Should We Listen to Hillsong, Bethel, Jesus Culture, and Elevation? An Interview with Scott Aniol

Warning, the following message may be offensive to some audiences. These audiences may include, but are not limited to, professing Christians who never read their

Bible, sissies, sodomites, men with man buns, those who approve of men with man buns, man bun enablers, white knights for men with man buns, homemakers who have finished

Netflix but don't know how to meal plan, and people who refer to their pets as fur babies. Viewer discretion is advised. People are tired of hearing nothing but doom and despair on the radio.

The message of Christianity is that salvation is found in Christ alone, and any who reject

Christ therefore forfeit any hope of salvation, any hope of heaven.

The issue is that humanity is in sin, and the wrath of almighty

God is hanging over our heads. They will hear his words, they will not act upon them, and when the floods of divine judgment, when the fires of wrath come, they will be consumed and they will perish.

God wrapped himself in flesh, condescended and became a man, died on the cross for sin, was resurrected on the third day, has ascended to the right hand of the

Father, where he sits now to make intercession for us. Jesus is saying there is a group of people who will hear his words, they will act upon them, and when the floods of divine judgment come in that final day, their house will stand.

Welcome to Bible Bash, where we aim to equip the saints for the works of ministry by answering the questions you're not allowed to ask.

On this episode, we'll be answering the age -old question, should we listen to Hillsong, Bethel, Jesus Culture, and Elevation Music?

In order to answer this question, we'll be joined by special guest, Dr. Scott Anuel. Scott is

Executive Vice President and Editor -at -Chief at G3 Ministries and Professor of Pastoral Theology at Grace Bible Theological Seminary.

He's a teacher of culture, worship, ascetics, and church ministry philosophy. He lectures around the country in churches, conferences, colleges, and seminaries, and has authored several books and dozens of articles.

Scott holds a Master's Degree in Theological Studies at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, a

Master's Degree in Ascetics at Northern Illinois University, and a PhD in Worship Ministry at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Welcome to Bible Bash. It's good to have you with us. Yeah, thanks for having me on. I know that we've been enjoying reading your articles on the subject and looking forward to the chance we have to talk to you.

Yeah, absolutely. Yes, sir. Well, one of the things that we wanted to do is just start out by talking about your recent article.

And so you had three articles that you put out related to this topic of whether or not we should be listening to Eel Song, Bethel, Jesus Culture, and Elevation Music.

But one of the things I wanted to do is just ask you the basic question that I often get when

I'm interacting with people on this subject matter. And so as I'm talking to people, the main concern that people generally have as it relates to this topic is to attempt to evaluate whether or not we should listen to these songs or include them as part of our corporate worship.

The main question that many people seem to be asking, essentially, is the question, you know, as long as the lyrics are okay, isn't it okay to sing these songs?

And part of the reason why they're asking that kind of question is because it seems like, you know, as you look into the history and the background of some of these, even some of the older hymns that we listen to that we like, there are some problematic elements as it relates to those kind of things.

And so there's concerns as it relates to, you know, just a Christian stance on boycotting.

And I think part of the impulse is essentially to think, you know, don't ask too many questions, because the more questions essentially you ask as it relates to some of these things, the more songs you're going to have to chuck out of the church hymnal

And so it seems like the simple way that many people are approaching this question essentially is to ask, well, you know, are the lyrics okay?

And if the lyrics are theologically sound, then that seems to be a simple way that they're trying to navigate this question.

Now, in your recent articles, you called into question this kind of logic. I don't know that you called it into very explicitly, maybe in the second article you did, but you have some response to that.

I'd like to hear it. Yeah, well, I think, you know, it's funny you phrased it the age old question earlier.

I mean, it's maybe not age old, but this debate on whether we should sing Hillsong Bethel, these kind of groups, has been around for a while.

And a lot of men, you know, Justin Peters, Kosti Hinn, Owen Stran, others have argued that we ought not to because of the theology, the clearly in some cases, heretical theology of these groups.

And so the question, as you framed it, then often comes up, well, as long as, you know, what about, there are some of their songs, some of their lyrics,

I think a lot of people would recognize, yeah, there's at least questionable theology in the lyrics, but there are other songs that are produced by these groups that don't necessarily have problematic lyrics.

And so the question is, if a song has good lyrics, but the movement has theological problems, does that render the song unusable?

And what a lot of men have argued is that we shouldn't sing those songs because of the theological problems.

I think we have to recognize there is a difference, because you're right, there are a lot of things that we sing in hymnals, traditional, what are considered traditional hymns written by men whose theology in some cases we might question or, you know, we might sing a hymn by a

Lutheran or by a Presbyterian. I happen to be a Baptist, right? So is there a problem there? Or we might sing things that were written by Roman Catholics or even more apparent theology.

But there's a difference between that and these movements, I would argue, for a couple of reasons.

Number one, Hillsong, Bethel, these kinds of groups, these are commercial industries.

So even purchasing, for instance, a song with good lyrics is supporting an industry that has not only theological problems, but has come out recently, even leadership and abuse problems and all sorts of things.

So I would say that argumentation is valid, that we ought to be careful about giving our money toward supporting ministries that have theological problems.

If I sing a hymn by Bernard of Clairvaux who was in the 12th century, whose theology in some areas

I might disagree with, if I sing, Oh Sacred Head, Now Wounded or Jesus, The Very Thought of Thee, I'm not putting my money toward supporting his theology, which is different than what we're talking about with these groups.

So I think that's valid argumentation, although the point of my articles was not actually that.

I sort of acknowledged the various arguments that are used to say we ought not sing

Hillsong. I was the original impetus for writing that first article was

I felt that there was an even deeper reason we ought not sing the music of groups like that, that's even more significant from my perspective than even just the theology of those movements.

Sure, and I think I wanted to spend the bulk of our time discussing why you felt like the reason that you included was more significant than some of the other reasons, and you mentioned a wide variety of reasons that individuals might give that are beyond just the lyrics issue in general, and so you mentioned the leaders appear to be teaching formal heresy, some of the leaders, particularly with Hillsong are practicing sexual immorality, have questionable views on gay marriage, and then there are some lyrical problems with many of the songs at the very least that I know that as I'm trying to evaluate many of the lyrics, this is just a curiosity

I had before we get into the main thing, but as I evaluated the lyrics myself, I've often been somewhat surprised because the standard point of view is that these lyrics are mostly okay, but then as I'm reading them,

I'm normally pretty frustrated with myself. Yeah, they're often vague at best and then questionable and even downright heretical at worst.

So the opening of that first article, I was just sort of bullet pointing the common arguments that I see for why we ought not sing them.

And again, I think they're all valid to a point, but all on the way to make a different article that I've not seen made.

But yeah, I think they are valid and I'm very appreciative of the men who have stood up and made some of those clear arguments.

I think with those other arguments that you mentioned, as you try to cycle through a lot of those arguments,

I'll just tell you my response to how I was interacting with it myself. With a lot of the other arguments, the traditional,

I would say, the ones that are common, the ones that you mentioned, as I'm thinking through the Bible and I'm thinking through what the

Bible says about various things, you think about financially supporting false teachers and you can just go to 1

John and you can think through issues related to not even greeting a false teacher or inviting them in for hospitality.

And those seem to be clear passages that would apply to that kind of scenario or mark and avoid those who were teaching heterodox views.

We have clear passages like that or even as it relates to the idea of the sexual immorality that's practiced by leaders, you have passages that you can go to that come to my mind very clearly.

But then the route you went is essentially, you said the main, let me see if I can quote you here, you said, all of these are legitimate reasons to stop singing music from these groups.

But then you said, these are not the most important reason you should stop. The biggest reason you should stop singing songs from Hillsong, Bethel, Jesus Culture and Elevation is that their music embodies a false theology of worship.

Now, I thought that that was curious because some of the things that you mentioned in this article,

I've thought through in different areas as it relates to just the appropriateness of singing.

I don't know if you want to step on this anthill or not, but the appropriateness of...

I'm not afraid of stepping on anthills. Of singing rap music in a worship service or something like that.

I've thought through some of these things as it relates to that. The musical genre obviously means something and it's communicating something, but then as you applied it very specifically to Hillsong and Bethel and Jesus Culture.

I thought it was very interesting. The first question I wanted to ask you related to this was, the biggest reason you should stop singing these songs is the fact that they're embodying a false theology of worship.

Maybe you could start us off. When I say their music embodies false theology of worship, ironically,

I think a lot of people hear that and they think I mean the lyrics. I don't. So I'm saying, let's set the lyrics aside for a minute.

