Adventism's Thirty-Years Worship War: Will the New Church Guidelines on Music Bring Harmony?

Document Structure

Foreword
A Word About the Committee
Caveats
Introduction
Background to 1972 Action
The Church Takes Action (1972)
Makeup of the 1972 Task Force
Annual Council Officially Adopts 1972 Guidelines
The Thirty Years War
Reason and Basis for Guidelines in the Church
The Legacy of the 1972 Guidelines
Voices Speak Out
The New Guidelines
Purpose of the New (2003) Guidelines
What Makes a Good Set of Guidelines?
Analyzing the Guidelines
Applying the Guidelines
       Summary of our Test Song Findings
Biblical Guidance
Suggested Changes to the New Draft Guidelines
       Suggested Changes Proposal A
       Suggested Changes Proposal B
Conclusion
Final Word
Appendix
       Appendix A. Caveats
       Appendix B. What the Church Manual Says on Music
       Appendix C. What the Book Seventh-day Adventists Believe... 27 Fundamental Doctrines Says on Music
       Appendix D. Let’s Talk Interview with Pastor Jan Paulsen
       Appendix E. Press Interview of Jan Paulsen
       Appendix F. Recommended Resources on the Subject of Music
       Appendix G. Church Resources Supporting the philosophy of the 1972 Guidelines
       Appendix H. Church Resources Opposing the philosophy of the 1972 Guidelines
       Appendix I. GC Department of Education Introductory Text to the 1972 Guidelines
       Appendix J. General Conference President R. H. Pierson Speaks Regarding the 1972 Guidelines
       Appendix K. Sources for “Safe” Music
Endnotes

Foreword

On October 10-15, 2003, The 91st Annual Council of church leaders of the Seventh-day Adventist Church met in Silver Spring, Maryland.¹ Among the topics slated for review was the new draft General Conference guidelines on music that had been under preparation by a select committee for two years.² The new set of guidelines has been described as a “revising, redrafting”³ of the previous version voted on and published in 1972.⁴

As it turns out, the new set of guidelines were not included in the 2003 Annual Council discussions, but were instead put out as a draft copy along with a call for input from the world church.⁵ This paper sets about to examine the new draft guidelines by critiquing its contents, comparing it to the 1972 version, and analyzing the need for the guidelines and their subsequent replacement or revision. In addition, some resources surrounding this issue will be included. In light of the call for input on the new statement, our intent here is to provide constructive feedback to the authors and to encourage others to study the issue and convey their input to the committee.

A Word About the Committee

Before proceeding into the paper, we would like to acknowledge those involved in drafting the new guidelines. The committee members responsible for the new draft guidelines include:

• Elder Ted N. C. Wilson, General Conference (GC) Vice President (VP) not a part of the original committee; currently coordinating the feedback, revisions, and completion of the draft guidelines.
  
• Elder Leo Ranzolin, Sr., GC VP (retired in June 2003), served as committee chairman
• Elder Bob Holbrook, GC Adventist Youth/Pathfinder Director, served as committee secretary
• Kelly Mauer, musician, pianist
• Dr. Ekkehardt Mueller, associate director of the Biblical Research Institute (BRI)
• Mrs. Geri Mueller (professor at Columbia Union College), http://www.cs.cuc.edu/ ~music/gmueller.html
• Dr. Eurydice Osterman (professor of music at Oakwood College), http://www.aw sahmmusic.bizland.com/aboutauthor.html

[Please note: It has come to our attention that the new guidelines document is not the document the above committee produced. The draft guidelines distributed at the 2003 Annual Council and published on the GC website has been described as a “revision...rewrite...synthesis” of the work that the above committee produced. Quite frankly, despite enquiries, we have not been able to ascertain the nature or extent of the changes. Nor have we been able to determine by whom these changes were made other than an unnamed “individual.”]

The committee began work on the new guidelines document in May of 2001 and finished its work one year later.

We recognize that there is a wide diversity of viewpoints in the area of music and that doubtless intense pressures to surrender to the prevailing norms of contemporary culture were brought to bear on those responsible for drafting the new guidelines. To the extent that they resisted these pressures and worked to uphold the highest of standards in the important area of music, we thank them for their service and commitment. While this paper may find areas of disagreement or suggest possible improvements to the new draft guidelines, we do so with the best of intentions. We aim to deal with this issue in a balanced, fair, and responsible manner.

Caveats

Please see the caveats section below (Appendix A).

Introduction

At no time in history have the challenges facing God’s church been more subtle nor the stakes higher than those facing us today. One exception would be that most momentous event 2000 years ago in old Palestine when our Savior gave Himself once and for all to the world.

Indeed our times are wrought with unprecedented opportunities alongside stupendous dangers. Satan has come down with indescribable fury at God’s Remnant. He has pulled out all the stops in his diabolical battle to ensnare and deceive. Not surprisingly, we find that music, that most universal and powerful of languages, is not exempted from this war. No conscientious objector status here. Arguably, music will play one of the most crucial roles in deciding the eternal destiny of many souls in this climatic struggle.

For some reason, music has been one of the most misunderstood facets of the controversy between good and evil. It is one of those areas that just doesn’t seem to get onto most people’s moral radar. The majority are content to let natural inclination be their guide and perhaps some do so innocently enough, having never given it much thought nor having been exposed to proper instruction on the topic.

Those that become aware of the issues and advocate changes publicly, soon find themselves embroiled in an all-out war of opinion, personal tastes, strawman arguments, and worse. Without proper understanding and biblically-based guidance, members and church leaders are left to fend for themselves.

Most Seventh-day Adventists (along with most other Christians, for that matter) would agree that the moral fabric of society has deteriorated with accelerating rapidity over the past 100 or so years. Thinking Christians readily recognize that the popular music of this era serves as both an indicator of as well as a powerful agent of change in contributing towards this decline.

In light of the above, Seventh-day Adventist Christians recognize the need “to keep [themselves] unspotted from the world” (James 1:27) as they carefully evaluate what is appropriate and inappropriate in their choices of music. They recognize that music is a powerful tool used by the enemy to serve up error in an enticing package.

As one pastor stated in a major Adventist periodical, “Ratchet up the feelings with ‘worship’ music, and the manipulation of Scripture is often just around the corner.”⁶ Seeing the need for firm guidance on this controversial issue, the Seventh-day Adventist Church in 1972 produced a landmark set of guidelines on the subject of music.⁷

Background to 1972 Action

Seismic changes began to alter the culture of westernized societies in the 1950s and accelerating into the 1960s. The old value systems, whether good, bad, or indifferent, were under major attack. Popular music played a key role in both revealing and causing these changes. A new and raucous sound captivated a whole generation virtually overnight. Rock and Roll, with roots in jazz, blues, and other related forms stormed onto the world scene with unprecedented speed and power. At first, Christian churches (including the Seventh-day Adventist Church), shunned this “worldly music.” For sure, no one seriously suggested bringing such music into the church. But that was about to change.

