Back to Online Material

41

The Foundation of the Home (2)

The Manifestations of Spirit-Filling

(Eph. 5:19-21)

 

Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord; Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ; Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.

 

 

In our last chapter we began a study of one of the most important subjects of the Christian life—Spirit-filling. We studied there the meaning of being filled with the Holy Spirit. We are now ready to examine our second thought.

 

II. The Manifestations of Being Filled With The Spirit

 

How can we know that we are filled with the Spirit? First, if we are not quenching or grieving the Holy Spirit, if we are yielded to the Holy Sprit, and if we are walking in the Sprit (as we’ll study in our next chapter), we can then trust the Lord that we are filled with the Spirit, for that is His promise. But there are some specific evidences of Spirit-filling. By this statement we do not mean that we can pridefully say, “Oh, I am Spirit-filled,” for such a statement proves just the opposite. Rather, there are some evidences with which we can test ourselves to demonstrate whether or not we truly are controlled by the Spirit of God. There are at least eight manifestations of Spirit-filling in the New Testament. In this lengthy chapter we want to take each of these and examine it. Four of the seven are right here in our text.

 

Music (Eph. 5:19a)

 

Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody

 

Here is a truly amazing principle! There is nothing more indicative of the Spirit-filled life than the expression of song. Whether a person has an angelic voice or can’t “carry a tune in a bucket,” the Spirit-filled Christian is a singing Christian. Whether a person has a college degree in music or doesn’t know the difference between a music stand and a sixteenth note, the Spirit-filled Christian loves music.

 

It is truly amazing that music is the very first manifestation of Spirit-filling that Paul mentions. Unlike many today, Paul doesn’t say that Spirit-filling is first manifested in some emotional outburst or in some ecstatic speech; in fact, nowhere does Paul teach such evidences of Spirit-filling. Rather he merely mentions the fact that Spirit-filling produces a song in the heart and a melody on the lips. This shows us that music (more specifically singing, as we’ll see) is a vitally important part of Christian living and worship.

 

Music is also an incredibly powerful medium, and it’s use in the Church today demonstrates that fact. New trends in music have been used to totally redesign Church ministry and appeal. Sadly, the vast majority of evangelical churches today are founded mostly on music, often some particular style of music, in fact, that appeals to people and brings them into the church. Such practice, however, is nowhere supported in Scripture, and the result is shallow, sometimes even fleshly, music.

 

For these reasons, it is vitally important that we take the time to study music as it is presented in Scripture and Church History.[1]

 

Music in the Old Testament

 

Genesis 4:21 tells us that Jubal was “the father of all such as handle the harp and organ [i.e., “flute,” Hebrew ugāb].” The people of Israel sang a song to the Lord after God delivered them out of the bondage in Egypt (Ex. 15:1-18). Just before he died, Moses was instructed by the Lord to write a song for his people which declared God’s goodness and warned the people against backsliding after they entered the Promised Land (Deut. 31:19-32:44). Deborah and Barak sang unto the Lord for His deliverance of Israel from the Canaanites (Jud. 5). Of the 38,000 Levites who ministered in the temple, 4,000 of these were musicians (I Chron. 23:2-5). We read in I Chronicles 25:7 and II Chronicles 5:12 that when the Ark of the Covenant was brought into the temple, there were 288 singers and 120 trumpeters who praised God. In Nehemiah 12:24 and 31 we read of the existence of “antiphonal choirs,” that is, two choirs that would sing alternately. And, of course, the longest book of the Bible, the book of Psalms, was what we would today call a “hymnbook.” We’ll come back to the Psalms later in our study. We see, then, a rich musical heritage in the Old Testament.

 

Music in the New Testament

 

The Last thing Jesus and His disciples did at the last supper was sing a “hymn” (Matt. 26:30). It is quite obvious that singing had a prominent place in the early church. The praising of God in Acts 2:46-47 certainly involved singing. Paul and Silas sang hymns as they sat in a Philippian jail (Acts 16:25). The 144,000 who will be redeemed during the Tribulation will sing “a new song before the throne” (Rev. 14:3). We can only imagine how wonderful that song will be.

 

But the question arises, What did the early church sing? The answer seems obvious. Undoubtedly the early church sang the Psalms, a practice carried over from Judaism. They undoubtedly sang them using tunes that were familiar to the congregation. However, those in the early church soon found that Christianity possesses more truth than is contained in the Old Testament Psalms. So, as our text tells us, other music was written—hymns and spiritual songs.

We’ll deal with those in a moment, but the key principle to understand here is that those were written to convey the new Christian message of the person and work of Christ. THAT is the point of our singing.

 

Music in Church History

 

We must be brief here, but a basic knowledge of this is necessary for our study. The reason for doing so should become evident.

 

First, there was Greek hymnody. The classical period of Greek hymnody was from 650 to 820. Hymns in that day were characterized by no meter or rhyme; rather, they were rhythmical prose that was chanted to music. Now, while Greek poetry does contain some gems of genuine Christianity, most of it was, in the words of one prominent historian, “monotonous, bombastic, and tasteless laudations.”[2] Moreover, there was a strong emphasis on Mariolatry (the worship of the virgin Mary)[3] instead of, as mentioned earlier, the new Christian message of the person and work of Christ.

 

 Second, there was Latin Hymnody. This period was from the 4th Century to about the 13th Century. Latin Hymnody was better than the Greek, but, quite frankly, not much from the Theological perspective. It had some merit, but like Greek Hymnody, it too was full of Mariolatry as well as many praises written to the martyrs. These facts show us that like almost everything else that Roman Catholicism has touched, hymnody was also perverted by its pagan traditions. In fact, the Council of Laodicea (343-381) decreed that only specially appointed singers, usually choirs of monks, could present music sung in Latin. Think of it! For over a thousand years, the Church didn’t sing. It was held that “average people” could not understand or appreciate such holy music and, therefore, could not participate. What a  appalling tragedy! They couldn’t even understand what was sung because the common people could not understand Latin. That was a complete departure from the obvious fact of congregational singing in the early church.