Let's talk about the music itself. The music itself and all that it encompasses.

We're not just talking about a series of notes. We're talking about how it's performed, the instrumentation, everything about it embodies a certain theology that I would argue from my reformed perspective is a false theology of worship.

The reason that's the bigger reason is because it applies across the board. So even whether the lyrics are good, whether they're questionable, or whether they're heresy is irrelevant because when it comes to the music it's all problematic from my theological framework.

So that's an even bigger reason that wipes it all off the slate rather than we don't even have the debate then.

Well, what if the lyrics are good? Doesn't matter. I don't care if the lyrics are perfectly... You feel like this is a more airtight argument to make against...

It's more airtight and it more universally describes what the music is doing. Because there's a consistency to the style of the music that is...

And the underlying theology and that's what I'm really getting at. And admittedly, and I sort of get to this towards the end of the article, and this is where some astute readers saw what

I was arguing and got upset is because I was using Hillsong, Bethel, Jesus, Culture, and Elevation as really a launching pad to really criticize a much broader swath of worship music that comes out of a

Pentecostal theology of worship, which again, I would argue is false, is contrary to scripture.

And so we're talking about a wider range of music, some of which has theologically good and helpful and useful lyrics, but nevertheless...

And not false teachers and everything else. Right. And doesn't have the same association issues or the same giving your money to support problematic movements or industries.

But at the same time, my biggest concern here and the reason I wrote the article is

I think for over 50 years now, evangelical churches, good evangelical churches with sound theology who are discerning about what they sing lyrically are being inundated by a theology of worship that if you wrote it out for them, they would completely disagree with, but they don't recognize is infused into their churches and their expectations about the nature of worship and their understanding of the essence of worship.

And it's all been communicated through this certain kind of music that has come to dominate modern evangelicalism.

Well, maybe you can go ahead and just for our listeners, just give a brief summary of your argument. So you're basically saying that this music is embodying a false theology of worship.

So go ahead and spell it out. So I introduced in this article and I meant this to be a standalone article, but it sort of went viral and it's got almost 100 ,000 hits now and there's a lot of online talk about it.

So I did the two follow -up articles to sort of flesh this out a little bit and basically what

I'm arguing is there are essentially two different dominant theologies of worship at play and they have been sort of that there's an ebb and flow of them throughout church history actually.

This is a bit of a simplification because it's not all that simple, but generally speaking,

I would argue that obviously the New Testament teaches a particular theology of worship that was over time slowly corrupted during the

Middle Ages and what became sort of Roman Catholic sacramental worship that was then obviously objected to during the

Reformation and again a reformed or what I call in the later articles a covenant renewal theology of worship was recovered during the

Reformation. So I would say the New Testament teaches it, the sacramental worship took over during the

Middle Ages, the Reformation recovered a covenant renewal theology of worship once again and then it was really within I mean first sort of revivalism and the holiness movement in the 19th century and then especially

Pentecostalism in the 20th century that really shifted back to a sacramental theology of worship.

There are striking similarities between the theology of worship of Roman Catholicism and the theology of worship of Pentecostalism and I say that not, you know, there are some of those.

Yeah, so it's a theology of worship in which my expectation is that my goal in the worship service is that I will experience the felt presence of God.

So for Roman Catholics that was achieved through their various sacramental understanding and it was all achieved through this sort of creation of an atmosphere.

For them it was smells and bells but even with the architecture, medieval architecture deliberately darkened the nave where the people sat and lightened the chancel where the priests, where the worship was taking place all to give this sort of aura, an atmosphere of the presence of God.

That was what the smoke and the sense and all of that was an attempt to create the experience of God's presence.

That has now come back into force within Pentecostal worship but largely through music.

That's become the dominant vehicle through which we experience God's presence.

In fact, there was a book written in the 90s called God's presence through music and Judson Cornwall and many of the authors, early authors of Pentecostalism all the way up to more recent authors explicitly argue that it is through music carefully engineered to create certain kinds of emotional flow.

That's the actual language that they use that we come to experience tangibly and physically the presence of God.

They call it musical sacramentality. That's from their own language.

If someone is Pentecostal, if that's their theology, then it makes sense for them to worship that way.

I disagree with that because I disagree with their theology but my biggest concern is when churches, pastors who are not

Pentecostal, who are reformed or maybe just broadly evangelical but more of a cessationist, non -Pentecostal theology when they worship like that, not only is it inconsistent with the theology that they say they believe, but it is also impacting their people to embrace this sacramental

Pentecostal theology of worship when in their doctrinal statement and in their preaching and their teaching, they would never want those things to be taught.

But again, and this is another reason I say this is the biggest reason you should stop singing it because it's the subtle influence that has impacted our churches for now over 50 years and a lot of pastors don't recognize it.

One of the things that's amazing about that kind of discussion in general is that as you think about the very charismatic question that you're bringing up, it's indisputable to look around the evangelical church today and to see how charismatic these traditional non -charismatic denominations actually have become and it's not shocking to know how it's happened.

I mean it's obviously happened because of the worship music. And the worship music is obviously what is being played on your standard

Christian radio and your standard Christian radio stations today are essentially name it, claim it, prosperity kind of radio stations and it's just embarrassing.

I mean it's one of those things where I think I was paying attention to this maybe 15 years ago and thinking to myself, man, they're getting more and more charismatic but then today,

I mean I haven't listened to Christian radio because I just can't stand anything they say.

The songs are all prosperity based but now it's just crass prosperity stuff that's on the radio and that's what's happening and then you look around at the standard

Christian attending the standard church today and they're functionally charismatic. They may not be speaking in tongues and they may not be trying to knock anyone over as far as that goes.

It's this expectation that I will experience physically

God's presence, not that physical things are bad. I'm not Gnostic. We have emotions, we feel things, we do things physically with our bodies but none of those things are evidence or proof or the essence of God's presence and that's part of the problem.

It leads to burnout and discouragement. You see this. You hear testimonies of people who go through these movements and they no longer have these experiences and so they wonder what's wrong with me?

Is God really here? Do I need something more? Either they fall away from the faith or they end up going and chasing newer and more exciting fads.

That's the problem with this music. It really is like a narcotic where it has this effect on you physically but over time it wears off and you need a higher intensity.

You need something new and novel and more exciting in order to create the same sort of experience. Not only is it just theologically problematic but it's actually harmful to true spiritual growth, to true spirituality, and it leads to a lot of spiritual burnout and people actually leaving the faith.

It's not uncommon today to hear people even crassly speak of the worship experience and that kind of stuff.

But it's one of those things that as I've looked at the lyrics of these groups that you mentioned,

Eelsong, Elevation, Bethel, it's there. The charismatic stuff is there, like talking about the coming of the

Holy Spirit as if the coming of the Holy Spirit is not an eschatological event that happened in salvation history as if it is reenacted every week.

So there's things like that. There's this expectation that we have to somehow invite

God or call God down to us, which again is exactly Roman Catholic sacramentalism too.

And it's biblically incorrect. I don't invite God in worship. He is the host.

He is there. He has invited me to draw near through Christ by faith. That's why

I say it's an earned theology of worship to begin with. What I was getting into though is

I've noticed that in the lyrics and I've noticed that in the lyrics for a long time. It's pervasive through the lyrics.

It's in subtle ways that a lot of people don't catch or pick up on, but it's there if you have eyes to see and ears to hear.

And so I've seen it as a problem as it relates to that, but then you're making a more specific argument than the theology that's present in the lyrics.

You're making an argument based on the theology that's embodied in the musical expression itself.

And so maybe you can just spell out your argument, not related to the theology of the words, but related to the music itself.

How is the music embodying that Pentecostal theology that you're arguing for?

So good question. And this is the hardest thing for people to grasp because again, well for two reasons.

One, for so long people's expectations about what music is and what music is supposed to be doing in worship has shifted over time.

But number two, because we are talking about something, we're talking about music, which is a bit challenging to articulate.

Someone once said talking about music is like dancing about architecture. The nature of music itself and how it communicates, how it embodies certain theological ideas or expectations is challenging to articulate because it's music.

If it could easily be put into words we wouldn't need music. But what I try to articulate in I think the third article, well the second article too, but particularly the third article is that historically

Christians and not just Christians, really all Western thinkers prior to the

Enlightenment understood that there was generally two kinds of music.

There was a music that bypasses the mind and just works people up into an emotional frenzy.

