Christmas

Poised atop the universe, standing amid splendor

He gazed down into the abyss.

And gathering the courage borne of love

Stepped off the edge, and dove into the world he had created.

Down, down he plunged, farther and farther from the warmth and the light

Into the darkness and the coldness and the squalor

Past the holy and the righteous, past the proud and the mighty

Until he reached those most unlike him.

There he stopped, amid the most unlovely

Standing with those we despise, the ones we think are least

And reached out his hands, covered with scars and calluses

To carry their burdens and their pain.

He stayed with them, through the long, dark night

While we enjoyed our goodness

And having given them all he had, soared back to the pinnacle

Leaving them a promise of life and love.

I have stuff! So am I blessed?

Many religions promise the possibility of a better life. Some say reincarnation will reward those who strive hard enough with an opportunity to move upward along a supposed hierarchy of beings. Some posit a type of behavioral balance scale in which doing more good things than bad things increases one’s chance of a pleasant eternal existence. Others rely on some combination of faith in a deity plus good works (or at least trying hard) to attain an enviable afterlife. And almost all view positive circumstances in this life as evidence that God (or god, or gods) is rewarding the faithful for their belief and/or behavior. The sequence is simple: first I do what is required, then I am rewarded accordingly (“blessed”), and finally I feel grateful for my circumstances.” The concept is easy to understand, even if hard to live up to.

But Christianity is different. Jesus was a first century Jewish rabbi, steeped in the theology and traditions of Judaism, as were most who initially followed him. And the predominant schools of thought within Judaism at the time interpreted positive circumstances in this life in a manner virtually identical to other faiths. Good things (health, wealth, and happiness) were evidence of God’s favor; trouble and sufferings were signs of God’s displeasure. The Jews believed that the blessings of God, and particularly financial wealth, were evidence that those who enjoyed them were living lives pleasing to God. Poverty, sickness, and misery were evidence that the person (or their parents) had offended God, and were receiving appropriate punishment.

Jesus turned this thinking on its head. He did not abolish the “rules” for living (e.g. he affirmed the 10 commandments) or ever suggest that doing good to others was not important. In fact, he commanded his followers to commit to the highest imaginable standards of behavior toward others (“love your neighbor as yourself”). But he replaced the usual sequence of behavior-blessing-gratitude with a different sequence which runs counter to that of other religions. Jesus challenged our natural desire for a positive self-image by teaching that people simply cannot perform well enough to deserve the favor of God. God is perfect, people are not, so they will inevitably fall short. Basically, Jesus said that the teachings about gaining a place in paradise through one’s efforts or behavior were false.

Jesus then gave his followers a new teaching with a different sequence from the behavior-blessing-gratitude model they had known. He taught them about a God who recognized their imperfection and wrong behavior (“sin”) but who, rather than condemn them for failing to achieve perfection, offered them eternal paradise as a gift simply because he loved them. And he taught that those who accepted this gift (“salvation”) were to then show their gratitude through their behavior toward God and others. Thus, he gave the traditional behavior-blessing-gratitude sequence a radical reordering, with the new sequence being blessing-gratitude-behavior. The new model presented to Jesus’ followers no longer required a certain standard of behavior for people to be accepted by God. They could come to him just as they were, with their faults, problems, addictions, wrecked lives, pride, conceit, etc. and receive an offer of complete forgiveness and an eternity of bliss. And, as God healed their minds and spirits, their behaviors would reflect their gratitude.

The majority of first century Jewish leaders rejected Jesus’ teaching. They found the idea that people were unable to somehow earn God’s favor insulting. They also objected to Jesus’ attention and devotion the poor and downtrodden. The religious leaders of the day held firmly to the belief that wealth was an indicator of a life well lived and a direct blessing from God (this belief correlated nicely with the fact that most of them were relatively wealthy). Prosperity was a blessing, but not undeserved. Follow the rules and God will pour out riches upon you. Don’t follow the rules, and you’ll likely end up in poverty. The proof of this concept? I’m a good person, I’m wealthy, and others are not.

For a long time, followers of Jesus and his teachings believed and adhered to the sequence of blessing-gratitude-behavior. And their behavior was so exemplary that even those who rejected Jesus and viewed the early Christians as a ridiculously radical offshoot of Judaism were impressed. Secular historians recorded extraordinary acts of generosity and self-sacrifice, both toward fellow Christians and non-Christians. When plagues struck Rome, healthy citizens escaped to the countryside, leaving the sick to die alone. On their way out of the city, they met Christians rushing into the city to care for the sick at the risk of their own lives. Christians who possessed wealth shared it freely with others in need. All of these things were done out of a sense of gratitude for the blessings (and particularly the greatest blessing, that of salvation and eternity in paradise) already received from God.

But there are some legitimate questions about people’s circumstances in this life that none of this quite answers. For example, is it wrong to be wealthy? Are those who enjoy prosperity not blessed by God? Is money really the root of all evil? If I follow “the rules” and try hard to be good, why wouldn’t God bless me? I feel blessed to have all the things I have; is there something wrong with that? Are we to think that money is bad, and God likes poor people better than rich people (that sounds ridiculous)? I know some Bible stories – King David and Solomon and others were really wealthy; doesn’t the Bible say they were blessed with wealth? Good questions! Here are some responses:

• ·       Yes, every good thing in this life, including life itself, is a blessing from God. That includes health, family, relationships, and everything we possess.
• ·       No, it is not wrong to be wealthy. But wealth demands answers to two questions: (1) How did you become wealthy? [implication: if by mistreating others, your wealth is illegitimate], and (2) What are you doing with your wealth [implication: if you are not truly generous to others, your wealth is being misused]
• ·       No, money is not the root of all evil. It seems that in 21st century America the pendulum has swung from the first century idea of wealth as an indicator of God’s favor (“I’m wealthy, that means I’m a good person”) to the opposite idea that wealth is an indicator that one does not deserve God’s favor (I’m wealthy, therefore I’m despicable). This extreme swing is evidenced by the vehement dislike expressed toward those who are wealthy (often referred to as “the one percent”).
• ·       The root of all evil referred to in the Bible is “the love of money.” Simply put, this applies to those who are more dedicated to money/possessions/status/stuff than to God or their fellow human beings. The label of “evil” applies based on attitude toward possessions, whether a person’s net worth is $2000 or $200,000 or $200,000,000.
• ·       No, there is not a linear or “one for one” relationship between the “godliness” of people’s lives and their wealth. There are myriad examples of godly but poor people, godly rich people, ungodly poor people, and ungodly rich people. And there is no promise that trying to live a godly life will guarantee prosperity.

Over the centuries, the original teachings of Jesus have often been misinterpreted, misquoted, twisted, or simply ignored in favor of other philosophies and theologies. One of the most dangerous of these distortions in modern times is what is called “prosperity theology.” This is a type of heresy that teaches there is a direct relationship between people’s belief/commitment to God and the material blessings they receive. It is often presented under the guise of supposed dedication of one’s life to God with an expectation of substantial wealth as a reward. As one might expect from the charlatans who preach this concept, one’s expectation of wealth (“name it and claim it”) can often be enhanced by contributing financially to the church in which this falsehood is taught.

Simply put, prosperity theology is not Christian, is not Biblical, and does not work. It is used to prey upon people with a hunger for wealth and an ignorance of Scripture, often to benefit so-called pastors who live sumptuous life styles at the expense of their parishioners or contributors. If you have been tempted by the principles of prosperity theology, or if you know someone who has, please consume the antidote – careful Bible study, with particular attention to what Jesus actually said and did, accompanied by a prayerful request for understanding of the truth he taught and demonstrated.

Oh, and one final thought. I do have quite a bit of ‘stuff’ ... so is that a blessing? Sure, in a sense. But it is also a responsibility that demands answers to the two questions noted above: (1) How did you become wealthy? and (2) What are you doing with your wealth?

