A Fresh Look at "Come Thou Fount"

Doctrine Doctrine Doctrine

This is another in our occasional look at music and doctrine. We've noted that the three most important elements in music claiming to be Christian is whether the singer is wearing a tie... no, wait... that's rather carnal thinking... the three most important elements are:

• Doctrine
• Doctrine
• Doctrine

Music should never be the primary or only source for teaching in our gatherings, but it can be a great source of encouragement and it should strengthen (complement) sound doctrine. With that in mind, this time around we will examine, in part, the beloved hymn "Come Thou Fount."

Come, Thou Fount of every blessing,
Tune my heart to sing Thy grace;
Streams of mercy, never ceasing,
Call for songs of loudest praise.
Teach me some melodious sonnet,
Sung by flaming tongues above.
Praise the mount, I’m fixed upon it,
Mount of Thy redeeming love.

What could be wrong with that? Well, I'm not condemning it in toto, but I think we can do better in terms of doctrinal accuracy. And that is our goal, is it not?

First, we have to acknowledge that some of the "beloved hymns" we know today are not "as written." We will not examine that fact in this study except to say, parts have been dropped from the originals over the decades. That is true of "Come Thou Fount." For now, however, we will simply turn back to the verse in view as we have it today.

Flaming Tongues Above?

The idea captured by "Teach me some melodious sonnet, sung by flaming tongues above" is a bit of a poser to me. The only "flaming tongues above" with which I am familiar in scripture would be at the Jewish feast of Pentecost in Acts 2. What that has to to do with us (nothing, we're not Jews) has been covered in other studies, but even so, why would the tongues be singing?

I have searched my King James Bible and I do not find the phrase "flaming tongues above." What I do find is this from Acts 2:3.

And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.

The "them" in the passage would be the chosen apostles of Christ (v.14). The "cloven tongues" are merely "like a fire." It's a simile.  Seems to me the hymn takes great liberties with this one-time, person-specific, time-limited event

Let's take a look at a revision of this verse by Charles Welch:

Teach me some melodious sonnet
Suited to Thy matchless love;
Sovereign grace - I'm fixed upon it,
Grace that nothing can remove.

[Hymns of Praise. Charles H. Welch, Editor, 1957]

I think this is both far better in terms of thought and biblical, doctrinal content.

Gentiles Were Never in the Fold

We return to the common text of the hymn:

Jesus sought me when a stranger,
Wandering from the fold of God

As Gentiles, we were certainly "strangers" (Ephesians), but we never "wander[ed] from the fold of God." That's fairly close to heretical. I'd say it's very heretical, but given a wide berth perhaps we can find some degree of application. But giving wide berth also gives wide berth to heresy.

Now let's turn to the revision:

Christ did seek me when a stranger,
Without hope, or peace, or God

[Hymns of Praise. Charles H. Welch, Editor, 1957]

Let's not lose site of the change from "Jesus" to "Christ." As Gentiles, we need to be very careful here. There is an air of familiarity and a danger in focusing on the earthly ministry of Christ in the name "Jesus" used alone. Sticking with just Ephesians for a moment (we are going to look a selection from that epistle), the word "Jesus" is used 20 times (KJV) by Paul, yet never alone. He is called "Christ" alone (Eph 2:12), but not "Jesus" alone.

Jesus Christ (5)
Christ Jesus (6)
Lord Jesus Christ (7)
Christ Jesus our Lord (1)
Lord Jesus (1)

Moving to the next line in the hymn, we remember that, as Gentiles, we were without hope, peace, or God. No fold from which to wander. The new rendering is more scriptural and more accurately reflects what we have gained by Christ's work in the current age.

Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us...

Ephesians 2:11-14

You Can't leave God, You're Already Sealed

Now we turn to one of the most beloved sections of the hymn and examine the thoughts and doctrines being addressed.

Prone to wander, Lord, I feel it,
Prone to leave the God I love;
Here’s my heart, O take and seal it,
Seal it for Thy courts above.

What could be wrong with that? Well, I don't know about you, but I believe I am sealed by God already. And I don't believe I could leave God if I tried. Nothing can separate me from the love of God in Christ Jesus. Yes, we may see this verse from a practical viewpoint, but isn't that one of the complaints against contemporary Christian music? That it tends to be subjective and inwardly focused?

 And now the revision:

Prone to wander, Lord, I feel it,
Yet I’ll never fall away;
By Thy Spirit, Thou did’st seal it,
Seal my heart for that bright day.

[Hymns of Praise. Charles H. Welch, Editor, 1957] 

We again stay in Ephesians for these glorious truths (doctrines):

in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory... 

-Ephesians 1:13-14

We can wander in the flesh. We can sin. We can fail to run the race. And as we have looked at a number of times, there is judgment coming for Christian service and faithfulness. But even though we may grieve the Spirit, we are forever sealed unto resurrection life. I cannot leave him, and I'll never fall away! Even when we grieve him, we remain sealed!

And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption. 

-Ephesians 4:30

The "beloved hymn," as commonly sung, casts doubt on our position in Christ, even if only subtly so.

We Must Use Biblical Standards

Finally, I turn to a couple of  "hymn-only" proponents (as we have in previous studies) and apply their concerns to our hymn in question.