And then there is a music that is more ordered, more modest you might say that more carefully supports contemplation, reflection, and expression of noble affections for a particular truth.

And universally Christians avoided that first kind of music.

That was the kind of music that pagans used. It's repetitive.

It builds in intensity. There's not a lot of richness to lyrics.

It's all about volume and beat and repetitiveness that will sort of work the worshiper up into a euphoria which was the nature for instance of, well it was the nature of pagan worship during the

Old Testament. You see examples of this like with Elijah and the prophets of Baal. Just compare those two worship experiences, right?

You got the prophets of Baal working themselves up into this emotional frenzy to the point that they're cutting themselves and you have

Elijah who prays this modest prayer. So this was a contrast between the music of Israel which was word centered and the music that was used what would modestly support the lyrics and the music of pagans.

This was also the contrast in the Greco -Roman period of the New Testament where the

Greco -Roman cults and religions employed music that was again very repetitive, simply worked up the physical passions and universally early church fathers said we ought to avoid that kind of music.

Calvin Stapert wrote a really helpful book called A New Song for an Old World in which he traces this and shows how although there were differences among the early church theologians when it came to how we should handle

Greek philosophy you had some like Tertullian saying what has Athens to do with Jerusalem and you had others like Clement saying well there's some aspects of Greek philosophy that we can utilize.

There was disagreement there. When it came to worship and music they were all universal in their agreement that we must not use the music of the pagans that is just about you know

Clement calls it extravagant music which works us into a frenzied and frantic sort of experience.

Instead they advocated for modest music that would support the lyrics. That's true all the way through Augustine and then the reformers too.

There's differences obviously for instance between Luther and Calvin on what we should sing but when it comes to the music itself they both talk very similarly about the need to avoid the more licentious music that simply stirs up the flesh and instead use music that will modestly support the lyrics and so the problem is when we have a sacramental understanding of music and we want music that stirs up these feelings very quickly because that's what we believe will usher in the presence of God then we go toward that music but the problem with that music is that's the theology that's embodied there and by nature that music makes us less able to have sort of the modest sort of thoughtful contemplation of theology in a sort of covenant renewal theology of worship that again

I would argue is sort of the reformed reformation heritage theology of worship but we've lost that understanding of a distinction of music post -enlightenment and now music is kind of lumped together what you said earlier about musical styles communicate

I think a lot of people don't think that way well they don't think that way with music but they don't think that way across the board and this is something

I wanted to ask you about and so it gets a pervasive troublesome phenomenon that you can observe in many different areas and I didn't know if you had any thoughts on this but let me see if I can explain what

I'm trying to say here with the rise of the Me Too movement and everything else one of the things that's happened is if a lady were to wear a low cut shirt or something along those lines one of the things that we're being asked to do at this point is to make no assumptions about what she's intending to communicate at all through her dress that's the way it is across the board with every single form of expression that's beyond just culture and arts what

I'm curious about is why do you think that is across the board this isn't just a problem with music this is a problem across the board where we're basically there's this demand it's a pervasive society wide demand that we basically have to ignore all forms of communication it's just about the intention of the individual probably some of it's related to post modernism in general it's a relativism it's an individualism that has pervaded whatever my intention is that's all that matters you can't judge this is a good point to raise and I'm glad you raised it because when we're talking about musical communication or like you said dress or facial expressions or vocal inflection or cultural expression we're not talking about intention is it possible that someone could intend to communicate one thing and actually communicate something else it happens all the time the example

I often use to try to help explain music is just a step above how we communicate through natural vocal inflection we communicate through our vocal inflection through our volume through our pitch the duration of our speech it all communicates facial expressions an example

I use often with my students is if you were to ask me how are you doing and I were to answer with the word

F -I -N -E well I can communicate a lot of different things with just my tone of voice

I could say fine or I could say fine or I could say fine same word same lyrical content but the musical expression of my voice communicated three very different messages and it's possible often

I intend to communicate that right but sometimes or any husband knows this

I may come home after a long day of work my wife might ask me how the day went I'm exhausted so I say fine and then she interprets that to mean oh you had a bad day well what happened oh no it wasn't really

I didn't intend that but I did communicate that right that doesn't just because I didn't intend it doesn't mean that I didn't actually communicate it

I did and so I ought to change how I communicate if I don't intend to communicate that way and it's the same with music

I think there's a lot of really godly well -meaning people who do not intend to communicate through their music what the music is actually communicating

I'm not questioning their motives their intention or their hearts they may be all in the right place but if they don't messages essentially is what you're saying that's exactly right and the lyrics might be good and I might say okay well then but make sure that the way in which you communicate is matching what you're communicating and that's what

I'm really trying to get at we might sing lyrics that are perfectly not that don't embody that kind of theology we might sing lyrics that are explicitly about covenant renewal and it's not about welcoming the

Holy Spirit etc etc but our music can actually contradict the lyrics and I would argue in the long run the music is more powerfully potent the music is going to impact people more strongly people don't go home then the sermon you mean is that what you're trying to say or even the lyrics of the hymn or the music over the lyrics okay right right that's going to impact them not

I'm not saying at all that's the preaching and lyrics are not important they absolutely are and they do influence and are very important but the music does affect us as well and if the music contradicts our theology if the music contradicts the lyrics or contradicts the sermon the music is probably going to win unless people are really intentionally kind of noticing you know the juxtaposition but for most of the people in the pew the music is shaping their expectation shaping their understanding of the nature and presence of God shaping their understanding of the work of the

Holy Spirit and all these sorts of things in more subtle and more powerful ways than even the lyrics of the sermon.

What's interesting about that is I know that growing up there were many conversations that individuals had along these lines basically saying that there should be some sort of pushback against you know having your worship service sound like a rock concert but then one of the things that like today that's almost like a thought process that people are allergic to even having period like that was at least something that people were thinking about 20 years ago, 25 years ago.

Yeah I mean people were thinking about that but then it seems like basically that argument has been lost completely and now it's an utterly inappropriate question to ask and it's kind of interesting to note like how quickly that question itself has been totally surrendered and I guess you're crediting postmodernism relativism to it.

Well no not necessarily to that I would say the worship wars were fought by the baby boomers right but during that whole period the next generation was being raised with that kind of music and again it shaped them so now the next generation is like well this is what we've always known their expectations have been shaped so why

I mean this is why there was such vitriol against my article because I am questioning just what has become the status quo and what a lot of people have grown up with they don't know anything different and so to question this is to question the very

I get it I get it. Their relationship with God at a pretty fundamental level their relationship with God their their genuineness of their piety and I don't blame the people in the pew it's not their fault

I blame the theologians I blame the poor theology I blame the and really

I mean the gateway to this right it started in Pentecostalism and so again I disagree with Pentecostal theology but it fit it made sense the gateway was the church growth movement the church growth gurus were looking for ways to attract seekers right and to make exciting services and they looked over at the

Pentecostals and they said wow that's exciting I mean you can see that this has been historically traced

Sui Hong Lim and Lester Ruth in their book Loving on Jesus a concise history of contemporary worship and they just came out with a new book that's a little longer history they document this but people like Rick Warren and Bill Hybels and their music worship guys looked at Pentecostalism and said we're not

Pentecostals but that's going to stir things up they brought it into the non -Pentecostal churches and so again it's their fault and the people in the pews grew up with it so I understand why people react strongly although there was to those articles there were lots and lots and lots of positive comments too

I think there is as people are becoming more and more reformed and that's a loaded word

I don't even necessarily mean all that reformed means I just mean generally Calvinistic I don't even mean necessarily just Calvinistic I mean more in the sense of recognizing that every part of our theology and practice needs to be reformed according to scripture right there seems to be a resurgence of that now

I think Calvinism and some of the other things comes along with that but a lot of churches are beginning to recognize the problems of the

Seeker Growth movement the problems with sort of broad squishy evangelicalism and so there was a lot of positive response too because I was going to ask you about that what do you think related to the proportion of the two how would you percentage of positive percentage of hate and death threats you didn't need to well not death threats personally

I saw more of the positive I had friends screenshotting me discussions that were happening kind of people

I don't follow or maybe even have muted in the past or whatever so I know that there were discussions happening that were negative most of what

I saw was really positive just because of the circles that I swim in are more reformed and that was my target audience again my target goal was to try to help reformed people realize if you really want to reform according to scripture if this is the direction you're going which is there's a resurgence happening of this sort of perspective right now then here's one area that you need to think about you might reform your soteriology you might reform your approach to preaching and scripture you might reform your methodology of your ecclesiology but there's a lot of churches that have made good strides there but are still singing

Pentecostal music and I wanted them to recognize okay here's the next step here's something that you need to think about because you're reforming in every other area but this is one area you're not reforming yet so I saw a lot of positive

I had a lot of people say that I put into words what they were sort of feeling and suspecting about this sort of thing but just weren't able to articulate and so that was encouraging because that was my goal

I wasn't writing I did have a lot of negative comments from Pentecostal people but I wasn't writing to them in fact

I would say if you're Pentecostal I disagree with your theology but hey you're worshiping at least consistently my goal was to try to be an encouragement and a help to people who are trying to reform and who just want some more thoughtful pieces of that puzzle when it comes to worship and music

Yeah now a question I had just out of curiosity what caused you to think seriously about this subject was it related to your studies at Northern Illinois?