I’m not telling. J

The incarnation

Christianity rests on three principle tenets: (1) Because God loves, he came to earth as a human, (2) He [Jesus] gave his life as the price of offering people forgiveness, (3) He came back to life, and will gather his followers to eternal paradise. Myriad doctrines and theological positions exist within the Christian faith, many of which are arguable, but to rightly identify as a Christian, these points are non-negotiable. [These also provide a useful contrast to Islam, which specifically denies all three, but that is another topic].

The event in which God came to earth as a human is called the incarnation (not to be confused with reincarnation, the idea that dead people’s spirits return for additional lives as other people or animals). For many centuries prior to Jesus’ birth, the Jewish people had looked forward to the messiah/savior/liberator promised in their sacred scriptures (the Bible’s  “Old Testament”). Although their scriptures said the messiah would save people from their sins, the Jews living at the time of Christ hoped he would free them from Roman rule and re-establish their theocracy. This was not his purpose, and he explicitly said so [John 18:36].

The story of the incarnation -– of God coming to earth/becoming one of us/being a human – is told in various ways. At Christmas, churches around the world celebrate the birth of Jesus through songs, sermons, and reenactments complete with angels, shepherds, and three wise men from the East (we’ll ignore for now the fact that December 25 was almost certainly not Jesus’ birthday, and the ‘three wise men’ were an unknown number of astrologers who visited many months later). Congregants sing “Away in the Manger’ as they envision his birth. We picture him as a baby in a little crib filled with straw, and with all the usual appeal of babies ... cute, cuddly, innocent, and already exceptional (“no crying he makes ....).

At Christmas, we are encouraged to recognize the great sacrifice God made in coming to earth not as a king or a mighty leader, but in the humble form of a human baby. True, the Son of God chose to trade the glory, majesty, and power of heaven to live as a human (incarnate), an exercise in love and humility that should leave us in absolute awe. But he did not become human the day he was born of Mary. The incarnation actually took place nine months earlier when, as an angel had predicted, the virgin Mary became pregnant [Matthew 1:18-21, Luke 1:30-31]. God initially came not as a baby but as the fertilized egg in Mary's womb. He shared our humanity to the extent that he began at the very beginning of human life, just like we did.

The incarnation is a miracle of even greater proportion than that of a baby born to a virgin. It was God’s way of showing his total commitment to becoming like us, to face all we face and more, to lower himself to our most humble and helpless level. This adds another dimension to our appreciation of how far God was willing to go to connect with our humanity. And, although we hardly expect “Away in the Manger” to be replaced by “He came as a Fetus”, the stark facts of his incarnation have implications regarding how his followers should view abortion.

Social, Capital or Communal?

Recent political discussions (including many for which the word ‘discussion’ implies a degree of civility and willingness to listen that is non-existent) include arguments for or against socialism or capitalism as a preferred system. The opinions voiced often fall short not only in politeness, but also in clarity and logic. In addition, many pundits seem to lack an understanding of the basic types of systems, or the differences between economic and political systems.

Three Contrasting Systems:

Productive debate depends on agreement about the meaning of the terms used. For this article, the following definitions will apply (source: the Oxford Dictionary):

·       Socialism -- A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole; (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism.

·       Communism -- A theory or system of social organization in which all property is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs.

·       Capitalism -- An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

It is important to note that not only do these three systems differ in how they treat certain aspects of a community/group/country, but in the scope of their respective definitions. For example:

Communism involves a system that disallows private ownership of property in an attempt to ensure production based on ability and distribution based on need. The classic view of communism does not specify a governmental structure, but assumes one that implements its principles with fairness.

Socialism allows for private ownership of property as long as the property involved in economic matters is controlled by the community/group/country (usually, via a central government). Like communism, it does not specify a governmental structure, but assumes a mechanism that manages the public ownership/regulation of the economy.

Capitalism, in its purest sense, excludes community/group/country ownership or control of economics in favor of private ownership and a profit motive. It does not specify a governmental structure, but implies that whatever government exists does not interfere in economic matters.

Critique of Each System:

Each of these economic systems has serious shortcomings, due primarily either to false assumptions about human nature, or touting an appealing economic theory while ignoring the realities of human behavior. The respective systems’ flaws include:

Communism – This system makes two seriously faulty assumptions of theory, and adds a third in practical implementation:

(1) The principle “from each according to his ability” assumes workers self-motivation based on a non-selfish dedication to the good of all members of the community/group/country. Unfortunately, it ignores a basic trait of humans ... self-interest. People are naturally selfish (to verify this, observe a group of toddlers ‘sharing’ toys), and benefit to self is their natural primary motivation.

(2) The corresponding principle “to each according to his need” follows the same false assumption regarding human nature. Only if people subvert their self-interest to the good of the community/group/country will they be satisfied with only their “fair share” of the available wealth.

(3) When communism is actually adopted, a third shortcoming is encountered. The governmental structure put in place is assumed to be one that will manage the public ownership of property in the best interest of the populace. This implies fairness, efficiency, and commitment to equitable treatment of all members of the community/group/country. In reality, every large scale attempt to implement communism has proven disastrous in terms of economic productivity, societal advancement, and human rights. **

** Because implementation of communism requires a uniform commitment to the good of the group that outweighs the members’ natural self-interest, the system has generally proven unable to attain and sustain success. Notable exceptions are relatively small groups, usually those whose shared religious beliefs are sufficient to subdue individual’s self-interest. Examples in the U.S. include Iowa’s early 20th century Amana colonies, and the upper Midwest’s Hutterite colonies.

Socialism – This system stands on its own, despite Marxist’s insistence that it inevitably leads to communism (an idea negated by real history). Some observations about the socialist system:

(1) Socialism is not as inherently flawed as communism, namely because it does not often advocate the same degree of central ownership and control of the various facets of the economy. When analyzing socialism, one must recognize the term can be applied to an extremely broad spectrum ranging from that of dominant private ownership and minimal governmental control, to dominant public ownership and extensive governmental control.

(2) Socialistic systems are probably best viewed as a continuum stretching from minimal to maximum ownership/regulation of facets of the economy. The farther the system moves along this continuum, the more it begins to face the same three shortcomings exhibited by communism. That is, it runs afoul of human nature in the areas of motivation, self-interest, and equitable governance. Increased governmental authority equates to increased likelihood of undesirable results in the same three areas.

(3) In a practical sense, most systems described as capitalistic are, in fact, a blend of capitalism and socialism (more on this later).

Capitalism – This system, like communism and socialism, has embedded in its structure certain flaws or faulty assumptions which, when the system is implemented, become apparent. The primarily issues include:

(1) Perhaps the strongest attribute of capitalism, its ability to motivate, is closely related to one of its key weaknesses. The profit motive appeals to the self-interest of individuals; this aligns with human nature. Private ownership of many aspects of the economy offers financial rewards that motivate people toward the levels of effort and risk-taking that generate high levels of production and innovation. Unfortunately, self-interest - the same human attribute that prompts a high level of motivation – too often engenders disregard for others and an attitude best described as greed.

(2) One modern aspect of capitalism has simultaneously fostered the greatest economic advances in history and a great imbalance in wealth (probably not the greatest imbalance ever, but still very significant). This is the invention of business structures (trading companies, stock companies, and more recently corporations) which allow individual investors to combine their capital to form large, economically powerful organizations. The positive aspect of these mechanisms is the ability to fund businesses far beyond the scope of individuals (which of us could fund General Motors or Google?) which then possess the resources to produce more and better goods and services. The negative aspect is that the financial rewards of these organizations accrue only, or at least primarily, to those who are in some way part of them, e.g. a stockholder, employee, or manager.

(3) If left unregulated, there is nothing inherent in capitalism that commands the attention of business other than the profit motive. Free and unfettered capitalist organizations focus on the good of the entire community/group/country/world only to the extent that the stakeholders (in particular, board members and management) wish to do so. The history of modern business is replete with examples of enterprises which, in their pursuit of profit alone, exploited their employees, their communities, and the environment.

Some Conclustions:

1. Each of the three economic systems discussed above, even if theoretically advantageous, carries within it one or more “fatal flaws” which, if left unchecked, work to the detriment of the broader community/group/country/world.

