11 April 2002 Editorial:
Musical Tinsel and Vanity

Larry Kirkpatrick

The Review ran a neat editorial by Bill Knott a few weeks ago (http://www.adventistreview.org/2002-1516/story4-1.html), and this week some responses to it ( http://www.adventistreview.org/2002-1516/story4.html). The majority of the responses carried with them certain thinking patterns. Here then are a few thoughts about some of these ideas.

One writer states he can observe more worship taking place when the congregation is singing contemporary worship songs. It is affirmed that they understand more and are brought more intimately into God's presence. These assertions are highly subjective and we question whether such assertions can be proved.

Indeed, the very nature of the two differing types of music would suggest otherwise. Conventional western style historic hymnody has at its core a careful balancing of the elements of music, so that melody and harmony are dominant while the intensity of the rhythm component is quite mild. In contrast, the popular contemporary worship songs of today are heavy in he rhythm component and tend to be a lot weaker in the other musical elements. The stronger the rhythm component the less likely rational thought is occurring and the more likely the sensual side is being addressed.

As for the worshipper being brought more intimately into God's presence by such music, again we must pause for caution. A friend of mine who before becoming an SDA had been in the Vineyard church used to run the soundboard. He recounted to me how the worship leaders up front had a system worked out with him so that the worship music was carefully arranged to build up tension and then release it at a time of expectation. He would incrementally increase the sound volume. He would play two or three fast songs and then a slow one. Then the worship leaders would say, "The Holy Spirit is here!" The holy hush co-called came and everyone rejoiced that God had arrived.

I recall another situation with a couple I had the privilege of preparing for baptism early in my ministry. They told me how glad they were to be studying the Bible and I asked them what they had done at their previous church. They said they didn't have Bible studies or sermons -- they just went to church and had rock music for a few hours and then left to go home! They felt that a less emotional and more rational approach was much more what they needed to come into God's presence. Contrived worship that is more sensuality and sweat than devotion was something they had had enough of.

Another writer complains about a congregation slowly stumbling through verse after verse of hymn-style worship and compares that to newer song styles where, they assert, the worshipper can pick up the tune in joyful harmony by the second verse.

No one is more stumbling through any song, but I don't think this is fair to limit to hymns. The lines of music in some so-called contemporary songs may be fewer and less complex, but there is often a minimum in content in such tunes as well. There is a lot of difference between a good healthy meal and a lollipop. It may take a bit more doing to dish the healthy meal up item by item and get it onto your plate, but it is going to do more for you than some mere lollipop too. Boredom can lead people to stumble through a contemporary hymn too. In any case, boredom versus what is more exciting is not to be our measure in worship.

When I first came into the SDA church from a rock music background the hymns were entirely new to me. But it didn't take me long to catch on. The songs had meaning. My life has never been the same!

Another responding to Knott asks isn't it true that we believe that God can be adored and can speak to us through any medium, in any location? Of course that isn't true. God has moral boundaries, moral standards. He can speak to us in many ways, but not necessarily through every medium. Spiritualism is a medium of communication that God refuses to use. Mediums are not necessarily neutral. We assume too much when we think such things.

Another writer claims that we are putting God into a box when we try to limit Him to any one style of worship or music. Is this a correct idea? God is very big. Big enough to know what is helpful and what is harmful to the human organism; astute enough to know what is associated with what and what is tainted by what. Maybe we need to let Him show us how to worship rather than to tell him what we want to do is OK.

Another writer claims of these contemporary worship songs that they happen to portray the feelings of many Adventist youth. This may be true, but why would it be true? Could it be because the baby-boomers in charge of the music have force-fed them this contemporary pablum and they have not had a chance to really make their own informed analysis of the situation? Few if any of these contemporary worship songs arise from SDAism and virtually all arise from contemporary music and from the worship of the fallen churches of Babylon. Their theology and teaching is as empty of Adventism as can be.

Another writer claims that praise songs touch him in a way that some hymns never could, because they speak the very things that are on his heart. Again, how we can say this happens in contemporary music but not with hymns is a struggle to grasp.

Another urges readers to stop condemning different or unfamiliar music styles, and discover understanding and meaning in a variety of hymns. But are we ready to embrace this philosophy which has within itself the underlying proposition that all modes of expression are neutral and God can use anything as His vehicle. There are varying musical styles that are unfit for the worship of a holy Being. Would reggae music or techno or a list of other labels we could name be appropriate for the worship of a holy God? What associations do these musical styles bring with them into the sanctuary for worship?

It is true we can be very open and learn very many things, but can we do this with music that may be destructive to the physical organism? Someone recently asked whether any one musical instrument may be innately, in itself, evil. The theory of course was that all musical instruments are innately neutral, neither good nor evil in themselves.

But if there were a musical instrument that was, on its own, destructive to the human organism, it would be innately evil, or at least not suited for use in worship. What if there were some instrument that only played at 400 decibels? That would destroy the eardrums of anyone listening to it. That would be innately harmful to the physiology of human beings. That would be an instrument no one could say was neutral in is effect. Before buying into these kinds of assertions we need to stop and carefully evaluate our theories. If in theory such an instrument can be destructive to human physiology, then it is possible that currently used musical instruments also could be destructive to human physiology, and not at all neutral.

Of course, the Review also published some letters in favor of Mr. Knott's article. But the disagreeable didn't bring very good arguments for their case. Hymns have been undervalued and the rock and role, contemporary-worship style music overvalued. Instead of cheapening our worship I hope we can regroup and see again the good sense and practical helpfulness of those old hymns, and let our God use them in shaping a people for holiness in an era of tinsel and music of vanity.

Pastor Larry Kirkpatrick is an ordained minister of the gospel. Since 1994 he has served in the American Southwest as pastor to several churches. He received his BA in Religion from Southern Adventist University in 1994 and a Master of Divinity from Andrews University in 1999 with a specialization in Adventist Studies. While in Michigan he was employed by the General Conference at the White Estate Berrien Springs branch office. More important than his scholastic preparation has been his immersion in the biblical and Spirit of Prophecy materials. He is author of the 2003 book Real Grace for Real People. Presently he serves as Pastor of the Mentone Church of Seventh-day Adventists, located near Loma Linda, California. Larry is married to Pamela. The couple presently live in Highland, California along with their two children, Etienne and Melinda.