Well that I mean yeah but it went even further back than that I mean I've always just mainly my upbringing in the church that I spent my sort of formative years in had a strong emphasis on theology and a strong emphasis on music so I've always had this sort of dual love

I'm a musician I have degrees in music an undergraduate degree in music and then a master's degree in aesthetics and so I've always been kind of in that world but then

I've always had this love of scripture and of theology and philosophy and so it's kind of that marriage of the two that used to be very common right again pre -enlightenment sort of a classical liberal arts education all pastors would have been trained in music and in theology and would have had that combination it's really in more recent times in the modern period that we don't have that anymore and that's what's created the problem so we have pastors and theologians who have absolutely no understanding whatsoever of music or arts or culture

That's kind of rare for a lot of churches even to like for the pastor to even have any say in what the worship leader plays

He's usually reading through his sermon notes while the singing is going on and has no part in it. But then it's just like handed off almost completely to the standard worship leader to the point where it's considered inappropriate for him to even comment on.

And then the flip side problem is it's handed over to musicians who have very little theological or biblical training so it was that combination and then again the church that really formed me in my high school years my pastor had a strong emphasis on this.

So I remember I went to a Christian school I remember my 10th or 11th grade writing a paper on philosophy of music and it just interested me all the way back then.

So I mean that started it and then I began to train for ministry and then jumped into a church and then just continued to teach and write and began to write books and that sort of thing so it's just that combination has always kind of been my interest and my calling.

One of the things that's been interesting to me to think about some of the things you're saying related to just the music used to be written by theologians and now it's just written by the popular guy with the good voice and who knows how to play a guitar but then it's always seemed to me that as I'm listening to these songs that are so popular on the radio and that we're singing they always many of them feel like they're written by non -believers they describe a kind of experience of Christianity that I fundamentally can't relate with at all.

Very immature often and not only did it used to be very very rare for one individual to write both the lyrics and the music.

There are exceptions Martin Luther did write some tunes there are a couple exceptions but usually like you said a theologian pastor would write theologically rich lyrics and then a well trained musician would write the music often musicians who also had good theological training when you think about someone like Johann Sebastian Bach one of the greatest if not the greatest composers of all time was very theologically astute

I mean he had to pass a theological basically ordination council in order to be the chief musician of the church where he served he very clearly had that theological acumen but rarely did rarely is there one person who can do both.

The great hymn writers of all didn't write the music. The music was written by musicians and then was married to tunes that were fitting with the text.

You're right these modern musicians usually I mean they're usually not good theologians nor are they good musicians.

Again there are exceptions. There are things happening in sort of what's sometimes called the modern hymn movement by men who are theologically astute who are and who also are writing music that definitely is more geared toward congregations but at the same time they still don't have the depth of musical capability as those did in the past.

So there are some limitations there but I think there's progress being made and I'm always encouraged to see that.

Alright well just in terms of some of the responses to your article I've read some of the responses and I chuckled at a lot of them but what

I wanted to know is what are some of the things that people hear you to be saying essentially that you're not saying.

There are some frequent misunderstandings of what you're saying that you've come across that yeah one of the more recent

I'm actually I'm going to record my own podcast tomorrow and probably address this but one of the one reason that somebody screen shot it for me is you know someone basically saying oh well annual just intentionally wants boring worship right right but again it that worship must be as boring as possible in order to be faithful right yeah is that a quote is that somebody say that no no that was just I think that's an impression of some many of the comments that I've heard is that basically you're advocating for boring music so right and that's because that's people don't know that there's an alternative and they're this is the irony of sort of this contemporary pop music it is emotionally very limited

I mean it's very limited there's like there's like this one layer of emotional intensity and if I don't have this one layer of emotional intensity everything else

I assume is boring when I would just plead with people just do it go on a fast of that for a while because again it is like a like a narcotic to where you get addicted to it and you really can't appreciate anything else get rid of that for a while if you if you just embrace and immerse yourself in what for lack of a better term

I'll just call sort of the reformed worship music tradition it is so I mean if you want to use the word emotion which

I which is a anachronistic sort of word anyway it is there's such a depth and richness of true biblical affection in both the lyrics and the music of sort of traditional reformed reformed hymnody that that you have you absolutely have to learn to appreciate it's not immediately gratifying it doesn't immediately tickle the you know tickle your your gizzard because it's not the sort of in your face high octane energy but I'm not at all saying worship ought to be boring far from it it's not boring

I mean that's the thing Jonathan Landry Cruz wrote a book recently called what happens when worship and that's his central argument that you know people think worship is boring the answer is not to try to do things exciting to make it not boring the answer is to teach them why it absolutely is not boring we are in the presence of the almighty

God we have been invited here through the blood of Christ we are we are in God's presence it's not a felt presence but it's a very real presence and that is not boring by definition and then when you bring in the word of God and strong expositional preaching and rich biblical prayers and rich lyrics supported by richly composed beautiful music there's there's a richness and a depth there that is you can't articulate and and people don't appreciate and they think it's boring because they're addicted to this in your face high octane kind of stuff so there's no you know

I'm not at all saying it ought to be boring it isn't boring by definition and there's there's such a depth of richness to what

I'm calling covenant renewal reformed worship that's just not present in the sacramental Pentecostal worship so part of the difference that you're articulating and you can you know straighten me out if I haven't summarized you accurately but what

I heard you to be saying essentially is that this Pentecostal embodied theology music is essentially making the emotions primary so it's targeting the emotions almost raw and so in terms of trying to appeal the emotions in a primary sense over and against trying to appeal to the mind or the intellect or would that be that's close it's even there's another layer of this even when talking about emotion

I mentioned earlier that pre -moderns understood a distinction between two kinds of music it's also important to recognize that pre -moderns the word emotion is a really new word pre -moderns didn't use the word they talked about the difference between the affections of the soul and the passions of the flesh passions not being bad these are things like goosebumps and adrenaline rush and the feelings of our bodies our bodies are good but that's but what you said where I agree with you where you were really close to articulate my point is that that first kind of music just targets those passions just works up those feelings which are easily worked up and also easily fade away as opposed to cultivating noble affections for the

Lord which take work it's not immediate but it's also deeper richer and longer lasting the true biblical affection for the

Lord distinguish those two in terms of distinguish the two and give me how that would look the affections and the passions of the flesh it's like the difference between laughing because someone tickles you and laughing because you get a joke so in both cases you have a physical experience the physical experience is not bad but in the case of like if I tickle my children and they laugh they're having an involuntary physical response to a stimulus nothing is happening in their mind it's not as if my three -year -old is thinking my father is tickling me therefore

I will laugh it's involuntary right it's like so yeah I mean when you're like with your standard worship service if you want to put it that way your standard service that you have there

I mean typically it's you know it's been a joke for many years that everyone feels like close to God at the you know at the specific part of it's engineered to do that that's the thing so everyone people think it's yeah sorry people think it's all about spontaneity but it is carefully engineered and you read these guys if it was so spontaneous everyone wouldn't feel the proximity of God at the same time that's right yeah they it's all about certain keys certain tempos certain you know emotional atmosphere and again it's about this flow there are books written about how to do this how you lead your congregation through this emotional journey into the

Holy of Holies and if you don't quite see it then you go back and repeat this and you're

I mean really it puts all of the weight on the worship leader I mean it's your job to create the experience with what's happening in the room and to know what you need to do in order to create this certain atmosphere and it but it's but it's all engineered and in fact and there you know there's this documentary that just came out in discovery about Hillsong and I haven't seen it but somebody watched the first episode and and sent me a quote somebody actually says this where you know is what you're feeling actually

God or is it the carefully engineered chord progression that was designed to do that right well that's exactly the point it is designed to do that and it does it very well these people know what they're doing yeah well