Another characteristic of the latter part of this period, as one author records:

 

Because of a knowledge or lack of it and a process of reasoning, mediaeval hymnists made God the Father seem to be an angry, intolerant, unlovable kind of deity, whom one could not truly worship. On the other hand, the Virgin Mary embodied the kind, humane, sympathetic idealism which could heartily be adored, and so expression was given to worship because of her character and influence.[4]

 

Not only was there the elevation of Mary, but also the apostate lowing of the nature of God. Again, music is a powerful medium, so it matters greatly what we sing. This leads to another era.

 

Third, there was the hymnody of the Reformation. Not only did the Protestant Reformation deliver the masses from the Roman darkness, but it also reflected that deliverance in its music. Evangelical Christianity in the Reformation replaced the worship of Mary with the Christian message of the person and work of Christ. It improved some of the Latin hymns and produced many new ones. The Reformation brought back congregational singing and replaced the cold, hollow chanting of priests.

 

Next to preaching, hymns were the most powerful tool of conveying the doctrines of sin and redemption, and that is still true today. From there this hymnody developed into what we have today. We shall return to this history a little later, but think a moment of some of the great names in hymnody: Thomas Ken (1637-1711) who penned the “Doxology;” Isaac Watts (1674-1748) who wrote “When I Survey The Wondrous Cross” and many other great hymns; John Newton (1725-1807) who composed one of the most well-known hymns in history, “Amazing Grace;” Augustus Toplady (1740-1778) who penned “Rock Of Ages;” Elizabeth Prentiss (1818-1878) who gave us “More Love To Thee, O Christ;” Ray Palmer (1808-1887) who left behind “My Faith Looks Up To Thee;” Francis Havergal (1836-1879) who challenges us with her hymn “Take My Life And Let It Be;” Charlotte Elliott (1789-1871) who wrote that great hymn of salvation, “Just As I Am;” Sarah Adams (1805-1848) who penned “Nearer My God To Thee;” Reginald Heber (1783-1826) who praised God with his hymn “Holy, Holy, Holy;” Fanny Crosby (1823-1915) who gave us “Praise Him, Praise Him” as well as many other hymns and spiritual songs. And on we could go.

 

May we quickly interject that as one reviews that list, it becomes apparent that it was the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries that formed the era of great hymnody. As we will see, however, a drastic changed occurred late in the 19th Century and grew worse in the 20th Century as the writing of hymns virtually ceased.

 

Music in Ephesians 5:19

 

There are some teachers who tell us that psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs are all basically the same, that Paul merely repeats for emphasis. One liberal commentator, for example, writes, “As most scholars hold, it is difficult to draw a hard and fast distinctions among the three categories. The three terms used here are best seen as another example of the writer’s fondness for piling up synonyms.”[5] By “scholars,” however, he refers to liberal ones, and as for drawing “hard and fast distinctions among the three categories,” that’s what words do. Words mean something, a fact that is more and more ignored in our day. So as the vast majority of commentators agree, Paul speaks here of three different types of church music.

 

First, there are psalms. A Psalm is, “A sacred, inspired poem of praise.” Psalms were actually designed to be sung with the accompaniment of a stringed musical instrument, such as the harp, the lute, or the lyre (all of which are in the guitar family). In fact, the word psalms is merely a transliteration of the Greek title of the book of Psalms—psalmoi—which originally meant plucking the stings of a musical instrument.[6]

 

Sadly, there are many today who do not want to face the facts of such musical instruments. Some years ago, a preacher friend of mine traveled and held meetings in various churches. Part of the ministry was music of which his guitar was part. A certain pastor came to him one day and said, “I couldn’t allow you to come to my church because you use a guitar.” My friend asked why and the answer followed, “Oh, because it is a stringed instrument and we feel those are worldly.” My friend lovingly asked him, “Well then, do you have a piano in your church? It too is a stringed instrument.” The pastor was noticeably taken off guard and blurted out his answer, “Well . . . yes, but you can’t see the strings.”

 

There are even some dear Christians who do not believe that any musical instrument is to be used in the church. Those folks maintain that we are not told to use musical instruments in the church. But by using this word psalmoi—plucking the stings of a musical instrument—Paul makes it quite clear that musical instruments were not only used, but were commonly accepted as any other thing in society. Paul didn’t need to make an issue of this because there was no issue to make.

 

So, the first type of Christian music is the Psalm, a sacred, inspired poem of praise. May we also point out that new Psalms are not being written today; no inspired writings are being produced. However, some hymn writers have adapted certain Psalms. Robert Grant (1785-1838), for example, adapted Psalm 104 into that great hymn “O Worship The King.” Likewise, Martin Luther adapted his glorious hymn “A Mighty Fortress Is Our God” from Psalm 46.

 

Second, there are hymns. While a gospel song is “a religious exhortation to fellow man,” and a carol is “a simple narrative in verse of some outstanding biblical event,” a hymn is “an ode of praise to Almighty God.”[7] The word hymns is a transliteration of the Greek humnos. While its origin in uncertain, the word goes as far back as in secular Greek as Homer (8th Century B.C. Greek poet) and was “a general word used to include the most varied poetical forms.” Also in general, it referred “to songs to the gods, particularly a song in praise of the divinity.”[8] It’s interesting that because of that origin, “the word ‘hymn’ nowhere occurs in the writings of the apostolic fathers because it was used as a praise of heathen deities and thus the early Christians instinctively shrank from it.”[9]

All that, however, still does not change the fact that Paul used the word hymnos for a reason. His obvious purpose was to show that instead of hymns being dedicated to pagan gods, Christians sing hymns to the one true God. According to Augustine, a hymn has three characteristics: It must be sung; it must be praise; it must be to God.