As Christianity Today points out in a 1999 article entitled, The Triumph of the Praise Songs,⁸ it was by way of “folk” music that the Christian churches finally succumbed to the contemporary sounds demanding entrance in the 1960s and early 1970s. True to the article cited above, it was through the avenue of “folk” music that a large segment of the Seventh-day Adventist Church began its transformation to align itself with the prevailing culture of the day. Picking up the story from the book, Wedgwood, Their music, their journey, author Marilyn Thomsen (13 at the time) relates her enraptured reaction to the phenomenon:

What I didn’t realize was that I was watching a revolution. It had started innocuously enough at Newbold College in England with some hillbilly songs from the American south. But by the time the trio gave its last concert in 1972, Adventists music had changed forever... [They and other groups] took the music of young people and brought it into church....

The change was jolting to a church that had stayed largely insulated from the world.... [M]ost of us Adventist teenagers looked on [at the world] from the cultural sidelines.... For us, the Wedgwood Trio was a bridge, perhaps even a life raft, connecting the world we lived in, but were sheltered from, to the church. The Wedgwood Trio was our little corner of the sixties, one we still hold in our hearts.⁹ [All emphasis supplied throughout this document unless otherwise noted.]

The doors being opened, others soon followed to further advance the new musical idioms in the church. No longer was it a battle to encourage God’s people to avoid partaking of the objectionable aspects of their surrounding culture in their daily lives, now they were getting it in church on Sabbath morning, at campmeeting, in youth gatherings, at concerts, and other events. Clearly, the church must take a stand.

The Church Takes Action (1972)

So it was that the General Conference Education Department drafted a set of guidelines intended to help members and institutional leaders in making decisions and knowing where to draw the line in their respective areas of responsibility. In the words of Dr. Eurydice Osterman, professor of music at Oakwood College and member of the General Conference committee charged with developing the new (2003) music guidelines:

The GC 1972 music guidelines were drafted just after rock music had established itself as an institution and was beginning to infiltrate the church. Never before having had to face this dilemma, the GC compiled statements on music from the Spirit of Prophecy to serve as a philosophy of music for the church.¹⁰

The insightful leadership of that era deserve credit for courageously taking a stand that clearly was in opposition to the trends of the day. The 1972 guidelines were well-written, thorough, clear and unambiguous. Using the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy as a basis, they provide clear, practical guidance in general principles as well as specific, even technical, considerations of music.

(An online copy of the 1972 music guidelines are available at this website: http://www.t3asda.org/articles/1972_Music_Guidelines_Text.htm )

Makeup of the 1972 Task Force

The GC archives contain a record of the committee action setting up the 1972 task force as follows,¹¹

Ninety-Sixth Meeting
GENERAL CONFERENCE COMMITTEE
December 16, 1971, 10:00 A.M.

STATEMENT ON PHILOSOPHY OF MUSIC—
TASK FORCE TO DRAW UP:

Request has been received for the appointment of a representative Task Force to draw up a statement which would define or clarify the Church’s position on the philosophy of music. On recommendation of the General Conference Officers, it was—

VOTED, To appoint the following Task Force, an ad hoc committee, to prepare a statement on the philosophy of music:

W. J. Hackett, Chairman; C. E. Bradford, Secretary; George Akers, Harold Anthony, Stewart Crook, Lorenzo Grant, Paul Hamel, John Hancock, D. W. Holbrook, Wayne Hooper, W. A. Howe, Lyle Jewell, Carls H. Lauda, Harold Lickey, Sunny Liu, Max Mace, D. F. Neufeld, R. E. Osborn, J. R. Spangler, Michael Stevenson, A. L. White, K. H. Wood, Kathy Woods

Three subsequent adjustments were made to the task force membership as follows:

• C. B. Hirsch, to be Secretary in place of C. E. Bradford, who will continue on the committee as a member, Walton J. Brown, Recording Secretary, James Bingham, Adell M. Haughey, Mildred Ostlch, B. E. Scion, and John Thurber. [January 20, 1972 committee action.]¹²
• VOTED, That C. S. Wallace, of the Pacific Press Publishing Association, be named to serve on the ad hoc Adventist Philosophy of Music Task Force. [February 10, 1972 action.]¹³
• VOTED, That Mrs. Shirley Beery, of Southwestern Union College, be named to serve on the Adventist Philosophy of Music Task Force. [July 6, 1972 action.]¹⁴

By our count that comes to 32 members on the task force. This sizable group was blessed with exceptionally talented, accomplished, and dedicated members; members such as Arthur White, grandson of Ellen White, George Akers, longtime educator, Paul Hamal, highly respected professor of music, Harold Lickey, professor of music, and Kenneth Wood, editor of the Adventist Review. We could go on. Needless to say, the task force was well-qualified as well as diverse. If anyone could come up with a first-rate set of music guidelines, this committee could.

Prior to the task force meeting, the Ellen G. White Estate published a helpful compilation of statements on the subject of music. These would prove helpful in the committee’s work to draft a solid set of guidelines for the church. This compilation is available for online viewing at the following: http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/music.html, (accessed November 13, 2003).

The task force met for almost one week, grappling with the issues facing them.¹⁵ With a wide diversity of viewpoints and backgrounds represented, after some early struggles and differences of viewpoints, the task force at last came together with one voice. GC President (1966-1979), Robert H. Pierson, reports what the task force chairman reported to him,

As the hours slipped by, the Holy Spirit brought tolerance, good will, and patience into the ranks of the committee. By the time the group had completed its work the members were together. ‘We closed on a revival note,’ Elder Hackett said to me at the close of the committee work. ‘The Holy Spirit brought us together. I feel sure you will appreciate the results of our work.’ [Pierson responded] I did—and I do.¹⁶ [ Bold emphasis in original.]

Annual Council Officially Adopts 1972 Guidelines

The 1972 Autumn Council was held in Mexico City, Mexico in October of that year. The music guidelines, known in the GC archives under the title, GUIDELINES TOWARD AN S. D. A. PHILOSOPHY OF MUSIC, were officially voted on and adopted on October 20.¹⁷ The Seventh-day Adventist Church had now spoken on the subject of music. Educators, pastors, leaders, and members now had a well-thought out, broadly comprehensive, in-depth set of guidelines to assist them in making decisions in their areas of responsibility.

There was no question about where church leadership stood if the guidelines were the rule with which to measure. Well rooted in the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy, the 1972 guidelines provided the church with a reliable guide to help navigate the treacherous waters that lie just ahead. Indeed the next 30 years demonstrated that the guidelines were much in need.

The Thirty Years War

The so-called worship wars have erupted all across the Christian churches in the last three decades and the Seventh-day Adventist Church has not escaped. In recent years, the dividing lines are less and less over doctrinal differences. Instead, worship styles, and more specifically, music styles are now the deciders for where and when a person chooses to worship.¹⁸

The new music has brought with it a new liturgy, new concepts of worship, and new (to the Adventist church) lifestyle standards. The “come as you are” concept has been abused to the point that there is now an unprecedented level of tolerance and acceptance of worldliness among church attendees as well as in church-sponsored events. The line of demarcation between the world and the church has been all but obliterated.¹⁹

In fact, that line of demarcation has not disappeared; it has moved. What used to divide the church from the world now divides the church. The line between worldliness and the church has moved into the church. A large segment of the church welcomes the new music or at least remains “prudently” silent on the issue, while another segment resists and opposes it.