I know one of the things that's interesting about that whole discussion in general is that the times that I have felt the most emotion emotional has often been in like these songs that everyone described are so boring and so I mean

I can listen to all these contemporary songs that are written and honestly

I most of the time I just feel frustrated so I feel emotions but I mostly just feel I feel frustrated yeah that again motions are not bad and we experience emotions our bodies are good but I think a lot of people expect music to do what what is the

Holy Spirit's role right I want to be moved by the Holy Spirit through the word and music helps to give language to that but I don't want to just be moved by by music

I want to be moved by the Holy Spirit through the word well and that's but every single time so so like the difference is for me so as I'm listening to you know a lot of the older hymns or if I'm listening to newer hymns like that what actually what actually you know stirs my affections to put it that way is that when

I I see something in the words that reminds me of something in the Bible yeah and like the problem is that with the vast majority of the songs that we're singing today they're not biblical that not

I mean it's not that they're they're not a lot of them aren't unbiblical yeah they're just they they don't point me to anything in the

Bible that I can latch on to so if you have a brain that's saturated with the Bible and you're looking for some sort of connection point there's just nothing there it's just like an experience that's totally devoid of like it's like listening to someone write a song who's never read the

Bible before and there's nothing to latch on to and so all you have is just a few themes right that like they're trying to be creative about you know as far as connection right and one clear example of this is why why is it that everybody's hands go up at this certain moment in the song right and why doesn't that happen during a prayer why doesn't that happen during a reading of a full chapter of scripture why doesn't that happen during a sermon right

I mean I remember probably you know thinking back through my life one of the if not the most moving spiritual experiences if you want to talk like that and I don't even like using that language one of the most moving experiences

I ever had conviction of sin you understood the righteousness of God the holiness of God what was during a sermon by a strong expositional preacher who most people would describe as boring

I mean just because he wasn't this great rhetorician and I didn't

I didn't have any sort of outward physical experience in fact I remember being just deeply moved and realizing

I was sort of sitting there with a frown on my face and a furrowed brow because I was just really thinking but internally

I was deeply moved so nothing physical was happening it wasn't at some big high crescendo moment in the sermon or a song because the word

I was being moved by the word by clear explanation of the word and but you don't see that in these services you see everybody's hands are going up at the exact moment when the worship guy intended for them to go up because it was engineered to happen that way what are some other things that people are hearing you say that do you have anything else well

I mean a lot of people still having you know misunderstand that I'm talking about the lyrics you know and so that that kind of passes right over them and I can just see that in some of the comments basically the original argument as long as the lyrics are okay they basically hear you be criticizing the lyrics and they're like hey some of them are good music embodies an errant theology yeah those words are so problematic no no no

I mean the music you know the music itself yeah yeah no I mean a lot of I think you know the most the most comments

I've seen by people who are mad are actually the people who are actually getting what

I'm saying who are understanding what I'm saying and who just don't like it you know because either they disagree maybe they are

Pentecostal or you know they just disagree with the point but the only kind of misunderstanding

I think or I don't even know if it's a misunderstanding I mean sometimes it comes across as if it's really a misrepresentation

I mean honestly do they think I really wanted to be boring is that really what they believe you know when clearly

I don't well I mean isn't here's another one isn't this all this isn't this you just trying to impose your oh sure like preferences on everyone right yeah and that's the thing

I mean it's not it's not about preference it's not about upbringing or background you know it's about trying to discern what's biblical and being objectively discerning and critical about what the music is doing and what theology the music is embodying and I try to do that I try to do that through you know showing in scripture and history too and again this is why

I think Lester Ruth and Sui Hong Lim's work is so valuable because they're historians who are not critical of the contemporary worship movement but they're honest about its roots and they're honest about the embodied theology and they explicitly say that the contemporary praise and worship movement as it exists today came from Pentecostalism and church growth methodology that's where it came from and that's what it embodies and again they're not being critical they're just being honest and so I try to point people to that and say listen there are some objectively historic realities here there are some objective biblical theological realities here let's set emotion aside for a moment

I mean I get that it's emotional we love our music and especially if we tie our music to our piety it can be very hurtful to us when somebody condemns it but let's try to be objective and you know you get charges sometimes of you know being western imperial and racist and all this too but I'm not

I'm actually being critical of my own culture I mean this came from white middle class America you know and so I'm just trying to be objective and ask penetrating questions about what this stuff is actually communicating.

Sure, do you want to jump into the multicultural argument there? Well you brought up rap earlier and I've been involved in discussions about that too and that always stirs up the race question right but again it's not.

What do you think about rap? Well it's a similar thing music communicates, music expresses, music is a medium of communication it's a vehicle for the communication of ideas and personally

I would argue that the medium is not suited to you know holy solemn

Christian lyrics it is suited to sort of in your face aggressive assertiveness with a little bit of bombacity you know mixed in and I fully

I did I studied this at length several years back and I'm fully cognizant of the fact that there are different styles of rap and there are different genres of hip hop and all that sort of thing so I recognize the difference the differences that exist but nevertheless again

I want to ask about tone matters right? The way that we communicate something matters

Well it seems like if you want to make a rap video everyone knows what you do right? I mean everyone knows what kind of personality that you have to put on and whatever personality that you have to put on It's not humility and it's not

That's the thing, let's take the fruit of the spirit and let's take the medium of rap

Does it express the fruit of the spirit? Love, joy, peace Are those embodied in that way of communicating?

The same thing is true of like death metal right? Absolutely. I mean if you want to communicate anarchy if you want to communicate anti -authority you know rebellion like that does it and then you have to ask well is that what we should be communicating through our we should be embodying in our worship services

And that's what I try to do with that second article is to say let's look at what scripture says we ought to embody

What accords with sound doctrine? You look at the description from the fruit of the spirit to descriptions of spiritual maturity to the kinds of lists that Paul gives of the things that we ought to pursue.

I mean you mentioned some of them, self -control, humility patience, kindness, gentleness.

You look at the qualifications for elders and deacons, you know gravity sobriety.

I mean those are the kinds of things we ought to do studies of that and then just ask careful questions.

Does a swagger put that? Yeah, does the music embody those kinds of things or does it more embody the vice lists that we're supposed to avoid

And again, I mean that's you know I think there's room for debate on this.

Okay, let's have these discussions and someone might quibble and say well let's talk about that. I love that kind of discussion.

I think we ought to have those kinds of sharpening discussions. The problem is most people are unwilling to have a conversation.

They just shut you off and say nope it doesn't communicate anything. You're just a legalist.

You're just a racist you know they sort of play that trump card and are not even willing to engage in a conversation.

My goal in life is not to get everybody to cross their t's and dot their i's just like I do.

I want to have the humility to say I could be wrong in some of my applications and I appreciate people who disagree and who will engage me.

But my concern is let's understand what we're talking about. Let's understand the nature of culture and of music and of worship and let's try to be consistent and let's have careful conversations to make sure that what we are doing in practice actually accords with what we believe.

That's my underlying concern. What's interesting about that though is that I think the standard way that people engage with that kind of discussion is to try to point to where the line transitions point to the hard cases and then if you can narrow, you basically try to ask the person to define the exact point in which this thing becomes unbiblical and if they can't give you an exact answer then you dismiss the whole project but then it's just like hey that isn't the way that life works.

I mean when someone is being seductive where's the line?

I don't know. It's like that famous Supreme Court case where they were talking about what pornography is and one justice said something like I don't know how to define it but I know it when

I see it. I think you're exactly right. We try to define the line and I'll be the first to say that line is blurry.

Surely if you can't think of an extreme example then you're not engaging in good faith.

If you can't point to one example of how this could possibly work in a worship service then forgive me if I don't take you very serious.

Because you're not even trying at that point. You're being obtuse and you're trying to basically be destructive. I really try not to give a lot of specific examples of this particular style or this instrumentation or this group or this album or this or that.

I do that for a number of reasons. Number one because I want to give some room for growth and disagreement and discussion in terms of particular application.

Also because I know the minute you say someone's favorite group then they shut you off and don't listen to anything else.

I try to stay in terms of principle, in terms of theology, in terms of the overarching ideas and then let's wrestle through the applications and we might come to different conclusions on some specifics.

We might draw lines differently. That doesn't mean we're all right. It doesn't mean it's relative.

It doesn't mean it's neutral. It just means we're fallible and we ought to have iron sharpening, iron kinds of discussions to help one another make

God -pleasing decisions when it comes to all things in life not only just worship music. What are some reasons why you think that this is so offensive to so many people?