A hymn might be inspired. Some scholars believe that verses such as I Timothy 3:16, Philippians 2:6-11, and Hebrews 1:3 are examples of ancient hymns. While in the final analysis, that is only speculation, it might be true. I Timothy 3:16, for example is quite poetical. It can be arranged in six lines in a series of couplets with the second line complementing the first:

 

God was manifest in the flesh,

          justified in the Spirit,

seen of angels,

          preached unto the Gentiles,

believed on in the world,

          received up into glory.

 

But a hymn can also be “uninspired,” that is, not written by a Scripture writer. Many through history have written new poetic lyrics that glorify God. Hymns will be better understood in light of the last type of church music.

Third, there are spiritual songs. The word songs is the Greek ōdē (English “ode”), which in ancient times referred to “any kind of song, as of battle, harvest, [or] festal.”[10] Paul, therefore, qualifies it here with the word spiritual. He didn’t have to say “spiritual psalm” or “spiritual hymn” because these are already spiritual in content, but he had to qualify songs as being spiritual songs.

 

What are the differences between a “hymn” and a “spiritual song?” There are actually several subtle differences. (1) A hymn is a direct praise of God while a spiritual song is an expression to other people, as is illustrated in the song, “In My Heart There Rings A Melody.” (2) A hymn is objective and presents objective facts, while a spiritual song is more subjective in expressing personal feelings. A good example of this is found in the song, “It Is Well With My Soul.” (3) A hymn focuses on the attributes and majesty of God while a spiritual song is often evangelistic as is the song, “Have You Any Room For Jesus?” (4) The tune (or melody) of a hymn is more staid, sober, and sedate while a spiritual song often has a catchy melody or lifted rhythm as in the songs, “He Lives” and “Are You Washed In The Blood?” (5) A hymn usually does not have a chorus while a spiritual song usually does.

We’ll return to these comparisons as we continue and demonstrate how modern trends have affected the music in our churches and how such trends have lead to emptiness and superficiality.

 

The Purposes of Christian Music

 

What a grand gift music is! It is indeed just one more of the many gifts God has given by His grace. But why did God give us music? What are the purposes of music? God’s Word reveals three purposes of music.

 

First, music is for the worship of God, as Paul declares with the words “making melody in your heart to the Lord.”

It needs to be strongly emphasized today that Christian music is not for the purpose of entertainment. This, of course, does not mean we are not to enjoy music. On the contrary, as we’ll see in a moment, music is something to be greatly enjoyed.

 

But Christian music today is often used to entertain, to draw attention to the artist, to solicit applause for the performer. Some Christian artists add so much to a piano or vocal arrangement that the melody is obscured. This often brings more praise to the talent of the artist than praise to God! Johann Sebastian Bach, the great music master himself, who truly loved the Lord, once said, “The aim of all music is the glory of God.” Whether we are singing a solo, in an ensemble, in a choir, or in a congregation, our thoughts are to be on the Lord.

As we’ll also see in a moment, music is being used today simply to appeal to specific audiences, which is really just another form of entertainment. Countless people today look for a church based upon “the music program” and the style of music that the church uses.

 

Second, music is to be used as a restatement of Truth. At the very core of all three types of singing—psalms and hymns and spiritual songs—is the Truth about God.

 

Now, we say this with great concern because what we see today is that music has become the very heart of worship to the exclusion of most everything else, especially preaching. It is commonly taught, “Where preaching cannot be effective, we will use music instead.” Such statements are not once substantiated in Scripture. Martyn Lloyd-Jones makes this point clear:

 

[We must not] divorce our singing from the preaching of the Word. . . . The singing must not be the main part of the meeting; it is a part, but it isn’t the whole; it must never have the prominence; it must never be divorced from the Word.[11]

 

Nothing, not even music, should be allowed to replace the preaching and teaching of the Word of God from the pulpit. Again, not one single time is music allowed to do so in the Scripture record. Rather, music is to prepare for and complement the preaching of the Word. It is to be a restatement and reemphasis of the Truth.

 

Further, someone might say quite sincerely and innocently, “Oh, we had a wonderful time of worship we had, and then the pastor gave a practical message.” How sad, because that person doesn’t know what worship is. Pick up most any book today written on worship and you will find very little in it on preaching. In contrast, in his book, Between Two World’s, John Stott defends the place of preaching in worship with these words:

 

Word and worship belong indissolubly to each other. All worship is an intelligent and loving response to the revelation of God, because it is the adoration of his Name. Therefore acceptable worship is impossible without preaching. For preaching is making known the Name of the Lord, and worship is praising the Name of the Lord made known. Far from being an alien intru­sion into worship, the reading and preaching of the word are actually indispensable to it. The two cannot be divorced. Indeed, it is their unnatural divorce which accounts for the low level of so much contemporary worship. Our worship is poor because our knowledge of God is poor, and our knowledge of God is poor because our preaching is poor. But when the Word of God is expounded in its fullness, and the congregation begin to glimpse the glory of the living God, they bow down in solemn awe and joyful wonder before His throne. It is preaching which accomplishes this, the proclamation of the Word of God in the power of the Spirit of God. That is why preaching is unique and irre­placeable.[12]

 

Let this truth be clear: the exposition of the Word of God is the very key to true worship. Acts 2:42 could not be clearer on this point: “And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.” Did you notice that music is nowhere mentioned in that verse? What was the purpose of their gathering together? Primarily doctrine. While they probably did sing, that was not the main purpose of their gathering.

 

The driving force in our day is very much like that of the Corinthian Believers. Like then, the desire today is not for Truth, but experience, not the mind, but the emotions, not doctrine, but feelings.