Professor Osterman sums up the 30 years (1972-2002) well by informing us that:

As rock music became harder and forced its way into the church, the problems that it engendered escalated and got out of control, dividing the church into groups that were for it and those that were against it. Some pastors and other church leaders even began to support the new music because it made them popular with the youth.²⁰

Given this deteriorating situation, we would expect that the church would take an even more firm stand for the high standard that it had rightfully endorsed in the 1972 guidelines. Although the 1972 guidelines are amazingly up-to-date, we recognize that there is always room for improvement. Given the changes over the last 30 years, it is understandable why some legitimately would want to update the guidelines. However, we would look for these updates to be of the nature of further clarification and a strengthening of the high standard set forth in the 1972 version. We would expect that any revision of the 1972 guidelines would address new developments, close loopholes, clarify any confusing areas, provide further guidance in those areas most in controversy, and above all, raise the standard even higher.

We will say more about this later in this document, but now we turn to the reason and basis for guidelines in the church. After all, isn’t the Bible a good enough guideline?

Reason and Basis for Guidelines in the Church

Guidelines serve as a rallying point for a diverse denomination with widely-held views. They provide a tool to which members, institutional leaders, pastors, and departmental leaders can point to as a criteria in making decisions regarding music listening and performance choices. Ultimately, every member of the church must decide based upon the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy. That is the only truly safe and unchanging guide. However, it is useful for a world-wide church to pull together principles based on the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy along with practical applications into a coherent document that can be utilized by its members. That is what the 1972 and the new guidelines have endeavored to accomplish.

The Legacy of the 1972 Guidelines

Much has happened to the Adventist music scene over the past three decades. While the picture may look bleak on the whole, we hasten to say that there have been many fine individual singers, groups, and other musicians in the Seventh-day Adventist Church over this time period. God’s church has been richly blessed with excellent talent and skill in the area of music. There are many musicians who have not participated in the ever-downward slide toward the contemporary cultural norms pressing in upon us. These are to be commended and encouraged. We praise God for them. Additionally, many leaders, pastors, educators, and lay people have stood courageously and lovingly for truth. To some degree, the 1972 music guidelines have played a part in influencing for right these people and those who enjoy their ministry of music and testimony.

However, while there are some who have stood for the right, many others have partaken of the worldly music that is rampant around us. Especially hard hit are the youth. So we must ask, have the 1972 guidelines been a failure? Since matters have only worsened, should we conclude that guidelines, no matter how good, are useless?

To the contrary. This same argument could be used against God’s proclaiming the Ten Commandments. We could just as well ask the question, In the intervening time since God spoke His precepts from Sinai with great power, have people straightened up and followed them? Did Israel obey God better after He spoke from the mountain? Clearly, the answer is no. The fact that only a small number were to give heed to His commandments did not stop Jehovah from proclaiming them and passing them in written stone to Moses for safekeeping in the ark. While we realize there is a large degree of difference between the Ten Commandments and the 1972 music guidelines, nevertheless, the principle remains. Just because truth is not widely accepted does not mean that it is a failure or is not truth.

Because only a seemingly small minority are aware of and abide by the music guidelines of the Seventh-day Adventist Church does not mean that the church should give them up. Some will take heed and listen. Some will study the matter out and ask God for wisdom, mend their ways, and allow God to transform their tastes.

An encouraging note here is that God’s ways will prevail. This church will go through. There are signs of an emerging group of faithful people within the Seventh-day Adventist Church who are taking God and His requirements seriously. These people are looking for leadership who will stand by the old waymarks; who will faithfully proclaim and live the truth once delivered to the saints; who will be repairers of the breach.

Youth and older folks alike are watching expectantly for God to move among His people once again with power. They long for revival and reformation. These people want our church to take a decided stand on issues such as music and worship styles. They are pleased that the General Conference put forth the 1972 guidelines. They are waiting expectantly to see if the church they love has the courage to continue to uphold those high standards and to further strengthen them.

Voices Speak Out

During this era of intensifying divisions, courageous voices spoke out in favor of higher standards in the area of music. Quite a number of books, articles, and lectures were put forth giving clear guidance to the church. Many called attention to the 1972 guidelines as a model by which the church, its institutions, and its members should abide by. Not because those guidelines were mandatory tests of fellowship or were in and of themselves inspired, but because they were the result of careful, prayerful study and effort on the part of scholars, musicians and other professionals, and administrative church leaders. They were the statement of the church voted upon officially at a duly called meeting of world church leaders. For the sake of unity and compliance with the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy principles upon which the 1972 guidelines rested, the challenge was given to adhere to them. Please refer to Appendix G below for examples of such voices.

The New Guidelines

So, why was it necessary to commission a select committee at the General Conference level to study and develop a new set of guidelines? Again, in the words of one of the committee members, Dr. Osterman explains that:

Almost thirty years later, in 2002, another GC music document was drafted which not only presents a philosophy of music but offers guidelines on style, performance, decorum, etc. The situation [see her previous quote above] has become so bad around the world that the leadership felt that it was time to write another document that will be relevant to the issues of today.²¹

So we come to the heart of the matter. As Dr. Osterman relates, the GC leadership had determined that the situation had worsened to the point that something more needed to be done to address the problem. Unquestionably, the rapid changes on the music scene over the last 30 years are breathtaking. The basic forms of rock, jazz, blues and related forms have multiplied almost beyond classification. New variations spring up almost daily. The Christian Contemporary Music (CCM) scene has closely aligned itself with the popular secular music industry.

The rise of the charismatic movement with its praise and worship emphasis, its casual style, its loose standards, has penetrated into the very heart of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. A system of musical apartheid has overtaken the church, brought on by those introducing the new fashionable musical idioms.²² The entrance of the new music has caused disruption, disunity, and disharmony in many segments of the denomination. And yet, the perceived benefits of the new paradigm worship styles and music have rendered them difficult to oppose.

The so-called worship wars show no sign of abating. Churches are dividing up based not on doctrinal differences, but on music styles. Many assume that the older people are the ones who oppose the new music. But an increasing number of youth and young adults are coming to realize that the mixing of worldly music and sacred themes is not for them.

Purpose of the New (2003) Guidelines

It might be worth our while to explore briefly what is the stated purpose of developing a new set of guidelines. Aren’t the current ones (1972 version) sufficient?