2. Though one hardly expects this to be covered in economic texts or classes, the common denominator of all three systems is their vulnerability to a single human trait – self-interest (aka selfishness, aka greed). The individual’s natural tendency to place self above others, which honesty requires us to recognize as universal, may be the greatest economic challenge in any system.

3. Communism and socialism are closely related, share the same weakness in terms of incompatibility with the reality of human motivation, and vary principally in the degree to which the theories are at variance with reality.

4. There is reason to believe that capitalism best leverages people’s natural drive, and that the profit motive is compatible with their self-interest. But left unregulated, there is no reason to believe capitalism will act for the greater good of the community/group/country/world.

5. The description of America as a capitalist country is only partially accurate. Ownership of economic production is primarily private. But in most types of businesses, government is highly involved both as a regulator and, in some areas, an owner or investor. Government also exerts control over many businesses in its role as the largest consumer of goods and services.

6. A realistic appraisal of human nature leads to the conclusion that both unregulated capitalism and either communism or complete socialism will undoubtedly fail to maximize the potential and well-being of the populace. Unrestrained capitalism will exploit them; communism/socialism will de-motivate them. The reasonable answer is a blend of regulated capitalism (to leverage natural self-interest) and very limited socialism (to avoid destroying the motivation of natural self-interest).

7. Business should in most instances be privately owned and financed, but regulated to an extent that will (a) retain financial rewards that appeal to their stakeholders’ self-interest, and (b) hold in check the stakeholders’ natural greed.

8. Arguments framed in an “either/or” view, and favoring either unregulated capitalism or full socialism as “the solution” ignore the reality of human nature and the role of self-interest both as a positive and a negative. The issue is not one of “either/or” but of balance. The optimal blend of capitalism and “conservative socialism” (via regulation) will sync with the realities of human behavior, and thereby best serve the members of the community/group/country/world.

A final comment: I have chosen not to address “democratic socialism” because it is not an economic theory. It is instead an imagined hybrid of an economic theory and a type of political system. As such, it merely obfuscates the discussion of capitalism and socialism.

Rich vs Poor?

We live in a society saturated with disagreement and division on many topics, one of which is the supposed dichotomy of rich versus poor. One end of the political spectrum accuses those who are “successful” (using a very narrow but common definition based only on monetary measures) of greed, exploitation, and more. Those on the opposing extreme accuse the “unsuccessful” of laziness, graft, and worse. Each group views the other as engaged in a type of thievery, leveraging the political-economic system to take what is not rightfully theirs.

Certainly, there are among both the “successful” and the “unsuccessful” those who are of less than admirable character (we’ll refer to them as jerks, though some would no doubt prefer a much stronger term). There are rich jerks, and there are poor jerks, though each group asserts that the other has a much higher incidence of “jerkism.”  Envy plays a part in this type of labeling, as does a reciprocal lack of empathy. The situation is exacerbated by politicians and others who retain power by playing the two ends of the economic scale against each other.

I do not expect a brief essay can solve this issue, but will suggest three questions that I believe are applicable across the economic spectrum. Rich and poor alike, and all in between, would do well to ask themselves (and answer honestly) these simple questions:

Question 1 – Do you obtain your income/wealth in ways that are thoroughly honest, honorable, and ethical?

For those deemed “successful” the question might focus on areas such as strictly ethical business practices, fair treatment of employees, recognition and reward of others’ contributions, and avoidance of products or services that, simply put, do not make the world a better place.

For those less “successful” the question has other implications. Some are apparent (e.g., not stealing from or otherwise cheating employers, utilizing public or private assistance honestly and only as needed, etc.). Others are less obvious and more challenging (e.g., developing a work ethic, or committing to the training or education required to increase skills, knowledge, and earning power).

Irrespective of one’s position on the economic continuum, society is justified in expecting each individual to adhere to common ethical standards that exclude dishonest means of acquiring income/wealth (in other words, don’t be a jerk).

Question 2 – Do you recognize that you obtain your income/wealth through skills, abilities, and opportunities for which you are indebted to others?

This question is particularly appropriate for “successful” persons who attribute their success to their own intelligence, knowledge, self-discipline, personality, etc.  Too often, “successful” people sees themselves as ‘self-made men’ (or women) and avoid pertinent issues like the following:

Who helped you develop your self-discipline and work ethic? Who contributed to your formal and informal education? Who provided the opportunities you used to become successful? What do you really know that you did not learn from someone else? You did not create yourself or the entirety of your circumstances, so don’t pretend that you did (in other words, don’t be a jerk).

Question 3 – To what extent do you use your income/wealth for the benefit of others?

It is currently popular to rail against those at the top of the economic scale, to characterize the wealthy as somehow unfairly privileged, or even as evil usurpers (unfortunately, plain old envy rising to the surface, which is why the definition of “too rich” is always applied to those with significantly more than I have). But the appropriate response to the reality of uneven wealth is not “Shame on you for having more than I have.” Instead, the question that should be applied is “For what worthwhile purpose(s) are you using the wealth you have been fortunate enough to acquire?”

Posing this question to multi-millionaires might be a popular idea, but we should not limit its application to the super-wealthy. It is absolutely fair to ask this question of every individual who has the ability and opportunity to obtain income/wealth beyond a minimal subsistence level (including the vast majority of Americans). It is fair and reasonable to confront wealthy individuals about their stewardship practices, and even to insist the wealth they control is not primarily intended for their self-gratification (in other words, don’t be a jerk).

In summary, wealth is not evidence of a character defect or unprincipled behavior. It is instead a weighty responsibility entrusted to the care of those who possess it. They have an obligation to use it wisely and generously, with a commitment to “make the world a better place.”

p.s. for those interested, consider the following from book of Proverbs: Prov. 10:4, 11:1, 12:11, 14:23, 16:19, 19:17, 20:10, 21:13, 22:2, 22:22, 29:13, 31:8-9.

Unintended Consequences: Wealth Inequality and the War on Poverty

In the USA, economic inequality has in recent years found a place in the spotlight of public discourse. As with other issues, politicians have fanned the flames of contention to the point that civil discussion and polite disagreement are virtually nonexistent. Instead, those loyal to leftist ideology rant against holders of wealth, portraying them as undeserving pariahs whose economic status is due purely to unfair white privilege. [see footnote 1]

Many adamant conservatives, on the other hand, argue that welfare rolls are filled with those who choose not to support themselves, and antipoverty programs simply perpetuate lives of irresponsibility. Thus, those receiving government assistance, not the wealthy, are the real pariahs of society. Each side is certain they are right, and neither seems interested in finding common ground.

The idea that wealthy people are bad people and enemies of the poor has a good deal of appeal; consider the popularity of the phrase “the one percent” and the Occupy movement’s slogan “We are the other 99%.”. Dividing the citizenry neatly into just two categories, the haves and the have-nots, conveniently enables politicians to gain power by appealing to one group or the other. Of course, criticizing the greedy rich works as long as we ignore those below us on the economic scale, compared to whom we may be the rich. For an eye-opening perspective on this, visit the website globalrichlist.com. [see footnote 2]

The argument between leftists and staunch conservatives will no doubt continue, with each side convinced the other is misinformed, ill-intentioned, or plain stupid. However, it may be instructive to reflect on the country’s experience with governmental antipoverty efforts, particularly federal programs, in an attempt to understand some of their actual effects.

One can argue that modern federal antipoverty programs are an outgrowth of the War on Poverty initiated by Lyndon Johnson in 1964. Estimates of spending on such programs in the years since then range from about $12 trillion (CATO Institute estimate) to as high as $22 trillion (Heritage Foundation estimate). Using the lower number, which averages $226 billion per year, we can estimate federal antipoverty spending amounting to $1490 per year for every man, woman and child ($12 trillion divided by average population 1964-2016 of 152 million, divided by 53 years). With the Census Bureau estimating 14.5% of the population still living in poverty, it seems reasonable to conclude that 53 years of antipoverty spending has been less than successful. The liberal response to this observation may be that we have not spent nearly enough to solve the problem, while the conservative reaction asserts we have wasted trillions of dollars. Meanwhile, some leftists think in terms of a systemic change: redistribution of wealth to correct what they see as the injustices of “income inequality” and/or “wealth inequality” (note the use of equal rather than equitable).