 

Nehemiah 8 is one of my favorite passages on preaching. It demonstrates how preaching God’s Word is what motivates true worship. Upon the completion of rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem,

 

 . . . all the people gathered themselves together as one man into the street that was before the water gate; and they spake unto Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the law of Moses, which the LORD had commanded to Israel. And Ezra the priest brought the law before the congregation both of men and women, and all that could hear with understanding, upon the first day of the seventh month. And he read therein before the street that was before the water gate from the morning until midday, before the men and the women, and those that could understand; and the ears of all the people were attentive unto the book of the law. . . . And Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people; (for he was above all the people;) and when he opened it, all the people stood up. And Ezra blessed the LORD, the great God. And all the people answered, Amen, Amen, with lifting up their hands: and they bowed their heads, and worshipped the LORD with their faces to the ground. . . . So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading. [vv.1-6, 8]

 

The scene is after the Babylonian captivity. God’s people had been in Babylon for 70 years because of their rebellion and idolatry. As we have seen in previous studies, they were guilty of false worship over and over again, much like the false worship of our day. But now what did they want for worship?—The Word of God. The trend today is “Get rid of the book,” or at least “Downplay the book,” or rewrite the book,” anything but “Bring the book.” But the people of God, it was the Truth of the Scriptures that threw them to their faces in worship.

 

It’s also significant that Ezra and the others with him not only read the Scripture but “gave the sense” of what they read. The Hebrew for “gave” (sūm or sīm) means “to set or establish”, and the Hebrew for “sense” (sekhel) and expresses such concepts as “intelligence, knowledge, and understanding.” The Israelites now spoke Aramaic, so Ezra had to explain and exposit the words from the Hebrew so the people could understand. That is exactly what preaching does—it exposits the Scripture so people and understand what God says.

 

But again, the main point is that an integral part of worship is the reading and preaching of God’s Word. Without that we simply will not be worshipping, regardless of all the other things we do. Many people today are sincere in what they are doing in the Church, but sincerity is not Truth, and much of what is being done is destroying the Church.

 

Preaching is the primary ministry of the Church, which is another principle that could not be clearer in Scripture. That is why Paul wrote to Timothy:

 

If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained. But refuse profane and old wives’ fables, and exercise thyself rather unto godliness. . . . Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine. (I Tim. 4:6-7, 13)

 

In other words, “Read the text, explain the text, and apply the text.” Timothy was to stay in the text and teach sound doctrine, the truth about God. That was the reason for his existence and the existence of every pastor today. As if Paul didn’t make it plain enough in his first letter to Timothy, he makes it blazingly apparent in his second:

 

I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. (II Tim. 4:1-4)

 

Many people today—including so-called preachers—just won’t “put up with” (the literal idea of “endure”) preaching and doctrine. They want someone who will tickle them behind the ear, and it’s not hard to find teachers who will do that—they are in abundance. And music is one more way of doing the tickling.

 

In spite of that crystal clear teaching, however, music has been given “center stage” in the Church today. It’s interesting that back in the 1970s one would occasional hear, “For a change of pace, we won’t have preaching tonight, rather we’ll just have our soul’s uplifted by a concert or singsperation.” Today, however, that is not the exception—it’s the rule. I greatly appreciated these pointed words from Pastor John MacArthur in his commentary on Ephesians:

 

Evangelizing with contemporary music has many serious flaws. It tends to create pride in the musicians rather than humility. It makes the gospel a matter of entertainment when there is not one thing in it that is at all entertaining. It makes the public proclaimers of Christianity those who are popular and talented in the world’s eyes, rather than those who are godly and gifted teachers of God’s truth. In using the world’s genres of music, it blurs the gap between worldly Satanic values and divine ones. It tends to deny the power of the simple gospel and the sovereign saving work of the Holy Spirit. It creates a wide generation gap in the church, thus contributing to the disunity and lack of intimacy in the fellowship of all believers. It leads to the propagation of bad or weak theology and drags the name of the Lord down to the level of the world. The music of the gospel is certainly not a legitimate means for making money or seeking fame, and it must never be allowed to cheapen what is priceless, or trivialize what is profound.

 

That is, indeed, a good summary statement of our day when it comes to music. In many ways, it is music that is running the Church today. Yes, churches have many programs and activities that “appeal to seekers,” but music is at the core of it. Praise bands, praise choruses, a strong emphasis on “special music,” and other such trends are destroying the biblical and historical musical heritage of the Church.

 

Just before I started preparing this study, I received a flyer in the mail inviting all the area churches of our fellowship to what had been named “Spring Picnic and Praise” to be held at the sponsoring Church. The enclosed letter was typical:

 

It’s that time of year again for our area Bible Believing churches to get together for a time of fellowship, worship, and praise. . . . As usual, we would like your church to participate in the Praise Service by bringing any singing groups, individuals or instrumental praise. Also, if you are interested, I would like for you to bring a 5-7 minute short devotional.

 

The first thing that struck me about that portion of the letter was that apparently I must not know what “short” means, so the writer had to make sure to tell me that it means 5-7 minutes. At any rate, what is worship according to that? MUSIC! Oh, sure, we’ll tack on a devotional or two from visiting pastors, but our focus is music. It was also extremely significant that the host pastor who signed that letter was the same man I had spoken to a couple of years before when I was looking for pulpit supply while I went on vacation. In what struck me as total indifference, he offered little help and no encouragement. His letter told me very clearly what his priority is in Church ministry.

 

Another development has occurred, however, that is perhaps just as serious, namely, the type of music that has become popular in the vast number of churches. Hymns have virtually disappeared and have been replaced with the “praise chorus” and other lighter fare. One preacher very well sums up such church services: “Hollow excitement, a lack of strong Biblical preaching, and the triviality of the service.”[13] Or as Vance Havner once put it in his wonderful way: “If ever sanctified musicians were needed, it is today! The church has been invaded by gospel jazz, degenerating from hymns to hootenannies. Church music has fallen on evil days.”[14]

 

The reason that people don’t see the significance of this trend is because they don’t understand the extremely deep significance of hymns. May we prayerfully consider three important features of the hymn.