Here are pertinent quotes on the stated purpose of the new guidelines:

[Jan Paulsen, GC President] About 30 years ago the church drafted a statement, what we call a position statement on good standards for the church’s music. Well 30 years is a long time in these matters. So over the last year and a half we have had a group that has been working on revising, redrafting the statement that can be distributed widely within our church that may reflect both the principles that should define good music.... This document will be presented there [at the 2003 Annual Council] and this document will I expect afterwards to be published very soon and distributed so that within a matter of months it will be in your hands—you will have a fresh statement then of how we see it.²³

Noting that there was a 30-year-old statement on the subject, he [Paulsen] said the draft paper is a step toward providing “something more current.” — Press interviewing Jan Paulsen.²⁴

....Almost thirty years later, in 2002, another GC music document was drafted which not only presents a philosophy of music but offers guidelines on style, performance, decorum, etc. The situation has become so bad around the world that the leadership felt that it was time to write another document that will be relevant to the issues of today. — Dr. Osterman.²⁵

The working assumption seems to be that the new guidelines are meant to replace the 1972 version. If this is not the case, that is, if the new version is meant only as a supplement to the 1972 guidelines, we would urge that the General Conference committee make that clear in the preamble to the new guidelines. Without this or some similar official communication, there will be confusion in this area with most interpreting the new guidelines as obsoleting the previous version.

What Makes a Good Set of Guidelines?

A worthy question to ask is, what constitutes a good set of guidelines? While there are some common-sense answers we could apply, I will draw upon my training in the area of developing and interpreting standards and guidelines in the software and telecommunications industry. The commercial world depends heavily upon good, solid guidelines, standards, and agreements in order to build products that can interact with other products. Here are just a few of the items that would be considered essential in a good set of guidelines:

1. Must be focused on the issue at hand, giving special attention to those areas that may be controverted
2. Must be clear, precise, and unambiguous with no room for confusion as to interpretation
3. Must be comprehensive enough to cover all major facets of the issue
4. Must be in-depth enough to minimize questions and confusion
5. Must strike a balance between too much detail on the one hand and over generalization on the other

We will use the above criteria in our analysis of both the 1972 and the new draft set of guidelines.

Analyzing the Guidelines

In this section we compare the new guidelines with the 1972 version. At the same time we apply the five criterion from the section immediately above. The table below lists out pertinent sections of both guidelines. We provide comments and some evaluation in the far right column. For purposes of clarity and briefness, we refer to the 1972 music guidelines as “1972” and the new draft guidelines as “2003.”

Applying the Guidelines

Here we will test both the 1972 and the new draft guidelines against a typical contemporary Christian song released in the past few years (we won’t mention its name).²⁶ Let’s see how this popular song measures up when evaluated in light of both sets of guidelines. Note that in this test, we assume one vocalist accompanied by a piano.

The song we will evaluate has excellent words, a good message (lyrically), and is not trite, repetitive, or vague. The words are decidedly Christian. So, our evaluation will consist of the music only and whether the music supports or fits with the message the words attempt to convey.

This song has 4/4 timing, is written in the key of F (changes to G toward the end), and has 55 measures (across two verses). It has 110 chords.²⁷ Of these chords, 49 are dissonant²⁸ (disharmonic), leaving 61 consonant²⁹ (harmonic) chords. This means that 45% of the chords are discordant or out of harmony.

Additionally, the song has syncopation³⁰ in every phrase of the voice part by having the voice part come in on the weak beat and carry through the strong beat. In addition, the accompaniment is liberally sprinkled with syncopation, using the technique of accenting the weak beat.

Let’s apply both sets of guidelines to this song and see what results.

Summary of our Test Song Findings

The typical CCM song that we tested above would be considered a relatively mild “soft rock” song by most. It’s lyrics are faultless. However, by examining the musical elements making up the song, we found that it clearly falls short of the 1972 guidelines.

The new draft guidelines also find fault with our test song. But this is only true if the new guidelines are interpreted a certain way. As they are written, it would be just as legitimate to interpret them in such a way as to actually endorse our test song. While the new draft guidelines provide us with many good principles, in most cases, they lack the specificity needed to come to a proper determination on this and other songs.

Biblical Guidance

We now turn to the only true and unchanging basis for any guidelines that we might establish, the Scriptures. The following table lists 10 texts that apply or can be applied to the area of music. There are many more texts that we could include, but we limit it to ten.

Suggested Changes to the New Draft Guidelines

Here we set out several areas we believe will strengthen the new draft guidelines (in addition to other suggested changes outlined in sections above). We welcome the church’s call for feedback on these draft guidelines and we hope that the following points will be taken as they are intended, positive, helpful, and constructive.

In light of our findings outlined in the sections above, we would like to set forth two alternative proposals (Proposal A and Proposal B) as follows:

Suggested Change Proposal A

We believe that the 1972 music guidelines would serve as a solid foundation, an excellent starting point upon which to build and refine a set of comprehensive guidelines that deal with the issues facing us today. There is a lot of respect for the 1972 version across a significant portion of the church. They have served their purpose well and have stood the test of time. We should not lose the valuable insights of those who labored to forge such a solid set of guidelines. However, we recognize that some updating could be desirable to better enable them to address current issues.

We therefore propose that the committee take the 1972 guidelines as their basis, leaving them intact, and building on them by including non-overlapping areas from the 2003 draft guidelines. In addition, we would like to see certain areas addressed that don't really appear (at least explicitly) in either set. This would involve primarily some treatment of the praise and worship (P&W) music that is commonly in use today.

The following are suggested excerpts from the 2003 guidelines to be added in to the 1972 version where appropriate (e.g., each item would be placed in the proper context within the various sections of the 1972 guidelines):

• We believe that the gospel impacts all areas of life. We therefore hold that, given the vast potential of music for good or ill, we cannot be indifferent to it.
• Christian music reveals creativity rather than monotony and repetitiveness.
• Christian music employs lyrics that positively stimulate intellectual abilities as well as our emotions and our will power. Good lyrics are creative, rich in content, and of good composition. They focus on the positive and reflect moral values; they educate and uplift; and they correspond with sound Biblical theology.
• When we come together to worship the Lord, music should be rendered in the best possible way. All church members should be participants. Careful planning is essential. The pastor should take a keen interest in increasing the quality of church music. Any attempt to organize a vibrant worship service only to give pleasant feelings, be entertained, or entertain others, misses the purpose of true worship. Worship focuses on God, not on us.
• Personal taste and experience, habits and culture are not sufficient guides in selecting music, especially within the realm of worship. Likewise, “keeping up with the times” is not a sufficient argument.
• Special care should be taken when listening subconsciously to background music.
• Musical presentations in all Seventh-day Adventist educational institutions should conform to the guidelines of the Church. This applies to local talent as well as to visiting artists, groups, and officially sponsored use of media entertainment.
• The entire Conclusions section could be added in.

In addition to the above 2003 items along with the original 1972 guidelines text, we would like to see something similar to the following added in.

The so-called praise and worship (P&W) music of today is very often tainted with objectional musical elements and in many cases rendered even more harmful by the way it is conducted. Great care should be taken when selecting music from the contemporary worship scene so that it meets with the very highest of standards as outlined in these guidelines.