While liberals, conservatives, and leftists argue about how to solve the poverty problem (assuming it can be solved), I suggest we consider what can be described as the unintended consequences of the War on Poverty: how trillions of dollars of spending aimed at mitigating disparities in income and/or wealth, even if well-intentioned, may in some ways have actually exacerbated the issue. What follows is an attempt to describe step by step how this occurs.

1. The federal government decides to spend billions of dollars on antipoverty programs. This spending must be financed one of three ways: tax, borrow, or increase the money supply (the last option is controlled by the Federal Reserve, which leads to the question of whether it’s a good idea for key drivers of the economy, such as money supply and interest rates, to be controlled by a group of bankers rather than directly by the federal government, but that’s another topic ....).

2. Since the federal government has a penchant for deficit spending and is hesitant to raise taxes, the spending is financed through borrowing. The primary means of doing this is by issuing government bonds (there are other ways, such as, raiding the social security trust fund, which Congress has already done to the tune of about $2.8 trillion, but that’s another topic....). Whoever wants to loan money to the government does so by buying bonds.

3. Per research by the Independent Institute, U.S. citizens and their institutions currently hold about one third, or $6 ½ trillion in federal debt. That is, they have loaned that amount to the government. When we talk about people’s wealth or the value of their assets, government bonds are included, and interest earned on the bonds is income.

4. The more debt the government owes, the larger the amount it must pay in interest on the borrowed money. This means a greater share of its budget must be used to pay interest on the national debt, making that money unavailable for any other purpose, including antipoverty spending.

5. As with any borrower-lender transaction, the interest rate on federal bonds is determined by two factors: (1) the level of risk that the borrower will default and not pay back the money borrowed (fortunately, this is viewed as very low for the federal government; after all, there is always the option of increasing the money supply to provide funds for loan payments), and (2) supply versus demand for the bonds, i.e. the amount people want to loan to the government compared to how much it needs to borrow at any given time. If supply is relatively great, interest rates remain low.

6. Now, here comes a wild card; stick with me. In recent years, the Federal Reserve has become a larger lender of money to the federal government, currently holding about $2.5 trillion in US bonds. The fed has ostensibly bought bonds to stimulate the economy (another topic for another day ....). This action, plus the Fed's policy of keeping interest rates at historic lows, results in low-interest rates for US bonds. This is good for the federal budget, but not for the bondholder.

7. The lower the interest rate on bonds, the more investors seek higher returns elsewhere. The most common alternative is investing in equities (stocks and mutual funds). Thus, low bond yields drive money out of the bond market and into the stock market, and a surplus of money in the stock market then drives stock prices up. It is important to note that stock prices are not determined purely by companies’ performance, but also by the supply and demand effect of the amount of money being invested in the total stock market.

8. When the stock market rises, the value of the stocks (which is really just a number on paper or in a computer somewhere) owned by individual and institutions increases. Thus, the wealth of those who own the stocks increases, and the gap between rich and poor increases based on the move in stock prices. This does not mean owners of the stocks have any more money available to them, unless and until they sell their stock.

9. Money that could be invested is called capital. Having capital is seen as a good thing, though the objective of those who have capital is to invest it for a return; that is, to put it to work to earn more. Because the stock market is inherently risky (stock prices could plunge overnight, and have), bonds are a much safer investment. But, as mentioned, low bond returns force money toward the stock market, which inflates stock prices and therefore inflates stock owners’ wealth. Amassing capital is of limited benefit if it cannot produce a reasonable return.

10. The end result of this chain of events is that deficit spending by the federal government leads to borrowing, which increases bond sales and interest expense. The dollar amount of bonds held by those who loan to the government are included in the lenders’ wealth. Low-interest rates drive money to the stock market, inflate stock prices, and increase the stock owners’ wealth. Thus, the wealth of bond and stockholders (again, a number on paper or in a computer) increases, and the numbers tell us the gap between rich and poor has again increased.

Some final thoughts:

1. I am not at all suggesting that the financial effect of deficit spending is unique to money spent on antipoverty programs. In fact, the effect is identical for any and all deficit spending (for example, to fund war .... another topic .... sigh). I will leave it to those who think economics is a science to ferret out the best course of action Congress could take (not that they will) for the long-term health of the economy and reduction of poverty.

2. Discussion of poverty and potential solutions involves both economic and moral issues. The solution is not elimination of government efforts to aid the poor, though continuation of past practices does not appear likely to produce a successful result. The continuing problem of poverty in the U.S. may, in fact, be due as much or more to social and cultural issues (e.g., disintegration of the traditional family) as to economic ones. What is certain is that approaching the issue with political prejudice and animosity does not help.

Footnote 1: Success (by the world’s definition) requires two things: capability and ambition. Capability comes from a combination of ability to learn, willingness to learn, and opportunity to learn. There is a grain of truth in the ‘privilege’ argument, white or otherwise, as most who succeed economically have an upbringing that values education and engenders the ambition required to put their capabilities to work.

Footnote 2 (to Christians): The Bible never suggests that wealth is wrong, nor does it suggest everyone should have equal wealth. It does condemn acquisition of wealth by sinful means. It also says a lot about the responsibility of the wealthy to care for those who cannot provide for themselves (Scripture often uses the examples of widows and orphans as representative of persons who in the context of the time were typically left destitute).

Church Worship Music

Revised 06 April 2018

Why this blog topic?

Hopefully, what follows will lead the reader toward some understanding of my motivation in writing on the subject “Church Worship Music.” Music is an integral part of Christian worship that ought to unify the body of Christ. However, in our time it has become a divisive issue, primarily due to differing views on whether churches ought to use worship music that is “traditional” versus “contemporary” [rather misleading terms that actually foment disagreement; more on this later]. The subject is important and deserves attention, but difficult to discuss without reverting to positions of personal preference or mere tradition.

Disclaimer:

There is no such thing as a totally objective person. We all have biases, and to help you understand mine, here is a bit of insight into my background:

I was raised in a home that had a collection of 33 1/3 long play records of classical music (not hi-fi and a bit scratchy, but better than Edison’s cylinders). Our family regularly attended weekly church services that included hymn singing, and we kids took piano lessons. Rock music, in its early stages at the time, was not allowed in our home, but I did hear it elsewhere. While in university I acquired a modicum of musical education, and subsequently taught vocal music and served as a church choir director.

I have been privileged to attend many church services and concerts that included exemplary sacred music, and have been moved to tears by the ethereal beauty of European cathedral choirs, but have never been to a rock concert. I readily admit to a bias in favor of classical music and hymns but also appreciate other (though not all) types of music.

Music and talent

Music and musical talent are gifts from God. The ability to create and perform music, like other talents, is not equally distributed and requires training and practice to develop fully. Musical ability, like that of athletics, science, math, linguistics, or other fields is morally neutral and can be used for godly or ungodly purposes. High-quality music performed well affects the listener as well as the performer, and has great value:

Music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy. –- Ludwig van Beethoven

Music is the shorthand of emotion. –- Leo Tolstoy

Music is life itself. What would this world be without good music? No matter what kind it is. -- Louis Armstrong

Next to the Word of God, the noble art of music is the greatest treasure in the world. – Martin Luther

Music is a safe kind of high. -– Jimi Hendrix

Assumptions of the modern church:

In a relatively short period of time, America has experienced a sea change in church music. Many thousands of congregations now offer “contemporary services” usually characterized by minimal use of creeds and formal liturgy and replacing hymn singing with worship music, often accompanied by a “praise band.” Typically, the “praise band” appears on a platform at the front of the church space near screens that project only the lyrics of the songs sung.

These churches have made wholesale changes to their music and liturgy in an effort to remain relevant in a society that is largely ignorant of traditional church music and often treats the church as just another consumer product. Though not overtly stated, the decision to abandon “traditional” services in favor of “contemporary worship” often implies at least some of the following assumptions, which are worth pondering (I’ll offer responses to some later):

Worship music is a tool to attract people to church.