 

(1) The first and foremost feature of a hymn, of course, is its CONTENT. A hymn is characterized not only by praise to God but depth and doctrinal truth. Take, for example, the Doxology, penned by Thomas Ken in the 17th Century:

 

Praise God from whom all blessings flow;

          Praise Him all creatures here below;

Praise Him above ye heav’nly host;

          Praise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

Amen.

 

No shallow repetition there. No syrupy sentimentality. Every single word declares Truth. Or consider Isaac Watts’ When I Survey the Wondrous Cross, one of the greatest hymns in the English language:

 

When I survey the wondrous cross,

          On which the Prince of glory died,

My richest gain I count but loss,

          And pour contempt on all my pride.

 

Forbid it Lord that I should boast,

          Save in the death of Christ my God;

All the vain things that charm me most,

          I sacrifice them to His blood.

 

See, from His head, His hands, His feet,

          Sorrow and love flow mingled down;

Did e’er such love and sorrow meet,

          Or thorns compose so rich a crown?

 

Were the whole realm of nature mine,

          That were a present far too small;

Love so amazing, so divine,

          Demands my soul, my life, my all.

 

Is that caliber of doctrinal Truth being written into Church music today? While there are a few being written, they are not finding their way into wide use because shallowness rules Church music. Compare those, for example, with the standard fare today. Here is a praise chorus, titled Praise You, written in 1992:

 

Praise You, praise You;

          Let my life praise You.

Praise You, praise You;

          Let my life, Oh Lord, praise You.

Praise You; Let my life, Oh Lord, praise You.

 

Another example is the anonymous What a Mighty God We Serve:

 

What a mighty God we serve,

          What a mighty God we serve;

Angels bow down before Him,

          Heaven and earth adore Him,

What a mighty God we serve.

 

That is then repeated twice. Those are just two examples of what someone has dubbed “7-11 Choruses,” seven words sung eleven times. They are shallow and say virtually nothing, but it is that kind of song that is driving Church “worship.”

This trend has been coming for many years. It actually began near the end of the 19th Century when hymns were replaced by “gospel songs.” The chief architect of this change was Ira Sankey, D. L. Moody’s music man. Sankey felt something simpler and more popular was needed for evangelism, so he started writing songs, most of which were short, simple tunes with a chorus in the popular style of the day. As a soloist, he would often sing the verse and the audience would join him in the chorus. While there was at first some criticism of the new style, it caught on quickly, with a result that few hymns were written after that.

 

Now there are certainly some good gospel songs. Grace Greater Than Our Sin, for example, is marvelous. But by in large, gospel songs are far weaker in content than the great, timeless hymns of the Christian Faith. When you really analyze, for example, the old favorite In The Garden, it would be hard to find a song that is more trite, unscriptural, and just downright mystical:

 

I come to the garden alone,

          While the dew is still on the roses;

And the voice I hear falling on my ear,

          The Son of God discloses.

 

And He walks with me and He talks with Me,

          And He tells me I am His own;

And the joy we share as we tarry there,

          None other has ever known.

 

He speaks, and the sound of His voice

          Is so sweet the birds hush their singing;

And the melody that He gave to me

          Within my heart is ringing.

 

I’d stay in the garden with Him

          Though the night around me be falling;

But He bids me go—through the voice of woe,

          His voice to me is calling.

 

To be brutally honest, that is simple dreadful! It’s a blending of eastern mysticism with Christianity. Other syrupy, sentimental songs include “Love Lifted Me,” “It Is No Secret What God Can Do,” and “Whispering Hope.” Why can’t we stop for a moment and simply ask, “What is it that we are singing in our churches?” Is what we are singing true?

 

That early 20th Century trend paved the way for the far worse invention of the praise chorus. Again, contributing reasons for such weakness are the desire for simplicity and popularity, but another is the weak theology of the writers. Historically, in fact, men such as Isaac Watts, John Rippon, Augustus Toplady, Charles Wesley, and other great hymn writers were first pastors and theologians. More importantly, the leading Old Testament musicians (Heman, Asaph, and Ethan, I Chron. 15:19) were first Levitical priests, men trained in God’s Word. Not so today! Anyone who has a rhyming dictionary (sometimes not even that because many choruses don’t even rhyme) and who knows three chords on a guitar can write choruses that say virtually nothing and then lead corporate worship. Hymns are shunned as if they were a plague, hymnals have disappeared—being are replaced with overhead projections of song lyrics—and “worship leaders” and praise bands keep the people excited. And all this is called “worship.”

Oh may we not seek after what is trite, but what is true, not what is shallow, but what has substance!

 

(2) A second feature of a hymn is its FORM. This trait is virtually ignored today because many Christians are tragically ignorant of what good form is. Most Christians, in fact, have not the slightest idea of how a hymn is constructed and are therefore totally ignorant of their disciplined structure and profound quality. Nowadays any form goes, no matter how unstructured, repetitious, or even flippant, it might be.

 

In the hymnal we use in our church,[15] for example, there is a notation in the bottom right corner of each page that indicates the meter in which the poetry is written. It might read “8.8.8.8 (L.M.)” The “L.M.” means “Long Meter,” and the numbers refer to four lines each having eight syllables. Both the “Doxology” and “When I Survey the Wondrous Cross” mentioned earlier are Long Meter. As one writer puts it, Long Meter is “a stately and dignified poetry.”[16]

 

Common Meter (8.6.8.6) is the most common and easiest poem to read or sing. Examples include: “Alas, and Did My Savior Bleed,” “Amazing Grace,” “I Sing the Mighty Power of God,” and “Oh, For a Thousand Tongues.” Short Meter (6.6.8.6) is found in hymns such as “Come We That Love the Lord” and “We’re Marching to Zion.” There are, of course, other good meters.