In summary, Proposal A suggests the 1972 guidelines in their entirety as a basis, then adding in the bullet items listed above from the 2003 draft guidelines, along with the P&W item. We believe that a combination of these will make for an exceptionally strong, effective, comprehensive, up-to-date, and relevant statement of what the church's stand is on this issue. However, if this is not acceptable, we offer Proposal B as an alternative below.

Suggested Change Proposal B

Proposal B suggests using the new 2003 draft guidelines as a basis, but with the following changes. In addition, we would suggest that the P&W item from the previous section be included. Text to be added will be in italics; text to be removed will be in strike-through format.

1. We would like to see the General Conference clarify precisely the nature of the new proposed guidelines. Are they intended to replace and thus obsolete the 1972 guidelines, or are they meant as a complementary supplement? We would like to see the latter.
2. The new guidelines should provide more specific guidance in several areas of musical elements to shun such as overuse of disharmonic chord structures, improper distortions of rhythm, inappropriate voice treatment (breathy, crooning style). We believe the 1972 guidelines provide an excellent template to pattern after in this area.
3. The new guidelines should be brought into harmony with the current church manual. Below are the draft guidelines, followed by the church manual entry, followed by suggested re-wording of one of the items in the new guidelines:
   1. New Guidelines (current form): “14. Christians will shun certain music styles and any secular music such as rock and related forms that opens the mind to impure thoughts, leads to unholy behavior, or destroys the appreciation for that which is pure and holy.”
   2. [Church Manual] “Great care should be exercised in the choice of music. Any melody partaking of the nature of jazz, rock, or related hybrid forms, or any language expressing foolish or trivial sentiments, will be shunned by persons of true culture. Let us use only good music in the home, in the social gathering, in the school, and in the church.”³²
   3. New Guidelines (proposed wording): “14. Christians will shun certain music styles and any secular music such as rock and related forms such as any melody partaking of the nature of jazz, rock, or related hybrid forms, that opens the mind to impure thoughts, leads to unholy behavior, or destroys the appreciation for that which is pure and holy.”
4. The new guidelines should draw out the need for the distinction between the sacred and the common/profane. The 1972 guidelines provide an excellent template for wording: “Music should....reveal a compatibility between the message conveyed by the words and the music, avoiding a mixture of the sacred and the profane....Care should be exercised when using a secular tune wedded to sacred lyrics, so that the profane connotation of the music will not outweigh the message of the text.”
5. Suggest changing the wording of the following sentence,
   1. “While realizing that tastes in music vary greatly from individual to individual, and that ultimately choices must be made individually, we believe that the Scriptures and the writings of Ellen G White suggest principles that can inform our choices.” to
   2. “While realizing that tastes in music vary greatly from individual to individual, and that ultimately choices must be made individually, we believe that the Scriptures and the writings of Ellen G White suggest principles that can inform our choices offer principles to guide in our choices. The musical tastes and practices of all should conform to the universal value of Christ-like character, and all should strive for oneness in the spirit and purpose of the gospel, which calls for unity rather than uniformity.”
6. Drop the unnecessary words, “—not as a manual—” from the following sentence, “We therefore offer the following principles as a guide—not as a manual—to the world Seventh-day Adventist Church.”
7. Suggest changing the wording of the following sentence,
   1. “Likewise, ‘keeping up with the times’ is not a sufficient argument. On the other hand, using only the hymns and the music of our pioneers is not sufficient since God himself calls us repeatedly for creative uses of ‘new songs.’—Ps 96:1” to
   2. “Likewise, ‘keeping up with the times’ is not a sufficient argument. On the other hand, using only the hymns and the music of our pioneers is not sufficient since God himself calls us repeatedly for creative uses of ‘new songs.’—Ps 96:1. However, great care should be exercised to ensure that these ‘new songs’ do not partake of the objectionable musical elements commonly found in much contemporary music.”
8. Add an item specifically addressing the need to never compromise high principles to “reach people.” We suggest wording similar to the following 1972 wording: “Never compromise high principles of dignity and excellence in efforts to reach people just where they are... The desire to reach these youth where they are with the gospel of Christ sometimes leads to the use of certain questionable musical idioms.”
9. Suggest changing the wording of the following item:
   1. “11. Christian music recognizes and acknowledges the contribution of different cultures in worshiping God. Musical forms and instruments vary greatly in the worldwide Seventh-day Adventist family, and music drawn from one culture may sound strange to someone from a different culture. As members of a world family, we respect the music of our brothers and sisters in every land who worship God sincerely through culturally conditioned musical idioms.” to
   2. “11. Christian music recognizes and acknowledges the contribution of different cultures in worshiping God. Musical forms and instruments vary greatly in the worldwide Seventh-day Adventist family, and music drawn from one culture may sound strange unfamiliar to someone from a different culture. As members of a world family, we respect the music of our brothers and sisters in every land who worship God sincerely through culturally conditioned the musical idioms of their culture. Having said this, we firmly believe that Inspiration provides principles that transcend all cultures and that these principles call for all of God’s family to leave off all forms of worldliness in music and to rise to the high ideals of that heavenly culture that God sets before us.”
10. Suggest changing the wording of the following item,
    1. “12. Christian music does not make a sharp distinction between ‘sacred’ and ‘secular.’ At no moment do we cease to be God’s sons and daughters who seek to glorify Him in all things and to choose only the best....” to
    2. “12. While God calls for Christians to draw a distinction between the sacred and the common (secular), many of the same principles apply in both areas of music. Christian music does not make a sharp distinction between ‘sacred’ and ‘secular.’ At no moment do we cease to be God’s sons and daughters who seek to glorify Him in all things and to choose only the best....”
11. Suggest changing the wording of the following item to one of Alternative A or Alternative B,
    1. “12. Adventist education in schools, churches, and homes should be open to a broad variety of good music in the classical and folk music styles. Seventh-day Adventist children and young people should be encouraged to learn how to play instruments and read music; they should sing in choirs and groups and participate in meaningful worship experiences.” to
    2. Alternative A: “12. Adventist education in schools, churches, and homes should be open to a broad variety of good music in the classical and folk music styles. (It must be clear that any form of ‘folk’ musical expression must be judged by the same principles as all other types discussed in this document.) Seventh-day Adventist children and young people should be encouraged to learn how to play instruments and read music; they should sing in choirs and groups and participate in meaningful worship experiences.”
    3. Alternative B: “12. Adventist education in schools, churches, and homes should be open to a broad variety of good music in the classical and folk music styles taking special care to ensure that these selections meet the high standards contained in this document. Seventh-day Adventist children and young people should be encouraged to learn how to play instruments and read music; they should sing in choirs and groups and participate in meaningful worship experiences.”

In summary, Proposal B suggests the 2003 guidelines as a basis along with the above changes. In addition, we would suggest including the P&W item from the previous section above. We believe that these changes will improve the new guidelines so that they can more closely fulfill the purpose for which they were intended.