Because in some sense this is a discussion that I have a hard time understanding how it can be.

I'm the kind of person, if I'm working out or whatever, I may listen to 1

John in Greek or something like that. I'm just that kind of person. I spend my days listening to a sermon, the

Bible, three times speed or something like that. I'm oriented in that kind of way to where music for me is just not this...

You seem more of a music lover than me in general. I don't know that I'm oriented that way.

I'm more of a computer kind of personality in general. But then for me it's kind of like I could listen to any type of music and I don't have these strong preferences.

I'm more just... oriented towards the theology behind it.

For me, that's enough. Not even talking about the discussion you're having, which

I think is a significant piece of the puzzle that we're not talking about.

But for me, just with the lyrics themselves, it's just one of those things where I find myself so routinely frustrated by how often we're talking about brokenness and how often we're talking about just ushering in the presence of God into our music.

There's just so many things that come up over and over and over again that are just routinely kind of banging my head against the wall.

But then to me it's like this kind of discussion. I'm not looking for anything in the music.

I'm not looking for an experience in the music anyways. So for me it's just like if I got rid of a song, it didn't matter anyways.

I want it to be faithful. But why do you think for so many people this is so near to the bone?

I think generally a lot of people music is very personal.

You've got your own playlists, your own preferences. And so to criticize or say anything negative about a particular music that you like, people just automatically feel like you're attacking them.

So I think that's general across the board. You add in this whole

Pentecostal sacramental theology, which again I would say has impacted anybody younger than Baby Boomers.

It has impacted those generations of Christians. They've been led to believe that this feeling that they're experiencing through the music is the

Holy Spirit of God. This is His presence. So if you take that away...

It's just all about Henry Blackaby practicing the presence of God. You're nailing it.

It's more than just... All those authors and theologians have so impacted the way that we think.

You take that away from people, they feel like you're taking away their relationship with God.

And so again, I get why they get mad about it. I just want them to know there's actually something far better, far deeper, far greater.

And it's so debilitating. And again, I want to be careful when I say this because it could be really offensive to people.

But that way of thinking is the nature of paganism. Trying to tap into God raw, essentially.

I as the worshiper am initiating this encounter. I have to do things in order to get the

God's attention and invite Him to come down. And then finally I experience something tangibly.

That's paganism. We're told in the Bible that we walk by faith, not by sight.

That's exactly right. And Peter says essentially that they saw Christ transfigured and we have the more sure word in the scriptures.

That is exactly right. People don't want to trust the sufficiency of scripture. Hebrews 10, 11, and 12 make this argument so beautifully.

Chapter 10. Let us draw near because we have confidence to enter the holy place by a new living way through the veil that is

His flesh because we have a great high priest over the house of God. So it's all of Christ. Because of that, let us draw near with a true heart and full assurance of faith.

That language of drawing near, that's language of worship. That's how the Old Testament described worship in the context of Hebrews.

And chapter 12 tells us what we're drawing near to. We are drawing near to Mount Zion, to the city of the living

God, the heavenly Jerusalem and angels and festal gathering and the saints who've gone before and to God and to Jesus.

So we're actually through Christ drawing near to the very presence of heaven.

But chapter 11, we do it by faith and not by sight. We do it by faith and not by feeling.

We have feelings but they are signs of nothing. We don't depend on anything tangible, physical, or visible to give us confidence that we are actually drawn near to the presence of God.

How do you know that you've worshipped? I make this argument in one of my recent books Biblical Foundations of Christian Worship.

How do you know you've worshipped? I mean, you ask that question, that tells you everything you need to know about someone's theology.

You should be able to answer, how do you know you've worshipped? I know that I've worshipped because I have drawn near to God through Christ by faith with a sincere heart.

Period. I don't care what kind of feelings you have. You may have high feelings one week, you might have no feelings one week.

Again, Jonathan Edwards called those signs of nothing. They're not bad or good. I know

I've worshipped because I have come through the blood of Christ with a sincere heart, ready to hear the word of God, ready to respond with praise, adoration, confession, thanksgiving, and commitment.

I have communed with God. There's nothing tangible to prove that other than my faith in what

God has promised. I think Jerry Bridges had a quote, a definition of faith he gave before he died, but I think he essentially said that faith is not a passive state of mind, but a vigorous act of the soul whereby we choose to lay hold of the promises of God despite our ever -changing moods.

Yeah, well, that's great. But then I think that there's something I guess about the...

there certainly is as I've counseled individuals, I've counseled individuals from megachurches, and it is all about this experience, and it's tied to basically a second blessing theology of sanctification.

Right, that's where it started. Yeah, essentially. Now one of the things that's amazing to me about this kind of discussion in general is it just has always seemed obvious to me that if you let the charismatics lead you in worship or model worship for you that there has to be something like...

something that you're going to pick, some baggage there that's going to be left over. But then it seems strange that no one...

it seems strange that we're unwilling to even conceive of the reality that perhaps there is some in general as it relates to this discussion.

Yeah, I think we're just blind to this idea that embodied theology, right?

That's our problem. We think we can have somebody who's charismatic and we can have him lead the worship.

We're not having him preach about the Holy Spirit. We're not having him teach about his view of the sign gifts. So certainly he's not teaching theology we disagree with, not recognizing that the way that he leads, the expectations that he has are embodied in that whole service that he's led.

And it is impacting us even though we don't recognize it. Let me ask you this question related to clarification about your basic argument in general.

Now, basically the distinction you made would be trying to appeal to...

explain to me one more time to the affections over and against the passions, is that what you're saying?

The bodily passions? Yeah. Alright, so is any appeal to the bodily passions at all through music wrong?

So like in terms of... like obviously music affects us. Maybe you can think in terms of the example of Saul and David playing the harp horn or something along those lines.

Like music obviously has an effect on us. Right, but even there, and this is a good example, in one case it soothed

Saul, in another case he picked up a spear and threw it across the room. So clearly the music itself, it wasn't sort of this immediate irresistible effect.

It wasn't sanctifying in of itself. Right, so it certainly could have an effect. So yeah, it's a good question and I would say two things.

Number one, it's on a continuum, right, so it's not like there's these two hard, fast, black and white categories.

So it seems impossible to avoid it at all. All music to some degree is going to affect us physically.

Right, so make the distinction. Just because it's vibrations in the air is what music is. Right, it does it of necessity.

So what's your distinguish between the charismatic sort and the other as it relates to that continuum?

Again, this is very much tied into the discussion we just had a moment ago about where the line is.

I don't know. No, I don't want to know the line. I'm just more trying to get you to paint the how do you tell the difference there.

Music that is just immediately stimulating and gratifying.

It picks you up and it moves you without any thought or intentionality or engagement.

It would do that to a child who doesn't even understand the lyrics. It would do that to a pagan. Would that be foregrounding, like an issue of what you foreground?

No, it's the effect of the music and the performance itself that just stimulates the visceral impulses very quickly and almost irresistibly bypasses the mind.

Your initial question was, is that always wrong? I would say, no, it's not always wrong.

There's a place for just shutting my mind off and relaxing.

Turning on some music and letting it soothe me or whatever, but not in worship.

That's not the time to turn off my mind. Not in spiritual matters and never as a expectation that it is the presence of God that it is the experience of God.

The question then is, how do I identify when that's happening?

If I'm feeling my bodily passion stirred by the music raw, how do

I identify when we've... From an objective standpoint, again, talking about music is like dancing about architecture.

It's this high -intensity visceral sort of music that by virtue of volume, by virtue of the intensity of the rhythm usually is the case, which both of those then usually diminish any sort of harmonic richness or melodic richness to the music because it's all about this intensity of musical import.

There's a fascinating book. The subtitle is something like The Denigration of Language and Music and Why We Should Like Care.

Who's the guy who wrote it? I forget now his name. Doing Our Own Thing is the title of the book,

I think. He's an unbeliever, but he's talking about the shifts in language and music.

He talks about music in particular because what I'm describing here is what has happened to pop music too.

He talks about the fact that there's been this shift in pop music to this intensity, very driving rhythm, and a minimization of beautiful melodies and beautiful harmonic richness.

The opposite then of music that nurtures and cultivates the affections usually is music that has beautiful melody and rich harmony, which is not immediately stimulating.

You actually have to engage a little bit of contemplation or you have to give attention to the music in order to appreciate it.

With this music, the passionate music, it can just be on in the background and it's impacting you.

You're feeling the vibrations. A car pulls up next to you playing this music and your whole car moves.