 

In stark contrast to such disciplined structure, however, most so-called praise choruses have poor form. Most of them have an irregular meter, which is not necessarily bad but is weaker. Worse, choruses often have no rhyming scheme at all. Is this really what we should sing? Should our worship reflect such a lack of quality and discipline? I submit that the Church has lost much by its abandonment of singing and writing hymns. Again, while some have been written in the 20th Century, less than a handful have made their way into lasting use.

I am always blessed when I read A. W. Tozer, who was extremely concerned about this issue. He wrote this wonderful description of a hymnal:

 

The hymnal is lyric theology, a theology that had been strained through the pores of the men and women who wrote and sang their joyous songs. The hymns are warm with the breath of worshipers, a breath that may still be detected fragrant upon them after the passing of a century.[17]

 

“Lyric Theology.” What a wonderful term! Next to our Bibles, we should consider a good hymnal our most precious possession. There are some Christians who use if for their daily devotions. In it we find not only Theology, but Lyric Theology, Theology that flows from God’s Word, through the poet’s pen, and into the believer’s heart.

We submit, therefore, that good form is an important requirement for the music we use in the Church. By drifting away from discipline and quality, we have cheapened our music and lowered it to the level of the world.

 

(3) A third feature of a hymn is its ACCOMPANIMENT, that is, the actual music that supports it. It’s important to note here that music, that is, not the lyrics, but the music itself, actually has far more place today than it does in the New Testament. As I studied this principle, I heard a message by one godly man who said something that had never registered in my mind—the emphasis in the New Testament is not on music but singing.[18] What really matters most is what comes out of our mouths, the words we are singing.

 

The Greek behind  singing is adō, which in all five of its New Testament occurrences refers to praises to God (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16; Rev. 5:9; 14:3; 15:3). Therefore, the music itself is not an element of worship, rather an aid to an element. Music only accompanies, that is, supports the singing; it is never the focus. Singing is the most beautiful of musical instruments; its tones, pitch, and inflections far surpass any other instrument. The point of singing is to proclaim God and His Word.

 

This point, in fact, is really the core of the problem today, but most of the Church is just not getting it. Today it is the music that is actually prominent. It is music style that actually rules, and that is simply not Biblical. Someone who asks of your church, “What style of music do you use in your services” has already seriously erred.

It’s interesting, for example, that people of the World War II era would never have dreamed of going into a church and saying, “I’m looking for a church that has a Benny Goodman or Glen Miller style of music.” But that is exactly what we see today. Style of music dominates our churches, and it’s usually pop music, and even rock music, that people want. A. W. Tozer also commented on this point:

 

Many of our popular songs and choruses in praise of Christ are hollow and unconvincing. Some are even shocking in their amorous endearments, and strike a reverent soul as being a kind of flattery offered to One with whom neither composer nor singer is acquainted. The whole thing is in the mood of the love ditty, the only difference being the substitution of the name of Christ for that of the earthly lover.[19]

 

The speaker mentioned earlier[20] submits this, “Music must pass the test of the catacombs.” When people insist that it’s good lighting and great sound that are the keys to good worship, they fail miserably. What a travesty! If it can’t be done in the catacombs below the streets of Rome, it isn’t essential or even good.

 

This was graphically illustrated to me in the book and movie “China Cry,” the true story of Sung Neng Yee, who became Nora Lam (1932-2004), a Christian persecuted in Red China in the 1950s and was finally able to escape. In a memorable scene, she meets a group of believers in a secret place. At one point, the leader of the group says, “Let us offer a silent praise. What shall we sing?” Another of the group answers, “Take My Life and Let It Be.” The leader raises his hand to lead the song, but as everyone begins singing, their mouths form the words but no sound comes out, for to make a sound would cause their discovery. How unlike today when it’s the music, not the message, that matters most, and that is simply fleshly.

 

The same speaker further submits that our “music must also pass the test of the stake.” It’s easy to picture the old Lutheran dying under Catholic persecution while singing Luther’s “A Mighty Fortress Is Our God.” But can we honestly think for one moment that martyrs would be singing one of today’s shallow praise ditties?

 

Music must be appropriate to the text of Scripture or the truth of Scripture about which we’re singing. A popular argument is, “God has given us the text to sing but not the tunes, so we can use whatever tune we wish.” But what a shallow statement that is! Did you know that metrically you can sing “Amazing Grace” to the tune of “Gilligan’s Island?” But would such a light, flippant tune like that be appropriate to the eternal truths that John Newton penned? The words of a song will do much to dictate the type of music they demand to support them. I’m reminded of something I heard Vance Havner say many years ago: “We don’t want music that sounds like a funeral, nor music that sounds like a frolic, rather music that sounds like we’re at a feast.”

 

Another way to understand this is to note that all music forms convey something. For example, have you ever sat in the dentist chair and heard the theme from the movie “Jaws” playing on the office speakers? O course not. Why? Because the dentist doesn’t want to terrify you any more than you already are. Likewise, the music we use in worship should be appropriate for what we are conveying. To say that music doesn’t affect the message is total foolishness. Whatever music we use must serve the message, not supplant the message.

 

Now, let me say that I’m not narrow minded about music. I’ve been a singer and musician most of my life, and my music likes are broad. I like a lot of classical music, some old pop such as Dean Martin, country when it’s kept clean, and even confess to some old Rock and Roll. We must not get legalistic about music, for that is, indeed, the easiest area of all to become legalistic. We can allow personal taste to dictate what is right and wrong.. But music style must be appropriate to the message.