Again, it is our firm conviction that the suggestions in Proposal A will more effectively serve the church as a guide for this time. However, Proposal B is an acceptable alternative that will bolster the current form of the 2003 version.

Conclusion

The surrounding culture of our day clearly reveals that humankind is heading in the wrong direction. Satan is taking more and more control of the entertainment and music of our societies. The church has not been exempt, but is under constant bombardment to succumb to the overwhelming influence of the age. God calls for His people to come apart from the worldliness and to come up to higher ground.

To this end, the General Conference leadership in 1972 developed a set of music guidelines that are exceptionally well-thought out, broadly comprehensive, in-depth, specific in nature, and amazingly up-to-date (despite being over 30 years old). These powerful, effective, and useful guidelines were intended to assist church leaders and members in their choices in this most important area. Since that time, the situation in the world and in a large segment of the church has only worsened. Therefore, the need is even more paramount to take a decided and courageous stand on the issues we face today.

The stakes could not be higher. The future of our church is in jeopardy if we succumb to the argument that we must do whatever it takes to keep the youth happy and in the church. As a recent Review News Analysis states,

While all could lament the data presented at the [recent Promise Keepers] conference that showed that the percentage of Christian youth who believe in the full authority of Scripture has fallen from 54 percent to 10 percent between 1991 and 2001, almost none drew the logical inference that this has happened in a decade of almost complete acceptance of popular idiom and rock culture in youth worship services.³³

This calls for a stronger, more specific set of guidelines that address the many and varied issues that face us today. Ellen White tells us that, “We must lift the standard higher, and still higher.”³⁴ The 1972 guidelines met the needs of their day with strong, courageous stands on issues that were coming under attack. Today, we need an even more decided testimony.

In our reading of the 2003 draft guidelines, we find much good. We can be thankful that our church has taken an interest in this area. We believe the committee endeavored to strike a balance between diverse viewpoints on this controversial subject. However, that may not be a desirable thing if it results in a watered-down, less specific, less clear, ambiguous statement of guidelines.

By carefully reading the new draft guidelines we find them to be more general in nature, less specific, less clear on crucial issues, and in certain areas, somewhat confusing and quite ambiguous. They do not meet the high standard that a good set of guidelines must meet as we discussed above. In comparison to Inspiration and to the 1972 guidelines, we find them lacking in some areas. We wish we could say otherwise, because at this time in the history of our church, we need something better.

However, we are extremely pleased that the General Conference has opened up the issue for input. This is very much welcomed and we believe an encouraging sign. It is in response to this that we submit this paper and its suggested changes. May God grant that our leaders have the courage, wisdom, and skill to take under consideration the views expressed in this paper as well as viewpoints from other faithful members of the worldwide church. May they prayerfully consider what changes would be appropriate to ensure the best possible set of guidelines for this time.

A church is waiting and watching. In what direction will we as a church move? Will we compromise, soften the edges, blur the lines? Or will we boldly stand for unpopular truth, a high standard, and principles that are timeless, in a world that is almost wholly given over to idolatry. A church, a world, indeed the universe is expectantly waiting and watching.

Final Word

We encourage readers to prayerfully consider the issues discussed above and to submit your viewpoints to the General Conference at the address designated in the preamble to the new draft guidelines. It states the following:

The statement...is being released for input by the world Seventh-day Adventist Church. Members who wish to make comments and suggestions should send them to:

Elder Ted N. C. Wilson
General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists
12501 Old Columbia Pike
Silver Spring, Maryland 20904

as found at: http://www.adven tist.org/beliefs/other_doc9.html

Please note: as of January 28, 2004, the GC prefers that all feedback be sent via email to Elder Ted Wilson’s secretary at the following email address. They have requested that feedback be sent no later than about the middle of February 2004. Responses after that will still be accepted, but it may not be as effective.

Send feedback via email to Carolyn Kujawa, email: kujawac@gc.adventist.org

Appendix

Appendix A. Caveats

1. This paper does not attempt to sort out all the issues involving what is appropriate music. There are many excellent resources available for that. Please refer to Appendix F below for a listing of recommended books, videos, and other tools to assist in this area.
2. I think it only fair to let you know where I’m coming from in the area of music. I like rock, jazz, and most Contemporary Christian Music (CCM) in the same way that I like junk food. It pleases my carnal nature very much. It satisfies my craving, stimulates me, and makes me want more. But something happened; something called conversion. Jesus Christ reached down and changed me. Having been exposed to a good level of education in the area of musical issues, by God’s grace and under His conviction I was able to change my musical tastes so that I now thoroughly enjoy good hymns, classical pieces, and contemporary music that does not partake of the harmful elements found in much of today’s popular musical idioms.
3. This paper holds no prejudice toward hymns (old or new), classical styles, folk music, heritage music, or contemporary songs, so long as they comply with the highest musical standards and principles as found in the Bible and the writings of the Spirit of Prophecy. Diversity of styles, cultures, and time periods is not an issue as long as these high standards are met.
4. Any mention of music groups or individuals in this paper does not necessarily mean we condemn or condone all that they perform. We certainly do not mean to pass judgment on anyone, but simply include them for completeness sake.

Appendix B. What the Church Manual Says on Music

http://www.adventist.org/churchmanual/, accessed September 7, 2003.

“Music was made to serve a holy purpose, to lift the thoughts to that which is pure, noble, and elevating, and to awaken in the soul devotion and gratitude to God.”—Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 594. Jesus “held communion with heaven in song.”—The Desire of Ages, p. 73.

Music is one of the highest arts. Good music not only gives pleasure but elevates the mind and cultivates the finest qualities. Spiritual songs have often been used of God to touch the hearts of sinners and lead to repentance. Debased music, on the contrary, destroys the rhythm of the soul and breaks down morality.

Great care should be exercised in the choice of music. Any melody partaking of the nature of jazz, rock, or related hybrid forms, or any language expressing foolish or trivial sentiments, will be shunned by persons of true culture. Let us use only good music in the home, in the social gathering, in the school, and in the church. (See p. 70.)

Taken from Chapter 13 of the Church Manual, pp. 169-170 (emphasis supplied). http://www.adventist.org/churchmanual/chapter13.html#169, accessed November 2, 2003.

Appendix C. What the Book Seventh-day Adventists Believe... 27 Fundamental Doctrines Says on Music

2. Reading and music. These same high standards [from previous section] apply to Christian’s reading and music. Music is a gift of God to inspire pure, noble, and elevated thoughts. Good music, then, enhances the finest qualities of character.

Debased music, on the other hand, “destroys the rhythm of the soul and breaks down morality.” So Christ’s followers will shun “any melody partaking of the nature of jazz, rock, or related hybrid forms, or any language expressing foolish or trivial sentiments.” The Christian does not listen to music with suggestive lyrics or melodies (Rom. 13:11-14; 1 Peter 2:11).

Quoted from Seventh-day Adventists Believe... A Biblical Exposition of 27 Fundamental Doctrines, (Washington, DC : Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1988), p. 284. Emphasis supplied; footnotes omitted.

