Recently I became aware of a debate over the use of contemporary music in church–a debate taking place among evangelicals (or as IFBs might say, new evangelicals). It has centered on the web and is not really a huge debate or anything, but it has resulted in some helpful postings which deserve notice.

BACKGROUND: The debate started with an article, that Chuck Colson wrote for Christianity Today. The article points out that evangelicalism is “soothing [itself] to death”. He points to the prevalence of music on Christian radio as opposed to teaching and preaching. He even critiques how much of the music on Christian radio today is more about entertainment than worship.

The controversy, though, surrounds his opening paragraph where he describes his frustration over the song “Draw Me Close to You”, and by implication, others like it. He calls that song a “meaningless ditty” with “zero theological content” which could just as easily be “sung in any nightclub”.

Dr. Sam Storms responded to this article with an evaluation of that song entitled “Mr. Colson, I Respectfully Disagree”. Justin Taylor ,of Between Two Worlds, agreed with Storms, while Tim Challies, of TimChallies.Com (one of the most popular Christian blogs), disagreed with them both (siding with Colson). Finally, Bob Kauflin, of Worship Matters, gave his evaluation of the song which in effect was a middle of the road position.

HELPFUL CONTRIBUTIONS: I think everyone involved in this debate has made some helpful contributions. As Bob Kauflin points out, “We should be concerned with how we worship God, careful about what songs we sing and listen to, and discerning about our motives. I thank God that Colson’s article encourages us to think about all three.” And I generally agree with the main thrust of Colson’s critique. There is much Christian music out there which is not all that concerned about doctrine and truth. Entertainment is okay, but we need more than that–especially in the public, coorporate worship of our churches.

Justin Taylor served us all by publicizing Sam Storms’ article, so he gets credit. Storms took issue with Colson’s singling out “Draw Me Close to You”, and he also highlighted some important truths about music, which I will focus on here shortly.

Challies presented some great principles with which to test our music. I disagree with how he applied them to the song in question, but the principles themselves are great, nonetheless. The discussion after Challies’ post is full of good content also (at least the first score or so of the comments–the ones I actually read).

And, lastly, Kauflin helpfully pointed out the need for songs to make explicit how Christ’s work on the cross impacts our lives. The song expresses a desire for God to be near to us, but it “never references what God has done to bring us near through the atoning sacrifice of His Son”.

Before I go on to look at Storms’ contribution in particular, let me provide Kauflin’s conclusion to this saga, as he really does a good job of focusing our attention on what the issue really is.

“Is Draw Me Close symptomatic of a larger problem in Christian hymnody? I think so. For more than a hundred years we’ve favored emotional, response-type songs over songs that magnify the nature, attributes, and works of God. We need both, and more songs that help us do both at the same time. We tend to pit doctrine against devotion and both camps end up the worse for it. Is singing this song proof that a particular church has gone off the deep end into subjectivism and man-centered emotion? No. Are there better songs to sing in congregational worship? I believe so.This is far more than an issue of hymns vs. contemporary choruses. There are sentimental, feeling oriented hymns, as well as contemporary songs with rich theological content. It’s an issue of pastors taking responsibility for what their churches are singing, leading them wisely into truth-based affections, and making sure that good fruit is being produced in their lives. It’s also an issue of all of us making sure that we’re not taking pride in the particular songs we sing or don’t sing.

May we all proclaim the beauty, authority, and truth of Jesus Christ with our lives, remembering that neither passion nor propositional truth is out of place when we worship God. They were meant to go together.”

STORMS’ CONTENTIONS: Sam Storms begins with some interesting observations: “But my suspicion is that many who express their disdain for contemporary Christian worship do so less out of theological conviction or from an objection to its alleged aesthetical shortcomings and more from a discomfort with the way in which such songs call for and facilitate personal engagement with God.” He goes on to point out how many hymns allow the soul to “keep God at arm’s length”–to avoid an engaging of the heart in worship. He criticizes a style of singing hymns which “never requires a person to honestly open their heart to God’s presence and encounter him in a truly vulnerable and honest way”. He says singing “about” God is important, but that this is not the same as singing “to” God in personal confession.

He then makes a startling assertion, “The fact is, the primary appeal of contemporary Christian worship is that its lyrics and melody have the capacity not merely to stimulate the mind but awaken the spirit and stir the affections and intensify the expression of our hunger for God and our satisfaction in him alone.”

THE BIBLICAL FUNCTION OF MUSIC: What most impressed me with Storms’ article, was his discussion of the Biblical function of music. He gives the following quote by Jonathan Edwards, from his book On Religious Affections, “[The singing of praises to God seems] to be appointed wholly to excite and express religious affections. No other reason can be assigned why we should express ourselves to God in verse, rather than in prose, and do it with music, but only, that such is our nature and frame, that these things have a tendency to move our affections.”

This is the main point I wanted to stress in this post. Music is designed as a vehicle for expressing our emotions to God. I agree with Sam that many wrongly suppress and fear emotions. And I also agree with Sam that modern worship songs are an excellent vehicle for expressing emotion. Several of my posts about the good modern songs we sing at my church, have me saying the same thing: “this song really lifts the heart and directs it toward Christ”. So many of these songs lift me out of myself and direct my hope and yearning–my very being–to Christ. They fill me with hope and faith and joy and life! This is why I really appreciate them. It is so much more than merely tapping my feet to the rhythm.

I will end with several pertinent paragraphs from Sam’s article, but for the specific words of the song in question and Sam’s final evaluation of it in particular, feel free to reference his article, here.

“Some actually orchestrate worship in such a way that the affections of the heart are reined in and, in some cases, even suppressed. People often fear the external manifestation of internal zeal and love and desire and joy. Though they sing, they do so in a way that the end in view is the mere articulation of words and declaration of truths. But if that were what God intended, why did he not ordain that we recite, in prose, biblical truths about him? Why sing? It can’t be simply for the aesthetic value of music or because of the pleasure it brings, for that would be to turn worship manward, as if we are now the focus rather than God.We sing because God has created not only our minds but also our hearts and souls, indeed our bodies as well, in such a way that music elicits and intensifies holy affections for God and facilitates their lively and vigorous expression.

The same may be said of how God operates on our souls in the preaching of his Word. Books and commentaries and the like provide us with “good doctrinal or speculative understanding of the things of the Word of God, yet they have not an equal tendency to impress them on men’s hearts and affections” (115). So, with a view to affecting sinners and not merely informing them, God has appointed that his Word be applied in a particularly lively way through preaching.

Therefore, concludes Edwards, when we think of how public worship should be constructed and what methods should be employed in the praise of God and the edification of his people, “such means are to be desired, as have much of a tendency to move the affections. Such books, and such a way of preaching the Word, and administration of ordinances, and such a way of worshiping God in prayer, and singing praises, is much to be desired, as has a tendency deeply to affect the hearts of those who attend these means” (121).

When people object that certain styles of public worship seem especially chosen for their capacity to awaken and intensify and express the affections of the heart, they should be told that such is precisely the God-ordained purpose of worship. What they fear, namely, the heightening and deepening of the heart’s desire and love for God, and the expansion and increase of the soul’s delight and joy in God, what they typically call “emotionalism” or even “manipulation” , is the very goal of worship itself. For God is most glorified in his people when their hearts are most satisfied (i.e., when they are most “affected” with joy) in him (John Piper).”

∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 “¢ Rom. 15:5-7