 

So, music is first for the worship of God, and second is to be used as a restatement of Truth.

 

Third, music is for the edification of believers. Notice the words speaking to yourselves. This translation could give us the idea that each of us should go off in a corner and sing to ourselves. Of course, in a sense we are do that each time we sing because it’s first of all a personal act, and we also do that by singing or whistling to ourselves as we go about work or play.

 

Paul’s point, however, is deeper than that. Another translation would be “speaking among yourselves” or “speaking to each other.” Paul is writing to a church and is, therefore, speaking of corporate worship. “Corporate” is from the Latin corpus, which means “body,” so it is the Body of Christ that comes together for worship. One of the ways, then, that we edify, uplift, encourage, and challenge one another is through song. Music is indeed a naturally uplifting force. We all have heard the old saying, “Music can soothe the savage beast,” but it can also “uplift the downtrodden spirit.”

 

With all this in mind, may we submit, shame on any of us if our desire for a preferred STYLE of music overshadows our desire for the EDIFICATION of the Body. Tragically, however, that is exactly what is happening today. People are being divided over music, and even church splits have occurred. Many churches actually have two services: one with traditional music using hymns and another with contemporary music, mostly praises choruses. Where in the world did we get the idea of  splitting up the church based on styles of music? This is appalling! Such an idea does not come from Scripture.

 

Now, before going on to some guidelines for choosing music, perhaps you are thinking, “Is all this really necessary? After all, does it really matter what the song says as long as it’s about God? Does poetry really matter? Does the tune really make any difference?” Those are valid questions, and indeed music is very subjective. What one person loves someone else just hates. But what I have tried to do here is underscore quality. Historically, we have step-by-step drifted further and further from quality music in the Church. What once was theologically strong, structurally sound, and musically stable, is now just shallow, popular, and sometimes just down right fleshly. Should we not strive for excellence? One preacher says it well: “Music in worship serves the singing of the redeemed to the Redeemer about the Redemption.”[21]

 

Guidelines for Choosing Music

 

From here on when we use the word “music,” we are using it as a generic term for psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs and the music that accompanies them. Controversies and disagreements abound when it comes to the area of choosing music. While music is subjective, are there any objective guidelines for choosing music? I would like to submit three.

 

First, we should use music that has substance and is doctrinally sound. We must insist that this is the number one guideline. As mentioned earlier, one of the purposes of music is to restate and reinforce doctrine. We must also take care, however, that the doctrine we restate is correct doctrine. For example, we find some definite doctrinal problems in the second stanza of Charles Wesley’s otherwise marvelous hymn, “Love Divine, All Loves Excelling.” The first line, “Breath, O breath Thy loving Spirit into every troubled breast!” implies that we must ask for the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, which, of course, we do not. The second line, “Let us all in Thee inherit, let us find that second rest,” contains the Wesleyan teaching of the second blessing. The last two lines,

 

Take away our bent to sinning, Alpha and Omega be;

End of faith, as its beginning, set our hearts at     liberty.

 

continue the thought of the second line and teaches sinless perfection.

 

In an otherwise wonderful hymn, the third line of the third stanza of “Hallelujah, What a Savior!” is a little weak:

 

Guilty, vile, and helpless be,

Spotless Lamb of God was He;

Full Atonement can it be?

Hallelujah, What a Savior!

 

What we have in Christ is far more than atonement, which was a covering of sin accomplished in the Old Testament sacrifices. What we have is a propitiation of sin, that is, a taking away of sin thru Christ. Even the word “salvation” would be doctrinally stronger.

 

The second stanza of “More Like the Master” also propagates a common error. It says:

 

More like the master is my daily prayer;

More strength to carry crosses I must bear.

 

The common error here is the idea that we carry “crosses,” that is, difficulties in the Christian life, such as a chronic illness. That is not what our Lord meant when He said, “Take up your cross [not crosses] and follow me.” The cross was always a symbol of death. He was saying, “To follow me, you must commit to me even to death.”

Still another example is found in the second stanza of “Sound the Battle Cry.” It reads:

 

When the battle’s done, and the victry’s won,

May we wear the crown before Thy face.

 

But the Scripture never says we will wear the crowns that we receive in reward, rather Revelation 4:10-11 says that we will “cast [our] crowns before the throne, saying, Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power.”

The line in “Savior Like a Shepherd Lead Us” that pleads

 

Blessed Jesus, Blessed Jesus,

Hear, O hear us when we pray

 

is plainly unbiblical. God always hears His children. Besides these are countless Gospel songs that contain week Theology, such as the famous and popular, The King Is Coming, which contains several incorrect notions and fanciful ideas. One more example is the chorus that goes:

 

There’s a new name written down in glory,

And it’s mine, O yes, it’s mine!

 

This has popularized an incorrect notion about the “Book of Life,” which is referred to in several places in Scripture.[22] The point in every one of these references is that a name is being removed from the Book of Life, not entered. In other words, our names were in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world. Only when an unbeliever dies is his name removed from the book. So, at the final judgment (Rev. 20:12-15) the Book of Life contains ONLY the names of believers. This is the reason an unbeliever’s name is not found in the book; it used to be there but was removed because of unbelief. It is also at that time that the name of the book will become “The Lamb’s Book of Life” (21:27), for only those who are “of the Lamb” are written therein. Those who might disagree with this presentation of the Book of Life do not understand ancient history. The people at Sardis understood this principle because it paralleled the governmental census of that day. If a person committed a crime against the state, moved away, or died, his name was erased from the registry. So, our Saviour is saying, “Those who are Mine will NEVER be erased from the Book!” What a blessed proof this is of the security of the believer.

 

“Aren’t you just nit-picking in all this?” someone might ask. To be honest, I struggled with that question myself, but in the final analysis I don’t think so. It is absolutely essential that music contain doctrinally sound teaching. Music is a powerful medium—it is much easier to remember words when we put them to music. And song lyrics can actually implant incorrect doctrine.