Appendix D. Let’s Talk Interview with Pastor Jan Paulsen

On August 21, 2003, Dr. Jan Paulsen, world church president, held a question and answer session with young people ages 16 - 21, broadcast live on Adventist Television Network. LET’S TALK, Pastor Jan Paulsen Interview, Transcript - August 21, 2003, John Torres, Host, http://www.meettheprez.com/lets_talk_transcript.html, accessed September 7, 2003. The following is an excerpt from the General Conference President’s conversation with the youth. This section deals with music and the new GC Guidelines:

[Question from a young person in the] Audience: I am just going to be real with you. Many people are struggling over this issue on music and I just want to ask you firstly, first of all what is your standard, because I know in the church manual and in the 27 fundamental beliefs book it says that any music pertaining to rock, jazz or any hybrid forms will be shunned by persons of true culture, is what it says and I was just wondering what would be your standards and also are there any biblical or biblical principles and principles from the writings of the spirit of prophecy to help us understand this issue of music.

[Host John Torres] JT: Yes, that is a great question and we are going to hear the answer to that question when we come back. We’ll be right back after these messages.

[Break]

JT: Welcome back. You are watching Let’s Talk, a conversation between Pr Jan Paulsen president of the Seventh-day Adventist church and young people. Let’s see. Do we have another question?

[GC President Jan Paulsen] JP: We had a question here.

JT: That’s right. I’m sorry. And you had your question about music.

JP: I remember the question and we will try to answer it. It is a huge question. And I can only touch on it a little bit. I mean music, is there any subject inside our church that there is more discussion and diverse taste in? than music? About 30 years ago the church drafted a statement, what we call a position statement on good standards for the church’s music. Well 30 years is a long time in these matters. So over the last year and a half we have had a group that has been working on revising, redrafting the statement that can be distributed widely within our church that may reflect both the principles that should define good music. Particularly good music in worship..and what Ellen White may have to say and what the bible, what sort of guidance can come from the inspiration of scripture that will lead us in this. Let me now try to spell out any of those details and every year the church leaders meet in what we call the Annual Council. And we have a meeting coming up at the end of next month. This document will be presented there and this document will I expect afterwards to be published very soon and distributed so that within a matter of months it will be in your hands—you will have a fresh statement then of how we see it. Now that is a statement which is not going to answer all the questions. But could I say this as someone who has a very—I have a very classical taste in music. That has to do with my upbringing. That is where I come from—Europe and when I grew up the taste in music was very very classical and that is really what my taste is today. But I feel all of us young and old, I mean this is another example of how huge the span is and how difficult and how tested we are whether we are young or old we have to remember that what matters at the end of the day is that people are being saved for the kingdom. Christ is in the business of saving people. He is not going to be saving musical score sheets! It is human beings that will make their way into his kingdom and so whatever we do in this we have to be sure that we relate to one another in a way that Jesus Christ would reach out and find a person and create within that person the desire for a life with Christ and a genuine desire to spend eternity together. This is what has to matter. If I dislike your choice in music, I may walk away—it’s a bit harsh sometimes to do because in certain settings that may seem extremely judgmental. But we have tastes in music. Yes, there are some types of music which I think don’t belong in the Christian community. I have to be honest with you. There are some kinds of music which I simply think, “this is out of place here.” I think you will find the document we will be publishing will be saying that. But at the same time we have to be sure that even as I say that to you, you know that I love you. [Emphasis supplied]

Appendix E. Press Interview of Jan Paulsen

World Church: Paulsen Meets Media, Emphasizes Church Growth October 15, 2003 Silver Spring, Maryland, United States .... [Mark A. Kellner/ANN]. http://www.adventist.org/news/data/2003/09/1066253898/index.html.en

Adventist Church President Jan Paulsen at a press conference Oct. 15.

Summing up the Seventh-day Adventist Church’s [2003] annual business meetings, Pastor Jan Paulsen, president of the church worldwide, [answered reporter’s questions]. A notable item introduced to the annual meeting was a draft statement of an Adventist philosophy of music, which Paulsen said is being distributed to church leadership in order to elicit comments and suggestions, and will be considered next year.

“We are a global community,” Paulsen said, and some parts of the church have asked, “Is there no advice you can give” on the subject of music, particularly as it relates to worship, he added. Noting that there was a 30-year-old statement on the subject, he said the draft paper is a step toward providing “something more current.”

Although several reporters attempted to get from Paulsen a definition of what is good and what is bad musically, he demurred suggesting that there were a variety of cultural tastes to be accounted for, and that while he appreciates Mozart’s “Laudate Dominum,” for example, others may have different views.

Asked about the changes in the church he has seen in 40 years of ordained ministry, Paulsen said these were “not changes of the radical kind, but rather changes of degrees.”

Appendix F. Recommended Resources on the Subject of Music

We recommend the following as useful resources on the subjects of music and worship issues.