Whereas music that is more modest or more targets the spirit and the affections, you have to actually pay attention to it for it to have any impact.

You actually have to give it some attention. It's not immediate. You have to learn to appreciate it, which is why people often think that that kind of music is boring because you can't just turn it on, shut your mind off, and feel something.

You actually have to listen to lyrics. Even if it doesn't have lyrics, you actually have to listen to the music and over time learn to appreciate the richness of it.

This music over here, the music that targets the affections and that carefully and modestly supports rich theological lyrics, it takes work to actually appreciate.

It takes work to have the kind of impact on you. Whereas music that's more about just stimulating the raw passions, you don't have to appreciate it at all.

It's going to affect you just by virtue of the physics of the vibrations in the air, the sweepingness of the music itself and all that.

I like to think of it, the different music that picks you up and carries you involuntarily as opposed to music that you use to express the affections of your heart that have been moved by the

Holy Spirit through the word. Those are two very different kinds of musical experiences. One of the pushbacks that I've heard from your articles is essentially coming from a place where an individual wants the music to be essentially, wants the lyrics to be meaningful and full of content.

But then it seems like in your article the critique is that you're basically rejecting any attempt to have the music match the lyrics itself in terms of what it's doing.

If you have lyrics that are sad, then having a tune that's sad, how would you respond to that kind of critique?

I'm all about the fittingness of the music to the lyrics. Absolutely. I'm not going to sing something about the death of Christ to some sort of majestic upbeat tune.

Some of them do. Or vice versa.

That's kind of my whole argument. The music has to fit the lyrics. But not only in that sort of simplistic, sad, happy, majestic, contemplative.

That has to fit too. But also theologically. Part of that fittingness is whether or not the music simply rouses up physical feelings or whether it actually fits and supports the truth in a modest way.

So what if it's like rousing feelings that are matching the actual feelings you should be...

But again, it depends on how those are created. If it's rousing but it's just... If I'm being aroused by just the music because it's sort of this immediate gratification, then

I'm really... I end up worshiping the feeling rather than having the feeling and the music supporting.

So you're advocating musical humility. Yeah. There's a modesty.

There's an orderliness to it. You look at the language of the

New Testament that these ideas of sobriety, self -control, dignity.

That kind of language ought to characterize our music. And the kind of music that's quote unquote rousing but really lacks self -control, lacks dignity, lacks reverence.

It might be rousing, but it's not the kind of... Again, it doesn't accord a sound doctrine.

It's not the kind of qualities that you see advocated as characteristic of spiritual maturity in the

New Testament. Well, that's one of the things that's interesting about this kind of discussion. In general, and it's related to just your worship discussion in general.

And one of the things that clearly the charismatic movement has taught us to do is basically it seems like the charismatic movement is trying to encourage us to have the emotional control of a five -year -old girl, essentially.

The more spiritual you are, it seems to be the less control of your emotions you actually have.

It used to be that we were encouraged to have temperance and fortitude and these kinds of virtues.

But then it seems like in the charismatic kind of framework, you're not truly spiritual unless you are totally out of control of your emotions as far as that's concerned.

Yeah, Lim and Ruth make that point about how Pentecostalism has mainstreamed this expectation or this understanding of intensity as a spiritual virtue.

If you're truly spiritual, there's going to be this sort of intensity where again, okay, show me that in scripture.

Where in these lists of spiritual maturity in the New Testament do you find any language that describes this high octane intense passion that has come to characterize what we expect of spiritual maturity.

Again, it's self -control. And again, people don't want to hear that. They don't like that.

And that's where the charges of boring come in, right? Because self -control by definition is boring.

It's not spontaneous, I guess. All right, well, let me change gears just a little bit and then just ask you some practical questions.

But changing gears just a little bit or maybe it's not changing gears, you tell me. But one of the things that's happened is

I'm one of these individuals who have, because I do have a bit of a counseling background and I've seen just the train wreck that happens when people at a personal level embrace this charismatic theology in general.

One of the things that has happened is I never really got the big Eva memo, essentially.

You had Mueller and you had Dever and they made friends with C .J.

Mahaney and part of what they were trying to do was together for the Gospel Impulse where we basically normalized the open but cautious position.

Yeah, absolutely. Now the problem on my end has always been that I'm just saying, hey, I'm counseling these people and if you think that God is speaking to you personally, we have a different religion.

We are not reading the same Bible. And there's no need to read the Bible in that kind of framework.

And so I've never really understood the impulse that T4G had to have

Sovereign Grace leading worship at every conference. Even Grace Church, where I'm coming from, they're doing the same thing.

Now that big Eva has kind of become untrustworthy in some circles.

What I'm wondering though is, I went to G3 this year and we have

Bob Coughlin leading us. I've always thought, hey, this is like, isn't this a little bit weird that we're putting forward

Charismatics as the examples of how to worship and Bob even picks at us the whole time.

Or not the whole time, he picks at us periodically. But I want to know what your thoughts are in terms of just, how does this discussion we're having related to these groups that are much more problematic and troublesome than Sovereign Grace.

But then at the same time, are we saying anything by having them lead us, for one?

And then for two, is there anything about the critiques that you're making that carries over into that kind of discussion?

Yeah, so it's a good question. I want to be real clear, guys like Coughlin, those guys at Sovereign Grace, they're light years better in so many ways, both theologically, musically, in so many ways, of course, than Hillsong, Bethel, etc.

I've interacted with Bob on several occasions. He seems to me to be one of the godliest men

I've ever met, great family, so many, I don't want to denigrate his walk with the

Lord whatsoever. But we do differ theologically on the issue of the Holy Spirit, on the nature of worship, on the nature of relationship with God.

And I would say that absolutely comes out in his music, and especially how he leads.

One of the most fascinating examples of that, I went to the 2008

T4G, which I think was the second one, and he led. And of course, their practice was just him on the piano, right?

So he didn't have the band, he didn't have all of the extra things that he normally has. And I could actually tell there was sort of this frustration, like he was limited.

His theology needed more than just the piano. But that's all he had, so he did as much as he could.

I mean, the shouting out, repeating the same phrase over and over again, why was he doing that?

Because he was trying to generate the feelings, but with a lot more limitation.

But he's a fantastic pianist. He knows what he's doing on an instrument.

And so it was just fascinating to observe him embody his theology with all the limitations that he had with just that piano.

But it was still there, right? And again, not anywhere near, I think, the degree of problematic with these other groups that we're talking about.

But I still think it's still clearly there. It is still impacting how he leads.

Again, I'm not judging his motives or his godliness. I disagree with his theology.

And again, in my view, because I think these things are communicated through the way that music is led, that it is embodied there.

And I think we have to, if we don't believe that, let's not do it, is what

I would say. Fair enough. All right, so practical questions. Are churches who worship with these songs in sin?

Yeah, okay. So this is a good place to say this, too. I want to be clear.

Our acceptance before God is not based on the perfection of our worship.

Because if that were the case, none of us would be accepted. Our acceptance before God is 100 % based on the imputed righteousness of Christ.

So in nothing of all of this of what I'm talking, I mean, obviously with these groups that are theologically heretical, okay, now we're talking about problems of the gospel.

But beyond that, I'm not in any way saying any of this to say that if you worship in this way, that you are going to hell.

And again, there's charismatics, there's Pentecostals, with whom I disagree, on the Holy Spirit, who are godly, saved people.

So I don't want to say that at all. This is more about what we're doing in the context of worship, and I framed it this way in several points that I've made in this discussion.

It's about how it's affecting the people. It's what it's doing to our expectations of the nature of our experience with God.

And I'm legitimately afraid it's harmful for people when they have this expectation that I need this high intense emotional experience in order to actually experience the presence of God.

So in sin, I would say, from my perspective, in sin in the same way that I would say a

Presbyterian brother is wrong when he baptizes a baby, right? Because I just disagree with them theologically.

Not sin in the same way as somebody who commits adultery or somebody who explicitly disobeys a commandment.

This is a theological difference within the realm of orthodoxy. So I'm not going to say you're in sin like I would say to somebody who's sleeping around.

Do I think it's theologically wrong? Yes. Meaning you're saying you believe it's an important secondary issue that doesn't necessarily affect one's salvation status.

Yeah, right. It doesn't. Other than obviously the people who are explicitly heretical, it does not affect our status with the

Lord. I think it's wrong. I think it's harmful. I think it is unbiblical.

