Bethel Baptist Church, Kalispell Montana

I made a rather harsh statement on “Facebook” the other day regarding the use of rock music and rock bands in worship. I was not very clear in setting the context of the statement, (I referred to it as the use of guitars and snare drums) I see nothing evil in those instruments, but rather the introduction of a style of music that I believe at least twenty years ago most would have regarded as rather edgy. I am far from being any kind of a qualified judge of music but there have come some changes over the years that we ought to apply some careful thinking to.

It would seem to me that sacred music ought to be characterized not only by its lyrics but also by its style. It is a very old argument now, but worthy yet of our consideration; is music style amoral? If it is, it is one of very few things that we would recognize as having no moral implications. We recognize moral boundaries in business, in relationships, in speech, in dress, in conduct and can we rightly exclude music? Music has a huge effect upon the soul of man and for that reason alone has great moral implications. The reason this new style of music has made such inroads is because of its appeal to man, but has anyone honestly asked 'does it appeal to God?' The difficulty of this question lies in what seems to be the subjective nature of it. We don’t have a CD in the back of our Bibles that demonstrates appropriate music styles.

Now having said that and acknowledging that there are no answers in that statement I would like to pose another matter. Do we not find it a bit uncharacteristic historically that our churches are no longer characterized by their doctrine but rather by the style of music that they have chosen? I don’t think it to be an over the top observation to say that music has surpassed doctrine as the primary factor in selecting a church. The statement I commonly hear is, “Try my church, you will love the music”. Is it the function of the church to entertain and to stimulate emotionally or to teach and proclaim the truth? And I think it is appropriate to ask if emotional stimulation can properly be defined as worship? And it may also be asked if the primary function of the corporate assembly of God’s people is worship? It can be said that worship in its true essence is a very private act. I guess that my concern is that it seems that few indeed are asking these questions and rather just absorbing the trends or rather being absorbed into these trends.

C.H. Spurgeon saw these trends developing one hundred fifty years ago and wrote the following statement and so I close with his words: I only wish I had his grace in saying it.

In the closing years of Spurgeon’s life he was alarmed lest some of his own men were not seeing the dangers. Speaking to his students and to the members of the Pastor’s College Society of Evangelists he said: ‘In our revival services, it might be as well to vary our procedure. Sometimes shut up that inquiry-room. I have my fears about that institution if it be used in permanence, and as an inevitable part of the services’. And again to the same men:

‘It is a fact that thousands of persons live close to our notable sanctuaries and never dream of entering them. Even curiosity seems dulled.

‘Why is this? Whence this distaste for the ordinary services of the sanctuary? I believe that the answer, in some measure, lies in a direction little suspected. There has been a growing pandering to sensationalism; and, as this wretched appetite increases in fury the more it is gratified, it is at last found to be impossible to meet its demands. Those who have introduced all sorts of attractions into their services have themselves to blame if people forsake their more sober teachings, and demand more and more of the noisy and the singular¹. Like dram-drinking². The thirst for excitement grows. At first, the fiery spirit may be watered down; but the next draught of it must be stronger, and soon it is required to be overproof. The customary gin-drinker wants something stronger than the pure spirit, deadly though that draught may be. One said, as she tossed off her glass, “Do you call that gin? Why, I know a place where, for three pence, I can get a drink that will burn your very soul out!” Yes, gin leads on to vitriol; and the sensational leads to the outrageous, if not to the blasphemous. I would condemn no one, but I confess that I feel deeply grieved at some of the inventions of modern mission work.’