1. Dan Lucarini, Why I Left the Contemporary Christian Music Movement (Auburn, MA: Evangelical Press, 2002), [non-SDA]. Available from Amazing Facts, http://www.amazingfacts.org/
   From the Dedication of this book: “This book is dedicated to the authors, pastors, music ministers and other church leaders who came before me. They never ceased to warn us about the dangers of rock music to a Christian; but we did not take heed. They had the courage to confront others in the church who defended every controversial and sensual music style; but in return we heaped scorn upon them. When they dared to oppose the contemporary music invasion into the church service itself, we called them legalists and worse. Many have sacrificed popularity and seen their ministry opportunities limited, because their consciences dictated they must take a stand. To them, we owe an apology and a debt of gratitude. This book is an attempt to pay a small portion of that debt.”
2. MUSIC, Its Role, Qualities, and Influence, As Set Forth in the Writings of: Ellen G. White, A Compilation of Materials Assembled For the Study of the 1972 Task Force on the Philosophy of Music,) Ellen G. White Estate, Silver Spring, Maryland, 1972 (Retyped June 2003), http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/music.html, accessed November 13, 2003.
3. Frank Garlock and Kurt Woetzel, Music in the Balance (Greenville, SC: Majesty Music, 1992) [non-SDA], http://www.majestymusic.com/
4. Dr. Frank Garlock, The Language of Music, 6-part video series (Greenville, SC: Majesty Music, 1992) [non-SDA], http://www.majestymusic.com/
5. _______, Pop Goes the Music, video (Greenville, SC: Majesty Music, 2002) [non-SDA], http://www.majestymusic.com/
6. John Thurber with Cari Haus, The Music of Heaven (Coldwater, MI: Remnant Publications, 2001), http://www.remnantpublications.com/
7. Carol A. Torres and Louis R. Torres, Notes on Music (St. Maries, ID: LMN Publishing, no date), 1-800-245-1844
8. Kimberly Smith, Oh, Be Careful Little Ears (Mukilteo, WA: WinePress Publishing, 1997) [non-SDA]. Available from Amazing Facts, http://www.amazingfacts.org/
9. _______, Let Those Who Have Ears to Hear (Mukilteo, WA: WinePress Publishing, 2001) [non-SDA]. Available from Amazing Facts, http://www.amazingfacts.org/
10. Brian S. Neumann, From Rock ’n Roll to Rock of Ages (Cape Town, South Africa: Brian Neumann, 1997), Available from Amazing Discoveries, http://www.amazingdiscoveries.org/
11. _______, Voices of a Dying Planet, 6-part video series plus a 7th video with his personal testimony (Delta, BC, Canada: Amazing Discoveries, 2003), Available from Amazing Discoveries, http://www.amazingdiscoveries.org/. Also a 3-part video series by the same author is available from Amazing Facts.
12. Samuele Bacchiocchi, editor, The Christian & Rock Music (Berrien Springs, MI: Biblical Perspectives, 2000), http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/
13. Karl Tsatalbasidis, Drums, Rock, and Worship (Roseville, CA: Amazing Facts, Inc., 2003)
14. Neil Nedley, MD, Proof Positive (Ardmore, OK: Nedley Publishing, 1998), pp. 288-289, http://www.nedleypublishing.com/
15. Adventists Affirm, Fall 1991, Vol. 5, No. 2 (Berrien Springs, MI: Adventists Affirm), entire edition, http://www.adventistsaffirm.org/. Also, the following editions are excellent resources: Spring 1997, Spring 1998, Spring 1999, Summer 2000.
16. The GreatControversy.org website: http://www.greatcontroversy.org/main/music_.html
17. Amazing Discoveries website: http://www.amazingdiscoveries.org/brian.html
18. Pastor Richard O’Ffill has some excellent material in some of his sermons on the subjects of worship and music: http://www.revivalsermons.org/. Three very good ones are:
    • Stop the Music, http://www.revivalsermons.org/sermons/stop_the_music.shtml
    • The Heart of Worship, http://www.revivalsermons.org/sermons/heart_of_worship.shtml
    • This Little Church Went to Market, http://www.revivalsermons.org/sermons/went2market.shtml
    • Issues in Contemporary Worship cassette series, http://www.americancassette.org/categories.cfm?categorydesc=speakers&subcategoryid=73&itemid=183
19. Dr. H. Loyd Leno, “The Power of Music, Part 1,”Our Firm Foundation, June 2003 (Knoxville, IL: Hope International), pp. 4-8. http://www.hopeint.org/NewHome/Our_Firm_Foundation/WebPDF/OFF1806w.pdf
20. _______, “The Power of Music, Part 2,”Our Firm Foundation, July 2003 (Knoxville, IL: Hope International), pp. 12-14. http://www.hopeint.org/NewHome/Our_Firm_Foundation/WebPDF/OFF1807w.pdf
21. _______, “The Power of Music, Part 3,”Our Firm Foundation, August 2003 (Knoxville, IL: Hope International), pp. 16-19. http://www.hopeint.org/NewHome/Our_Firm_Foundation/WebPDF/OFF1808w.pdf
22. _______, “The Power of Music, Part 4,”Our Firm Foundation, September 2003 (Knoxville, IL: Hope International), pp. 28-30. http://www.hopeint.org/NewHome/Our_Firm_Foundation/WebPDF/OFF1809w.pdf
23. _______, “Music and the Great Controversy, Part 1,” October 2003, Our Firm Foundation, June 2003 (Knoxville, IL: Hope International), pp. 16-19. http://www.hopeint.org/NewHome/Our_Firm_Foundation/WebPDF/OFF1810w.pdf
24. _______, “Music and the Great Controversy, Part 2,” November 2003, Our Firm Foundation, June 2003 (Knoxville, IL: Hope International), pp. 28-30. http://www.hopeint.org/NewHome/Our_Firm_Foundation/WebPDF/OFF1811w.pdf

Appendix G. Church Resources Supporting the philosophy of the 1972 Guidelines

The following are examples of articles in major church publications supporting the philosophy of the 1972 guidelines:

1. Kenneth H. Wood, Editor’s Viewpoint, “‘Take These Things Hence,’” Review and Herald, January 20, 1972, p. 2.
2. Harold Lickey, “Today’s Religious Music Scene, Part 1,”Ministry, February, 1973, pp. 20-21.
3. Harold Lickey, “Today’s Religious Music Scene, Conclusion,”Ministry, March, 1973, pp. 18-19.
4. GC Committee, “Guidelines Toward a Seventh-day Adventist Philosophy of Music,”Journal of Adventist Education, Feb-Mar 1975, v37, pp. 7-9, 29.
5. H. Lloyd Leno, “Psychological and Physiological Effects of Music,” (4-part series, “Music, It’s Far-reaching Effects: Part 1”), Review and Herald, February 12, 1976, pp. 4-7.
6. H. Lloyd Leno, “Science and History Shed Light on Music,” (4-part series, “Music, It’s Far-reaching Effects: Part 2”), Review and Herald, February 19, 1976, pp. 7-9.
7. H. Lloyd Leno, “Music and Morality,” (4-part series, “Music, It’s Far-reaching Effects: Part 3”), Review and Herald, February 26, 1976, pp. 6-8.
8. H. Lloyd Leno, “Music, a Symbol of Life,” (4-part series, “Music, It’s Far-reaching Effects: Part 4”), Review and Herald, March 4, 1976, p. 7, 9-10.
9. Eugene Durand, Editorial, “Contemporary Christian Music,” Adventist Review, December 6, 1990, p. 5.
10. Eugene Durand, Editorial, “Guidelines for Music—2,” Adventist Review, September 12, 1991, p. 5.
11. General Conference Session 2005 Guidelines on Music. http://gcsession.org/music/guidelines.html, accessed September 7, 2003.
12. Dale Martin, News Analysis, “The Fog in Phoenix,”Adventist Review, August 28, 2003, pp. 22-23. Especially note the section, “Power of Music.”

Appendix H. Church Resources Opposing the philosophy of the 1972 Guidelines

The following are examples of articles in major church publications non-supportive of the philosophy of the 1972 guidelines:

1. Darryl Comstock, “Selling Change,” Ministry, October 1991, pp. 30-31, 39.
2. Jeff Trubey, Cover Story, “Making Waves,”Adventist Review, July 17, 1997, pp. 8-13.
3. William G. Johnsson, “The Sound of Wedgwood,”Adventist Review, July 17, 1997, p. 13.
4. David A. Pendleton, “Worship,”Adventist Review, August 14, 2003, pp. 8-10, http://www.adventistreview.org/2003-1533/story2.html, accessed 11/16/03.

Appendix I. GC Department of Education Introductory Text to the 1972 Guidelines

Introduction to the 1972 Music Guidelines by the Department of Education, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists:³⁵

As in literature and other modes of communication, the worst and the best also comes through to the hearer through the media of music. While what has been considered good music swings to one end of the pendulum, what has been considered bad is increasingly weighing more heavily in the opposite direction. The latter has become so pronounce