But again, it's not a purposeful disobedience of a clear command of the

Lord, right? So that's why I hesitate just coming out and saying, yes, they're in sin. You always say, is that unintentional sin?

Yeah, I don't know how to classify things. Again, as a Baptist, would I say a

Presbyterian is in sin when he baptizes a baby? It would be hard for me to say that, even though I think they're dead wrong.

They're doing what they think is biblically taught, but I do think that they're wrong.

So it's the same kind of thing. Are they in sin? And you would ground that not just in the embodied theology argument, but then in all the arguments together as well?

Well, no. I mean, if somebody is teaching false doctrine— I mean, like if we're at a church and we're playing

Killsong music, then obviously there's a sense in which we're encouraging the weaker brother to stumble or financially supporting in a certain sense, that kind of stuff.

Even there, I think there is room for disagreement and discussion on that point.

The financial one. Right, the financial one or even causing someone to stumble. You feel like that's a fuzzier argument.

I think it is problematic to support financially. I think it does cause weaker brothers to stumble, but I'm not going to be as dogmatic on that point.

I think there might be room for argument and disagreement there. And if a group sings

Killsong, I'm not going to say, hey, you're in sin. You're a false church. That's the whole nature of hopefully my heart and my approach here is

I'm just trying to warn people. This is influencing your congregation. So would you basically say it's very unwise?

Yeah, absolutely. Very unwise, not necessarily clear black and white depending on what we're talking about?

Because I think the actual singing of the music is an application of deeper theological things.

I'm more concerned about the deeper theological things. So if people don't get what I'm saying theologically yet,

I'm not going to condemn them for singing the stuff. But the only way they're going to stop is if you say, hey, repent.

The end is near. This is not a gospel issue, but I hesitate to say that because when a lot of people hear me say that, they say, oh, then it doesn't matter.

No, no, no, no. Well, that's what most people hear. Just because it's not a gospel issue doesn't mean it's not important. There are a lot of things that are not gospel issues that are nevertheless important.

I think this is a very important thing. Very important secondary issue that we should contend for.

Is that right? That's right. What do I do if my church plays these songs? Should I leave a church over this?

I've had questions like that. Again, this is a perfect example of application versus underlying theology.

If I'm in a church and they're singing these things, my first impulse, or let's just speak to this hypothetical person, your first impulse should not be just,

I'm out of here. Have some conversations with leadership and try to get deeper into the heart of their theology of worship.

What do they believe? Are they singing these things just because it's what evangelical churches do and they don't have any they need to think more carefully about this?

Or are they singing these because they have a theology in which they believe that we usher in the presence of God through music?

If you ask the questions and you realize that's the theology, at that point it might be time to leave.

Unless there's movement, right? Because there's a lot of churches that come out of that, that reform. But if you have conversations with the leadership and they clearly have this sort of sacramental theology and it's just, they're confirmed in it, they know what they're doing, they believe it because they're convinced of it

I would say it's probably time to leave. But if you have conversations and you realize either there's just not been much thought about this at all or which is the truth in the many cases, they're in a process.

Change doesn't happen overnight. Reform doesn't happen overnight. We should always be reforming. And I would urge church members who are in churches where the trajectory is moving in the right direction it may not be there yet.

They still might be singing things that you think are problematic. But if their toes are pointed in the right direction, if they're moving in the right direction, you ought to be the kind of church member that stands right up next to them and says,

I'm gonna walk this direction too. And I'm gonna do everything I can to support and help things move in the right direction.

Look for direction, not perfection. That's a good way to say it.

Are there any songs that you actually like personally from any of these groups? This is a confession time.

Yeah, no. I mean, you know. If I'm in a setting where they hear them, can

I recognize the sort of emotional appeal? Sure.

But I'm just convictionally so convinced of these things

I don't have any. Did I lose you?

No, I'm here. No, it's not that bad. Alright, fair enough.

Is it okay to listen to some of these songs personally and not in corporate worship?

So you mentioned a place for tapping into the bodily passions raw as it relates to listening to mood music, relaxing music.

I think there can be a difference between what I do corporately and what

I do personally to some degree. But with this issue, when

I'm talking about it sort of forming within me a certain expectation of the presence of God, if that's my diet six days a week in my home, in my car, then

I'm being affected and shaped. And when I go to Sunday worship, it's going to be boring. I'm not going to be.

Because again, this stuff sort of precludes the ability to appreciate depth and richness of something that's not immediately gratifying.

So when I talked about shutting your mind off and just listening to mood music, I'm not talking about sacred music or worship.

Even from a personal perspective, I'm just talking about just some downtime.

I want to be real careful when I'm taking God's holy truth and setting it to music.

Again, there can be differences. I think there's some things where I could be edified on a personal level that might not just be appropriate for a corporate setting.

There are differences, I think, between what's appropriate for corporate and what's appropriate for personal. But even there,

I want to make sure that it's still fitting and that it's not forming my expectations and affections in ways contrary to what truly is the nature of communion with God through Christ by faith.

So essentially, do you think that the more a person is truly walking by faith and not attempting to tap into God raw in that kind of way, the more these songs should come across as vapid?

Is that true? Yes. Do you think people should be repelled by them the more they grow in the

Christian life? That's essentially what I'm trying to get at. The more they grow and the more that they understand who God is, should they necessarily be repelled by them?

I think so. But at the same time, I think there are some really theologically astute people.

There's mind and there's heart. There's theology and there's affections. And they don't always mature or develop or deepen at the same level.

So there's a lot of people who I believe are really godly, holy. They walk with God. They're mature

Christians. But their sort of imagination of God and their affections have not been matured and trained to the same degree.

Again, largely probably because of the worship in the churches they've been involved in. So that's why

I think both are so important. If a person is mature in terms of their imagination of who

God is, in terms of their affections toward God, then yes. That's why when you ask me, do

I like any of that music? It doesn't even appeal to me. I'm not saying I'm the epitome of maturity.

My affections have been trained to a degree to where it's like food.

You develop a certain appreciation, a certain palate for good, rich, healthy, quality food.

And the Big Mac just doesn't taste good anymore. So I think there is some of that that hopefully is occurring in a person's life.

But you don't want to say it across the board essentially. I want to allow for the fact that there are people who are theologically mature, who may be wise, who may be godly, who may truly walk with God.

But have a blind spot. There's this blind spot. There's this area that they've not yet.

Again, this is why the couple books I've written most recently is my main reason for doing it.

Because I think there's a lot of churches like this that have really made some huge strides in terms of reforming their soteriology, and their view of God's sovereignty, and their ecclesiology, and their appreciation and love for expositional preaching.

And they've just not given attention to worship yet. And I would say that part of their church is yet very unreformed and immature in that sense.

That's one area. So I just don't want to give the impression that people mature every aspect of who someone is matures all at the same level.

Sometimes certain aspects of who we are mature and deepen, and there might be some areas that are yet underdeveloped.

Sure. No, that's fair. I think more of the impulse behind there is just thinking about the nature of how you relate with God in general, and considering that walking by faith is such a primary aspect of the

Christian life, then it seems like something interesting to think about.

Well, Scott, you've been a good sport. I've brailed you a little bit.

No, it's good. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify some things. It's hard to communicate everything I want to communicate through a couple blog posts.

I'm always appreciative of the opportunity to share my heart and clarify. Yes, sir. Do you have anything you want to add that could be helpful based on what we've said so far?

Maybe a shameless plug, but again, you can only communicate so much through blog posts, but a lot of my books deal with these kinds of things at a far deeper level.

And the two that came out in February, Change from Glory into Glory, the liturgical story of the

Christian faith, traces some of what we started with, this difference between covenant renewal worship and how theology and worship interplay and sacramental theology and all of that at a far deeper level.

And I would encourage people, if you're interested in diving deeper, that's a good place to go. And then the other book

I already mentioned, Biblical Foundations of Corporate Worship, that also came out in February.

Again, I wrote that specifically to try to help to articulate this Reformed Covenant Renewal Theology of Worship that I've been talking about in a very simple, biblical, straightforward manner.

So what I tried to articulate in these blog posts in a very short amount of time, some of these other books might be really helpful.

Yeah. Well, how can people connect with you? Maybe you can do all the plugs. So you plug the books. Yeah. So I mean,

G3men .org is where I blog and podcast and everything you can find there.

But I also have scottanniel .com where I sort of post articles. All my books are there. So those two places, g3men .org

and scottanniel .com. If you go there, then you can also find Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and all scholarly articles

I've written, books, sermons, lectures, all kinds of stuff that might be helpful for anybody who's interested.