The unchurched will not like or respond to hymns or other traditional church music.

Any style of music is as valid for worship as any other style of music.

Younger people prefer pop-rock music, so it must be used to attract them to church.

The guitar is a suitable instrument to accompany singing by a large group.

People uneducated in music are unwilling or unable to learn about it.

The theology contained in traditional hymns has little to offer the modern church.

We cannot judge what types of music are “good” because music is purely a matter of individual preference.

Church growth should focus on young people, so others must adapt their musical tastes.

In nearly any field we should accept the advice of people educated or trained in that field, but church music is an exception.

Hymns are out of date and good ones are no longer being written.

People can be effectively taught new songs by singing along when the words (without notes) are projected on a screen.

The church has no role or responsibility in educating its people about what constitutes good music.

Worship and worship music

There is a problem with terminology in the modern church. Song leaders are called worship leaders (there is even a magazine titled Worship Leader), and time spent performing praise songs is referred to as worship time. When the keyboards and guitars begin to introduce the worship time congregants are urged by song leaders to “stand and worship” as if the part of the service preceding the time of singing was not worship.

Using the term worship to describe only the praise song portion of a church service obfuscates its true meaning. Worship is not limited to a time of singing, and in fact, extends far beyond the church service. The Apostle Paul saw this clearly when he wrote, “Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship.” (Romans 12:1). We can worship when pray, read Scripture, listen attentively to a choir or to a sermon, take communion, or act in accordance with His will during the week.

One of the principal ways we worship is through music, as these quotes confirm:

We should praise God with both word and music, namely by proclaiming [the Word of God] through music. He who believes earnestly cannot be quiet about it. But he must gladly and willingly sing and speak about it so that others may come and hear it. And whoever does not want to sing and speak of it shows that he does not believe it. – Martin Luther

The aim and final end of all music should be none other than the glory of God and the refreshment of the soul. – J S Bach

Worship [music] is a vehicle to open our hearts to God and respond to what He’s saying to us. -- Dave Bilbrough, worship leader and songwriter

Music is not intended to entertain, but rather to speak to the heart in preparation for the message from God's Word, to bring people to the place of decision. -- Bible Baptist Church, Brandon, Manitoba

Finally, as Dave Bilbrough reminds us, “Worship is not just what we do on Sunday, but is the outworking of our relationship with God.”

Singing

Singing, with an emphasis on melody and a purpose of praising God, is not a suggestion but a command throughout the Scriptures:

Psalm 9:2 -- I will be glad and rejoice in you; I will sing the praises of your name, O Most High.

Psalm 21:13 -- Be exalted in your strength, Lord; we will sing and praise your might.

Psalm 28:7 –- The Lord is my strength and my shield; my heart trusts in him, and he helps me. My heart leaps for joy, and with my song I praise him.

Psalm 33:2-3 -- Praise the Lord with the harp; make music to him on the ten-stringed lyre. Sing to him a new song; play skillfully, and shout for joy.

Psalm 95:2 -- Let us come before him with thanksgiving and extol him with music and song.

Psalm 98:4-5 -- Shout for joy to the Lord, all the earth, burst into jubilant song with music; make music to the Lord with the harp, with the harp and the sound of singing.

Isaiah 23:16 (ESV) -- Take a harp; go about the city, O forgotten prostitute [Israel]! Make sweet melody; sing many songs, that you may be remembered.

Isaiah 51:3 -– The Lord will surely comfort Zion and will look with compassion on all her ruins; he will make her deserts like Eden, her wastelands like the garden of the Lord. Joy and gladness will be found in her, thanksgiving and the sound of singing.

Ephesians 5:18b-19 -- ... be filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another with psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit. Sing and make music from your heart to the Lord,

Colossians 3:16 -- Let the message of Christ dwell among you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom through psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit, singing to God with gratitude in your hearts.

Hebrews 2:12 -- I will tell of your name to my brothers; in the midst of the congregation I will sing your praise.

Focus/Subject matter

The focus of all church music should be God alone. He should be the audience we are trying to please, rather than ourselves. Our singing should reflect our thankfulness, but should also acknowledge our reliance on Him as we endure life’s struggles, trials and temptations (as do the Psalms, 70% of which are estimated to come under the content of laments). The following quotes express these ideas plainly:

Make music to please God alone. We get caught up in whether music will appeal to the congregation, visitors, or folks we are trying to get to join the church. Focus on what God likes, that which is excellent in His perfect will and the rest will work out. -- Bible Baptist Church, Brandon, Manitoba [edited]

If worship is a response to God’s love, we need to remember what God’s love has done for us. - Nick Page, composer, conductor, and author

Honesty and truth-telling are vital because it helps us heal, helps us connect, makes us human instead of masked pretenders. One person’s honest story can be the medicine for another. To skip out on lament like we find in the Psalms is not only a great disservice but harmful to the human soul. -- Lisa Gungor, Christian songwriter and musician

The psalmist is brutally honest about the explosive joy that he’s feeling and the deep sorrow or confusion. And I often think, Gosh, well, why isn’t church music more like that? -- Bono, musician and lead vocalist of U2

A church that goes on singing happy songs in the face of raw reality is doing something very different from what the Bible does. -- Walter Brueggemann, O.T. scholar and theologian

If I’ve got non-Christian friends coming to church, I’d far rather give them four verses of comparatively heavy theology with some theological words which explain the Gospel, than give them twenty repeated words that could be said about your pet horse or your girlfriend. -- Keith Getty, contemporary hymn writer

Musical styles

Perhaps more than other any aspect of the church service, the question of what style of music to use can prompt disagreements or complaints and an unwillingness to compromise. Some people have strong likes and dislikes regarding church music, and their response to music they don’t like can be less than subtle. The following anecdote is an example of one person’s reaction to musical style in church:

When church music directors lead congregations in singing contemporary Christian music, I often listen stoically with teeth clenched. But one Sunday morning, I cracked. We'd been led through endless repetitions of a meaningless ditty called "Draw Me Close to You," which has zero theological content and could just as easily be sung in any nightclub. When I thought it was finally and mercifully over, the music leader beamed. "Let's sing that again, shall we?" he asked. "No!" I shouted, loudly enough to send heads all around me spinning while my wife, Patty, cringed. -- Charles Colson

To begin with, it is important to recognize several facts:

(1) A variety of musical styles is suitable for worship; there is not just one specific type that enables people to truly worship God.

(2) One person may sincerely worship through music of one style, while another is better able to worship using a different style.

(3) Many longtime church attendees are accustomed to, highly value, and dearly miss singing traditional hymns. In churches that use contemporary music, they often feel their church does not care about their desire to sing hymns.

(4) Some sacred music considered over time to be of excellent quality is likely better appreciated if the listener is musically educated. Without implying anything negative about people lacking musical training, there may be a parallel here to Paul’s comments regarding believers’ differing levels of understanding:

I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. – I Corinthians 3:2

(5) Many interpret Christian freedom to include the right to choose whatever type of worship music the individual prefers. As Henry David Thoreau said, though perhaps not meaning ‘drummer’ literally, “If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away.”

(6) Musical ability is amoral, but musical forms and styles are not. Characteristics of some music styles are more likely to foster or hinder an atmosphere of reverent worship than those found in other types of music. Even if a broad variety of music is permissible in church, we should not assume all are of equal value. Some will want to argue this point by citing exceptions, but they do not negate the general rule. This brings to mind another observation made by Paul:

All things are lawful, but not all things are helpful. All things are lawful, but not all things build up. -- I Corinthians 10:23

 (7) The primary objectives of the church should include honoring God, saving souls, and building up the body of Christ. This sometimes means subordinating personal preferences to the greater good. Those who feel imposed upon by a style not to their liking may want to consider what Paul wrote to the Philippians:

But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice. Yes, and I will continue to rejoice. –- Philippians 1:18 [here he was talking about preaching, but the same may apply to music]

Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others. –- Philippians 2:3b-4

The argument has been made that music cannot be categorized as sacred or secular; all music can be used for either purpose, provided the lyrics (words) fit the intended purpose. In a sense, saying all types of music can be sacred is like saying all styles of clothing can be sacred. Prescribing a single style of dress for church wear is hardly Biblical, yet even those who attend services in casual clothing tend to view some types of attire as inappropriate in church. As with clothing styles, the question we should ask regarding musical styles is:

Do styles exist in the world that do not fully honor God, and if so, to what degree should the church allow the fashions and fads of the world to influence what is accepted in the worship service? (see Romans 12:2)

Depending on the type of music one is accustomed to and enjoys, this question may seem provincial or legalistic. If that is one’s reaction, I suggest a follow-up question:

What characteristics of this musical style make it well-suited to honoring God?

