. This is in no way a scientific article, so I'm not going to try to explain how this works, but this is a major concern among many who are in the medical profession today.

Fundamentalists can act the same way. When we attack everything a person does that goes against our beliefs or convictions, it could turn off their ability to reason things out for themselves and grow on their own. This is not to say that there aren't certain "bacteria" that need to be aggressively attacked, but just as overdosing on antibiotics for a little cold could only make things worse in the long run, making huge issues out of "little things (I'll address these a bit later)" that aren't that important, could potentially have an adverse affect on what we fundamentalists are trying to accomplish.

Today's "young Fundamentalists" are recognizing that there is a moving away from fundamentalism, and seem to be dreadfully concerned about it. Most often they point to the fact that fundamentalists spend too much time on attacking the "little things" and as a result they are causing people to flee the fundamentalist churches. These "little things" can be referring to anything from dress standards and music preferences to Bible versions and certain doctrinal differences. One will have to decide on their own definition of "little things," but the idea that a fundamentalist would take a strong stand against them should be no surprise.  By definition, that is what makes us fundamentalists.

So, let me point out why I consider myself a fundamentalist and why I believe it is a good thing...when defined properly! The answer, I believe, is found in a concept that some refer to as the "Hegelian Dialectic." I'll try to explain with my admittedly low amount of knowledge of this concept:

The basic concept, as I understand it, is that there are three steps in coming to an agreement on a solution to any problem. First, there is the "thesis" (or "abstract").  In this thesis you present a solution to the problem, which in turn creates a reaction. Next, you present an "antithesis" (or "negative,"). This is something directly opposed to your original solution which will create tension between the two ideas. Finally, there is an agreement on the "synthesis" (or the "concrete"). Hegel proposed that every position a person takes must pass through a negative before its completed state is achieved.

I think we can all get that when it comes to most things. We tend to think quite often in terms of a "middle grounds." If we were trying to correct our posture, we might experiment with both extremes (hunching over vs. arching our back) in order to find our parameters. Proper posture is somewhere in between those two extremes. If we are adjusting the brightness of our computer monitor, we would go from one extreme setting (too bright) to the other extreme (too dark) to find out what is best (somewhere in the middle).

When it comes to standards of Christian living, we have what seems to be an "extreme right," an "extreme left," and we will call the middle ground "normal."  Many believe the truth to exist somewhere in the "normal" region, between the two extremes. The problem with that is that there is already an Absolute Truth which is God's Word--and it does not move! Instead of trying to move toward that Truth, we are often more concerned about where "normal" is. Unfortunately, Truth has nothing to do with where "normal" is. In this case, Truth is in an entirely different dimension.

The Bible says in 1 Corinthians 2:14, "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned."

Fundamentalism isn't about "presenting an antithesis to a thesis in order to reach synthesis." In other words, it's not our job to go toward the "extreme right" in order to keep "normal" away from the "extreme left," it is our job to obey what we know to be the Truth and try to point people to it when we are given the opportunity. I believe that is the true definition of "Christian fundamentalism."

Like antibiotics, fundamental Christianity is a necessary instrument in bringing sin-infected souls to good, clean health. However, abusing Christian fundamentalism, like many have done, can do more harm than good. So, I don't think we need to take the word "fundamental" off of the sign on our church just because people aren't attracted to it, we just need to remind ourselves what our purpose is as fundamentalists.

1 Comment

<<Previous

Philosophy of Church Music

What Are They Teaching In Sex Ed These Days?

"A Lesson I Learned From James White"

Why 'Force' People To Learn Another Language (KJV)?

An Antibiotic Fundamentalist

Bro. Rocky

Topics

Other sites by Rocky:

Archives