 

Ironically, the day before I preached this very study to the Believers in my care, my wife had a CD playing of a certain Christian artist playing as she worked around the house. At one point she came into my study and asked, “Did you hear that last song?” “No,” I answered—I was, as usual, “in a zone” as I was studying. “Well listen to it,” she urged. She played it again and the words were atrocious. How important it is that we just stop and listen to the music we are using. Discernment is just as important in music as it is in any other area of Christian teaching.

Therefore, we submit that our first consideration must be the content, the lyrics, the message. This is far more pivotal than the music itself and must be the first consideration.

 

Second, we should use music that has good literary style. In addition to what we examined earlier, an example of poor literary style is to be found in the Gospel song, “All God’s Children:”

 

All God’s children,

All God’s children,

All God’s children,

To be God’s children, you’ve gotta be born again.

If you think you can make it by goin’ to church,

          then you’re just kiddin’ yourself.

If you think you can make it by doin’ good works,

          then you’re just kiddin’ yourself.

If you think this thing of servin’ the Lord

          is just singin’ in the choir

          and servin’ on the board,

Then you oughta find out

          what this thing’s all about.

You’ve gotta be born again.

 

Not only are such lyrics deplorable as far as literary style are concerned, but the whole song contains a flippant attitude toward the Gospel of Christ. How lightly such songs treat the grand theme of salvation!

 

May we also add at this point what songs we should teach our children. Some people insist, “Oh, children need simple songs.” Indeed, there is merit in simple songs, but we need to realize that children can learn more easily than we adults. Some folks also argue that children need their own church service instead of sitting under the pastor’s preaching. But the Biblical precedent, in fact, is that families ALWAYS worshiped together. The dividing of families in the Church is simply not Biblical, rather is a thoroughly modern (and actually humanistic and evolutionistic) concept. What’s equally tragic is that to make this criticism is considered heresy!

 

Often, children are given a steady diet of “Bible stories” but no application and certainly no doctrine. Children need to be taught doctrine in message and music from an early age. Children are never too young to start learning truth, to begin learning “Lyric Theology.”

 

Third, music must be “melodious.” We use this phrasing because of the words of our text, making melody, which come from the same basic word as “Psalms.” Here the verb literally means “to strike the lyre,” or “to strike up a tune.” Therefore, good music possesses a specific melody. This principle cannot be emphasized too strongly. Melody is the overriding feature of music. The inevitable question arises, however, “What is a melody?” To adequately answer that question, let us briefly consider the three basic elements of music.[23]

 

(1) The first element, the foundation, of music is RHYTHM. There are many Christians who do not want to face this fact and would violently disagree, but this is nonetheless true. Most historians agree that much of early music was simply the beating of a drum. That doesn’t mean it’s good music, but it is nonetheless the foundation. In fact, one Biblical historian tells us that the early music of the Hebrews was “of a loud and piercing nature, emphasizing rhythm, and lacking sweetness.”[24] Let’s face it, without rhythm there would be no music.

 

This fact was brought home to me while traveling in a ministry of which music had a great part. I was setting up our music equipment in a certain church when, while rehearsing a song to help set sound levels, the pastor approached me with an objection to our using our fully orchestrated soundtracks. He objected because of their “overly strong rhythm.” One soundtrack, for example—John W. Peterson’s “O Glorious Love”—had a tympani at the beginning of it and this was “objectionable.” There were several other soundtracks that the pastor would not allow us to use during that week of services. But on the ones he did allow, he insisted that we turn off the bass and, therefore, so subdue the rhythm that it made singing extremely difficult. We could only sing at all because we knew the songs so well that we could keep tract of the rhythm in our heads. Such an attitude saddens me to this day.

 

May we now ask, “Are there times when rhythm is wrong?” Certainly. Rhythm is wrong when it overpowers or even replaces other elements of music, namely, the melody. Perhaps the best example here is RAP, which is actually an acronym for Rhythmic American Poetry. RAP is not even music at all; it is only rhythm, and rhythm alone is not music. This will become clear in the next element of music.

 

(2) The second element of music is MELODY. Melody can be defined as, “A rhythmically organized series of high and low tones which avoids unnecessary repetition and comes to a climactic and resolved end.” Too much repetition of the same tones is not good music. Ending on an open tone or open chord is not good music. To simplify this, the old adage is true that says, “Most people know a good melody when they hear it.” People know what they like; they know what sounds good and what doesn’t. The main point to remember about the melody is that it gives a song meaning. Rhythm gives no meaning; it is merely the foundation. But melody is what gives music meaning and depth. It is for that reason that we say that melody must exist and that it must not be overpowered or obscured by any other element of music.

 

For example, most of the music of the orient is dissonant and unresolved. Melody is non-existent and there is no discernable beginning or end. This fact actually reflects the religious systems of the orient, which teach meaningless existence. The same is true in some Classical music. Ravel’s “Bolero” is a good example of repetition and pointlessness. Other classical music has little melody (or “theme”) and is not good music. Such music is complex and certainly shows off the talent of the musician, but music that is not “thematic” is not good music. Likewise, while Jazz is very popular, and while some of it is good, a lot of it is not good music at all. It’s virtually impossible to score because it meanders wherever the performer feels. Someone has described it this way: “The jazz musician takes the three jazz chords (C, F, and G) and just goes from there.” This is also true of today’s hard rock and RAP. It’s not melodious—it’s not making melody. Much of it, in fact, reflects the meaninglessness and unrestrained lifestyle of those who perform it.

 

As Francis Schaeffer recounts, such trends go back to the early 20th Century. Composer Arnold Schoenberg (1874-1951) is a graphic example; he “totally rejected the past tradition in music and invented the ‘12-to