Music Quality

As expressed in these Scriptural passages, we owe God our absolute best in all we do, including music:

You must present as the Lord’s portion the best and holiest part of everything given to you. – Numbers 18:29

... play skillfully on the strings .—Psalm 33:3b

Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things. – Philippians 4:8

I do not have information on the authors of the following comments (were the speakers short of fortitude? afraid of the worship leader?), but they certainly did not hold back on their criticism, though it may be at least partly deserved:

Modern Christian worship music is often mediocre, repeating the same four chords and expected words, using jargon not understood by those new to the faith. -– source unknown

Lyrics should be clear and meaningful and increase mindfulness of worship. Repetition and filler words (oh, oh, oh ... yes, yes, yes ... woahahoaha, etc.) focus on personal feeling and disengage the mind. -- source unknown

Although some repetition may serve a purpose, so many contemporary songs are overly repetitive that worshippers consider this normal. But would well-known hymns be better if they were re-written to include similar repetition? For example:

Amazing grace! How sweet the sound,

How sweet the sound, how sweet the sound, how sweet the sound

That saved a wretch like me!

I once was lost, but now am found;

Was blind, but now I see, now I see, now I see.

’Twas grace that taught my heart to fear,

And grace my fears relieved;

How precious did that grace appear

The hour I first believed! The hour I first believed! The hour I first believed! The hour I first believed! The hour I first believed! The hour I first believed!

Many so-called praise songs or worship songs are, musically, at about a junior high level. It is no more appropriate for the musically untrained to expect these songs to be predominant in a church service than it would be for the musically trained to insist on nothing but Bach chorales. -– source unknown

Consider the following comments from sources that seem to agree that much “worship music” is of mediocre quality,

How do you understand what good Christian music is? It ought to sound different from the rock station, the easy listening station, the entertainment music. When we sing gospel songs in the good old-fashioned way, they don’t sound like anything that the world sings. That’s the way we need to keep it. We can never speak of the love of God with ... bad music, the majesty of God with low-class music, the power of God with puny music, the wisdom of God with stupid music, the holiness of God with unholy music. -- Alan Ives (former rock’n’roller)

If you want to write a song about the romantic feelings you have for a gal, do it. If you want to write about Jesus, do it. But if you try to write a song that might be about Jesus or might be about romance, then you’ll end up with a worse Jesus song than other Jesus songs, and a worse romantic song than other romantic songs. – (Bobby Gilles, songwriter, and pastor, Sojourn Community Church)

Criteria for Evaluating Music: (Bible Baptist Church, Brandon, Manitoba - edited)

a) Words – Lyrics must be doctrinally correct and should focus more on God than on us and our experiences (words of many contemporary gospel songs over-emphasize love and nature). Avoid mundane repetition.

b) Melody - Melodies must be strong, clear and readily singable. Much contemporary music is performance oriented, using slurring and sliding between pitches and ornamental embellishments that call attention to the performer rather than the message. They should also be in a singable key (anything above high E flat is pitched too high for congregational singing).

c) Harmony - Harmony should show the creative ability of the composer/arranger. Avoid music that does not resolve, overuses chord clusters, or uses blues notes.

d) Rhythm - Rhythm should never dominate. Minimize syncopation; it creates tension (as does a driving beat) and if overused can call attention to the performer and music rather than the message. Accents should be on the strong beats (ONE-two-THREE-four), as opposed to weak beats (one-TWO-three-FOUR).

e) Form - Form should be logical, understandable, and show variety. Repetition of melody, harmony, or rhythm should be limited and creative.

Some things to consider: (in no particular order)

1. Traditional and contemporary are misleading labels. Because they are centuries old, Luther’s hymns that used popular tunes (the story that he used entire tunes sung in beer halls appears to be false) are considered traditional. Unless the composer is purposely imitating music from an earlier period, all music is contemporary when written. If it lasts long enough, it will be labeled “traditional.” In a church context, we have misapplied the term contemporary to mean a style of service or music patterned exclusively after the pop-rock genre. In addition, our culture constantly reinforces the idea that newer is better, and older is passe, and this mantra is applied (often subconsciously) to all music including church music.

2. In many churches, at least some congregational members are able to sincerely and fervently worship through the use of “contemporary praise or worship” music. Yet the time devoted to “praise” or “worship” songs in many churches consists primarily of performance by a “praise band” with limited congregational participation. Numerous congregants participate only marginally or not at all, often because they dislike the musical style or are put off by mediocre quality. Many times, worshippers and worship leaders who are enthusiastically engaged are unaware that for a significant number of others there is little incentive to join in.

3. I may love God, and I may have experience as a public speaker, so why doesn’t my church ask me to preach? The answer is simple: because I do not have the educational background or the Biblical expertise required to do so. Yet, churches regularly rely on persons with limited musical knowledge (sometimes pastors; sometimes lay people) to determine the style and direction of the music of the church.

4. I find it curious that when we want advice about sound medicine, we ask those educated and/or experienced in the field. The same goes for mathematics, science, law, theology, carpentry, plumbing, etc. Why then, is the selection of church music treated differently? It is very common for those educated in music to disagree with the use of “contemporary worship” music, yet it is not unusual for their voices to largely be ignored as churches move increasingly toward “contemporary” service formats and music.

5. Most issues regarding worship services are taken seriously, and major changes are made only after a considerable time of prayer and study of the Scriptural/theological basis for doing so. But when it comes to music, it is common to hear the glib comment, “It’s just a matter of personal taste.” This seems no different from saying, “Let’s just do communion however we want, it’s just a matter of personal taste,” or “Why don’t we eliminate the sermon? Seekers might like that better, and after all it’s just a matter of personal taste.”

6. With few exceptions, the words of good hymns can stand alone as theologically sound and intelligible expressions of the faith (in fact, many were written as poems before ever being set to music). Reading them without music makes sense and is often worth doing. The lyrics of many, if not most, contemporary praise songs do not demonstrate this level of quality or depth.

7. From time to time, congregations are asked to learn new songs. This is good and proper, irrespective of the style of music used in the church. However, in many churches the normal practice for introducing new songs is to display the lyrics (only) on screens and expect people to learn the melodies by somehow following the musicians on stage. Congregational members who read music, especially choir members, could help lead the singing of new songs if the melodies were on the screens along with the words. Many churches could enhance their congregational singing by doing so.

8. In my limited experience, I have heard numerous objections to CCM (contemporary Christian music), predominantly but far from exclusively voiced by older people. However, I believe the idea that older congregants simply dislike modern music is false. The concerns I have heard voiced center primarily around four issues:

(1) Objection to musically and theologically mediocre music.

(2) Complete rejection of hymn singing, and/or occasional hymn singing in which hymns are interspersed with or somehow modified to resemble CCM.

(3) The absence of an apparent connection between worship songs and the sermon topic of the day.

(4) A penchant for new music that excludes modern hymns.

High-quality worship music is still being composed (I disagree with Frank Zappa’s statement that “All the good music has already been written by people with wigs and stuff”) but in many churches is seldom heard, perhaps because leaders are unaware of the likes of John Ylvisaker, Stuart Townend, or Keith Getty.

9. In the Middle Ages most people were illiterate and could not read and understand the Scriptures, so were led to follow false doctrine. This changed when Martin Luther translated the Bible into German and people began to learn about its contents. The church then played a major role in education in large part so they could read the Scriptures. Today, most people are musically illiterate and unable to tell good music from bad. What is the church’s role and responsibility in raising the musical literacy of its people?

10. In church music, as in theology, we should, as Jesus did, “meet people where they are.” But Jesus did not leave people where he found them. Shouldn’t the church seek an opportunity to help worshippers improve the quality of their musical worship? Also, “meeting people where they are” might mean meeting them in the workplace, neighborhood, school, or anywhere we have the opportunity to “be Christ” to them and give them a reason to be interested in the source of our hope and love. “Reaching the lost” therefore may have little to do with church services, but everything to do with “equipping the saints” to evangelize Monday through Saturday.

11. It seems to me that services designed largely to make the un-churched comfortable will almost certainly make lifelong church attendees uncomfortable. Perhaps church services should feel rather foreign, or even odd, to those new to the experience. After all, people new to “church” are witnessing God’s people meeting Him in His house, which is at least a unique and awesome event.

12. Churches that opt against hymn singing (it seems reasonable to say that a church that excludes a practice that was the norm for hundreds of years is against that practice), often without thorough study or debate regarding such a momentous decision, are discarding a musical and theological treasure much of which has withstood the test of time and is included in hymnals for good reason. For example:

The words of the hymn “O Sacred Head Now Wounded” are generally attributed to Bernard of Clairvaux (1091-1153). In 1656, famous hymnist Paul Gerhardt translated the words into German and set them to a tune written in 1601. It was first translated into English by James Waddell Alexander in 1830. The harmony most often sung today was written by J.S. Bach in 1729. Contrast this with praise songs whose words and music are often composed by the same person in a matter of hours.

Appendix I: Pop-Rock Music

Note: Deadheads and other rock ‘n’ roll aficionados may not like what follows!

The explosive growth of Pop music in America was tied directly to the advent of radio and, later, television. As radio ownership became common, station owners recognized the tremendous income potential from the sale of advertising. Not surprisingly, the larger the listening audience, the more a station (or a network) could charge for airing commercials. Broadcasters thus made the rational decision to air what appealed to the broadest possible audience. Programs and music that required more than minimal effort or expertise to appreciate were unlikely to have broad appeal, so were aired infrequently (this explains why classical music stations have to depend on donations to remain on air).

The result of commercialization was music that was popular but of minimal complexity and often mediocre quality. This music, which featured simplistic melodies, rhythm, and repetition, became known as Pop (short for popular) music. It is essentially a musical form best described as trivial. Over time, Pop ( and later Rock) music came to dominate the airwaves and recorded music, resulting in a generation (and now multiple generations) familiar only with Pop music and often incapable of appreciating any other type of music. If Pop-rock is the only style of music with which one is familiar or comfortable, how can a person be expected to comprehend the beauty of “traditional” sacred music?

Pop music has greater power to change people and to affect people because it's a universal language. You don't have to understand music to understand the power of a pop song. – Paul Epworth, Grammy and Academy Award–winning musician, songwriter, and music producer

The term rock music covers a wide variety of styles. Pop-rock developed in about the mid-1950’s, expanded into psychedelic and hard rock in the 1960’s, and by the 1970’s spawned heavy metal. What began mostly as simple love songs morphed over time into a culture of “sex, drugs, and rock ‘n’ roll.” In recent decades, rock music has developed into a mega-business populated by “stars” many of whom (though not all) openly acknowledge their drug use and pagan lifestyles. There is a reason a news item that begins “33-year-old musician found dead of drug overdose” brings to mind a rock ‘n’ roll musician rather than a symphony violinist or an operatic tenor.

Those close to the rock music business have no illusions regarding the nature of modern rock, as evidenced by these quotes:

Rock ‘n’ roll is pagan and primitive, and very jungle, and that’s how it should be! The moment it stops being those things, it’s dead … the true meaning of rock … is sex, subversion, and style. (Malcolm McLaren, punk rock manager)

There is a great deal of powerful, albeit subliminal, sexual stimulation implicit in both the rhythm and [the] lyrics of rock music. (Dr. David Elkind, chairman of the Eliot-Pearson Department of Child Study at Tufts University)

That’s what rock is all about—sex with a 100 megaton bomb, the beat!” (Gene Simmons, of Kiss)

Rock ‘n’ roll is sex. Real rock ‘n’ roll isn’t based on cerebral thoughts. It’s based on one’s lower nature. (Paul Stanley of Kiss)

It's a noise we make. That's all. You could be kind and call it music. (Mick Jagger)

My true belief about Rock ‘n’ Roll is this: I believe this kind of music is demonic. A lot of the beats in music today are taken from voodoo, from the voodoo drums. (Little Richard)

Four characteristics are the hallmark of most rock music: (1) a heavy, primitive beat usually provided by a drummer (2) use of one or more guitars as accompaniment or as solo instruments (3) high volume coupled with over-balanced bass, which often increases as a song progresses (4) lyrics that are unintelligible or repeated to an excessive degree, for example:

(1) Nonsense lyrics:

As one might expect from the title, the chorus of “De Do Do Do, De Da Da Da” by the rock group The Police reads:

De do do do, de da da da

Is all I want to say to you

De do do do, de da da da

Their innocence will pull me through

De do do do, de da da da

Is all I want to say to you

De do do do, de da da da

They’re meaningless and all that’s true.

The chorus of Van Morrison’s “Brown Eyed Girl” reads:

Do you remember when we used to sing
Sha la la la la la la la la la la te da
Sha la la la la la la la la la la te da la te da
Sha la la la la la la la la la la te da la te da.

(2) Excessive repetition:

The song “I’m Your Captain” by Grand Funk Railroad uses the phrase “I’m getting closer to my home” over 40 times.

The chorus of the Grammy Hall of Fame song “Roxanne” by The Police reads:

(Roxanne) You don't have to put on the red light

(Roxanne) Put on the red light [repeat 9 times]

(Roxanne) You don't have to put on the red light

(Roxanne) Put on the red light [repeat 4 times]

To varying degrees, the key traits of rock music have crept into many churches via praise bands and their music,

Scripture encourages the use of various instruments (e.g. Psalms 33:2, 150:3-5), but makes no mention of drums. We cannot infer from this that drums are forbidden, but should be aware of the nature and effect of certain rhythm styles:

Perhaps of all the most basic elements of music, rhythm most directly affects our central nervous system. -- George Crumb

The rhythm in rock is the dominant part of the sound. The heavy emphasis on the beat is what distinguishes rock from every other type of music. -- Dr. Frank Garlock

It’s the beat that gets to you. If you like it and you feel it, you can’t help but move to it. That’s what happens to me. I can’t help it. -– Elvis Presley

Much good church music is available today. Why do we go to the world, the world's artists, and the world's philosophy of music in otherwise solid Christian churches? It may be because we are so inundated by the world's music we are unaware of how bad it is. Virtually every TV commercial and radio program is accompanied by rock music, and we let become immersed in music not naturally suited to worshipping God. -- Bible Baptist Church, Brandon, Manitoba [edited]

I am now convinced that God will not accept our worship when it is offered with music styles that are also used by pagans for their immoral practices ... He is a jealous God. If you grasp this principle alone, it will change forever the way you lead a worship service. -- Dan Lucarini, church musician and former worship leader

Appendix II: Contemporary Christian Music (CCM)

Note: Dedicated fans of “Contemporary Christian Music” may want to skip this section!

CCM style:

Contemporary Christian Music (CCM) often offers a blend of entertainment and a performance style intended to engender a feeling of being close to God. Wanting to feel close to God is admirable, and certainly there were Biblical characters who felt close to Him. But much CCM relies heavily on appealing to the emotions rather than on “renewing of the mind.” Most CCM is a compromise with worldly rock music, with its heavy beat (which is sometimes a backbeat) and emotionally driven style. CCM often lacks a sense of holiness or sacredness.

The characteristics of most pop/rock “worship” music (heavy dependence on strong drum beats, distortion of melody, excessive volume, repetitive chord sequences) both lower the musical quality and make the songs suited for performance rather than for reverent worship. In addition, the lyrics are often unintelligible when sung indistinctly and over-balanced by instruments.

Contemporary praise music is so successful ecumenically, so universally popular for three reasons:

(1) As a rule, it is not doctrinally strong and clear,

(2) It is the same rock music to which this generation is addicted (rock music is very powerful and moving in and of itself, and ... plays a large role in producing the emotional high that modern worshippers are commonly seeking)

(3) It represents the popular ecumenical philosophy of positivism and spiritual neutralism.

-– David Cloud (Way of Life)

Many techniques and songs of contemporary gospel musicians evolve from the philosophy that there are no absolutes in life, including music. We are influenced by musicians who copy the world's performance techniques and song-forms. -- Bible Baptist Church, Brandon, Manitoba [edited]

I don’t like the term worship leader. Some worship leaders have delusions of grandeur. Their job is to serve the congregation. -- Dave Bilbrough, leading UK CCM leader

Why do we idolize Christian singers and speakers? We go from glorifying musicians in the world to glorifying Christian musicians. It's all idolatry! Satan is getting a great victory as we seem to worship these ministers on tapes and records, and clamor to get their autographs in churches and concert halls from coast to coast. -- Keith Green, American Christian artist

CCM music:

Creativity can be used to stimulate, and contemporary music was the new thing. Now, most worship leaders are guitarists, and there is a risk of using the same praise and worship formula all the time. -- Dave Bilbrough, leading UK contemporary Christian music leader

Musically, contemporary “worship” songs are often difficult for the congregation to sing and tend to be performance songs. -- source unknown

I admit I prefer traditional hymns, but even so, I'm convinced that much of the music being written for the church today reflects an unfortunate trend—slipping across the line from worship to entertainment. Evangelicals are in danger of amusing ourselves to death, to borrow the title of the classic Neil Postman book. -- Charles Colson

But to be candid, I look at the majority of the music I hear today and think it's virtually meaningless. There is a growing chasm between CCM and the church – between what's actually happening in the real world of ministry, or even in the music ministry of the church, and what we're doing in CCM. In fact, I would probably be more inclined to call the industry "commercial Christian music," rather than "contemporary Christian music. -- Stan Moser, former head of Word Records

CCM lyrics:

The lyrics of a good number of the songs don’t betray anything specifically Christian —they may have some moral message, but not a lot of the big songs are identifiably Christian. . . 'What happens to the message when we start getting the music to as many people as possible?' There is an essential part of the gospel that’s not ever going to sell. The gospel is good news, but it is also bad news: You are a sinner, and you are hopeless.  How is a multimillion-dollar record company going to take that? That’s a part of the message, too, and if that’s taken out—and it frequently is in Christian music— it ceases to be the gospel. -- Michael Card, Christian singer and songwriter with 37 albums totaling over 4 million copies sold

Words are important. Words are what Jesus used to preach the Sermon on the Mount. Words are what Paul used to write his epistles. Words are what we use to pray and to confess our faith. Weak or overly repetitive lyrics are too common in contemporary Christian music. – source unknown

While some fine contemporary songs will likely endure, the overall trend is toward vague lyrics. Many include odd theologies or skew towards personal viewpoints. Many could easily be secular love songs (Hold Me), while some warp scripture entirely (Days of Elijah), or distort scripture to highlight self (Above All). -- source unknown

In a world of suffering, the positive tone of much praise and worship music offers people encouragement and hope. But churches who feed their people a steady diet of this kind of worship music are ignoring a wealth of music that deals with the full range of life’s ups and downs. – source unknown

Chris Tomlin's "How Great Is Our God" is widely sung during contemporary services across America. Nashville producer Ed Cash admitted he actually laughed out loud the first time he heard the song’s words: “I remember thinking, you know, that's exactly the simple kind of brainless praise-chorus things that drive me crazy." Nevertheless, Cash collaborated on the song and now defends its popularity.

The future:

CCM is temporarily popular, but most “praise songs” will disappear over time because they lack the musical and theological quality necessary for lasting value. Contrast this with Christian hymnals. Hymnal editors have the opportunity to choose the best of hymns written over hundreds of years. For example, only 42 of Charles Wesley’s 6500 hymns were included in the Methodist Hymnal; English hymnals typically include 10 or fewer of the 140 hymns by Paul Gerhardt, one of Germany’s finest hymn writers. It is extremely unlikely that the current generation of songwriters exhibits the same degree of talent that produced the lasting hymns of the past centuries.

As with all novelties, once the novelty wears off, what is left often seems somewhat empty. In a culture that celebrates what is new (and commercial culture always does so in order to sell what is new), most people will pine for what is new. But what is new does not remain so forever; and once it is no longer novel, it must compete by the ordinary canons of musical and lyrical art, and very little contemporary worship music can do so. -- T. David Gordon, religion professor and author

CCM Critique by Ligon Duncan:

Ligon Duncan, a seminary chancellor, professor and pastor, has this to say about the styles of music used in worship services [edited]:

Protestant reformers understood two things often lost on moderns:

(1) Media, instruments, vehicles of worship, and liturgy (set forms of corporate worship), are never neutral. so great care must be given to the law of unintended consequences. Often, the medium overwhelms and changes the message. For example, singing Amazing Grace to the tune of Gilligan’s Island changes the whole tone of singing that text and easily becomes a sacrilege.

(2) The purpose of corporate worship is to actually worship as defined by the God of Scripture.

When [churches] consider circumstances (such as having “contemporary” music) key to public worship they make two errors:

(1) Thinking circumstances are more important than the substance and content of the worship service. When we call a service “contemporary,” we imply the most important thing about it is the musical style. We ought to be more concerned whether the service is biblical in content and substance. We may even encourage congregants to act as consumers with a right to expect a musical style of their preference while diverting their focus from the most important thing: God and the elements or means He has appointed for engagement with Himself.

(2) Thinking circumstances are neutral. When churches use musical styles (which invariably means subgenres of contemporary, commercial, pop musical forms) to reach an audience, they assume musical genres are neutral, carry no baggage, and are equally serviceable for public praise. This is naive and harmful to fostering congregational singing and to the unity of the church. It actually discriminates against religious consumers with different tastes! For example, a church using a contemporary folk-pop style may alienate those who prefer the rock or hip-hop subculture and vice versa. The same applies to any other single style chosen for the congregation.

A humorous (?) addendum:

Since this subject may trigger strong emotions and vigorous argument, let’s consider a bit of gross misuse of Scripture to draw some facetious conclusions about musical styles.

1. Some instruments are OK in church, but others are not:

Guitars are forbidden -- Refrain from anger and turn from wrath; do not fret—it leads only to evil.” -– Psalm 37:8

Drums are forbidden -- Then the Lord opened the donkey’s mouth, and it said to Balaam, “What have I done to you to make you beat me these three times?” -- Numbers 22:28

Trumpets and trombones are fine -- Then Hannah prayed and said: “My heart rejoices in the Lord; in the Lord my horn is lifted high. My mouth boasts over my enemies, for I delight in your deliverance. – I Samuel 2:1

2. Using a variety of musical styles in church is OK:

Then Moses sent his father-in-law on his way, and Jethro returned to his own country -- Exodus 18:27

The gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures -- Romans 1:2

The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual -– I Corinthians 15:46

That is why the folk singers sing, Come to Heshbon to rebuild the city, restore Sihon’s town -- Numbers 21:27 (The Message)

But you would be fed with the finest of wheat; with honey from the rock I would satisfy you -- Psalm 81:16

Awake, my soul! Awake, harp and lyre! I will awaken the dawn -- Psalm 57:8

Swing  the sickle, for the harvest is ripe – Joel 3:13

He brought you water out of hard rock. – Deuteronomy 8:15

Tremble, you complacent women; shudder, you daughters who feel secure! Strip off your fine clothes and wrap [sic] yourselves in rags -- Isaiah 32:11

3. And just for good measure, a reminder that choir members are tax-exempt:

You are also to know that you have no authority to impose taxes, tribute or duty on any of the priests, Levites, musicians, gatekeepers, temple servants or other workers at this house of God. – Ezra 7:24

[end]