“No one should deny the power of music to proselytize! Pastors in particular must defend their flocks from false teaching, heresies and ‘ear ticklers’ who bring worldly sensuality into the congregation; you are right to point out how easily this comes into a church through worship music. It seems wiser to decline the use of what seems to be a perfectly good song, rather than to give any honor and hint of endorsement to the composer and his/her mission”

Dan Lucarini, author of Why I Left the Contemporary Christian Music Movement: Confessions of a Former Worship Leader

The emphasis is mine. In the video at the end of this entry, you will see some emotional proselytizing going on by some pretty serious heretics using the "beloved hymns of the faith" (including "Come Thou Fount"). We also noted the subtle (and not so subtle) heresies in "Come Thou Fount" in this study. "Worldly sensuality" is catch-all and can mean whatever they want. They never seem to define it. Beware such subjective arguments without scriptural backing.

"Endorsement of the composer?" Might want to check how many hymns are based on music written by Roman Catholics. Is that really a concern? I have no idea who wrote most of the hymns, but that doesn't stop me from judging DOCTRINE.

Another critic of contemporary music is David Cloud (Way of Life Literature). I want to be careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Some of his concerns are valid. However, his approach is often not doctrinal, but personal. And he's stuck on the horrible pagan doctrine of "fiery torture by God" and can't see past his own lust for vengeance. I admit that's a personal judgment, but feel free to read his own words. 

Fifteen times in the New Testament, Hell is described in terms of fire. “Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched” (Mark 9:44,46,48). Hell is described as “fire” (Mt. 5:22; 18:9), “everlasting fire” (Mt. 18:8; 25:41), “fire unquenchable” (Luke 3:17), “this flame” (Lk. 16:24)

So, this is good place to link a study or two on this topic. Honestly, when I read statements like the one above (feel free to read his entire article, I don't want to be accused of cherry-picking), it comes off as so biblically deficient, I can only speculate that he so wants people tortured by God (the vast amount of humanity, by the way) that he won't take five minutes to examine the verses he chooses in context. He seems to relish the thought. 

Traditions that Interfere With True Understanding 

Another Look at Gehenna "Hell" 

The Horrible Doctrine of Man's Traditional "Hell" 

Lake of Fire and Torment? 

Animals are Souls and You are Not Immortal

Ironically, in his post, Mr. Cloud attacks the modern Papal doctrines on hell while not realizing his own position is one championed by traditional Catholicism and by scores of Popes and Catechisms. The doctrines of the "immortal soul" and "fiery torture by God" are Greek paganism adopted into corrupt Christendom. The early Reformers fought these ideas. Unfortunately, men like David Cloud side with Thomas More and the Popes in their interpretation rather than with men like Tyndale (or more to the point, Paul).

Finally, below is the video I promised. It features some the most "beloved hymns" sung some of the worst heretics (Some of whom love the KJV too). The hymns don't seem to be doing them any good either doctrinally or in personal conduct. Should I employ the innuendo and logical fallacies often used against those who use contemporary music and blame the hymns for their heresy and sin? After all, "Come Thou Fount" as found in most hymnals today is more aligned with Catholicism's or Mormonism's view of salvation than that of Biblical Christianity.

In the montage, the traditional "Come Thou Fount" is sung by the Mormon Tabernacle Choir.

Hymns for Heretics

Amazing Grace (Tammy Faye Bakker)
A Closer Walk With Thee (Jimmy Swaggart)
Are You Washed in the Blood (7th Day Adventists)
The Old Rugged Cross (Benny Hinn)
Come Thou Fount (Mormon Tabernacle Choir)
How Great Thou Art (Kenneth Copeland)
Rock of Ages (Jehovah's Witnesses)
Amazing Grace (Emmanuel Catholic Church)
The Sweet By and By (Earnest Angely Ministries)

Irony Alert: one of the comments under the original 7th Day Adventist video pointed to how the old hymns contained more doctrine than the contemporary songs... apparently it's not helping.

A Fresh Look at "How Great Thou Art"

We have covered the topic of hymns and the use of music in Christendom before. The overarching goal is to have us treat songs as we do everything that comes our way. That is, we need to filter all through doctrine. We've also noted the role of music. Its primary function is not to take the place of teaching, but rather to supplement teaching and for praise (Psalm 150; etc.).

I have nothing against the hymns. There are many hymns I love and cherish. If you follow this blog, you know I was raised in a conservative Catholic diocese and parish. We had hymns, many (most?) of which contained dangerous heresy. So the word "hymn" does not absolve us of the duty to test all things.

We've seen in our studies on this topic how some hymns used historically in Evangelical or Fundamental Christendom can also contain terrible error. We compared some hymns to certain contemporary Christian songs as examples of why doctrine is what matters. We also revealed how the trappings surrounding the hymns are also inconsequential (robes, organs, altars, beats, etc.).

We examined some of the criticisms of contemporary music by "discernment" ministries. In some cases we turned their man-made standards onto certain hymns. We've looked at other "sacred hymns." The Bible must be our arbiter.

If you search the internet for a list of the most popular hymns, there is only little variation. On one particular list, "How Great Thou Art" comes in at number 2 (behind "Amazing Grace"). As an aside, both of these hymns appear on the CD, "How Great Thou Art: 30 Catholic Songs of Worship." This does not taint the hymns, but it does reveal that the doctrines are only particular to Evangelical Christianity because we filter them as Evangelicals. There's nothing wrong with filtering (when possible), it is what a biblical mind should do.

So let's take a closer look at the beloved hymn.

O Lord my God,
When I in awesome wonder
Consider all
The works Thy Hand hath made,
I see the stars,
I hear the mighty thunder,
Thy pow'r throughout
The universe displayed

Lovely. No doctrinal complaints. The creation surely shows his handiwork. But on its own, It could be sung by a follower of just about any religion in the world. It is only "deep" and "doctrinal" because we want to perceive it that way.

I once worked with a number of African Muslims (including an Imam). When a beautiful butterfly flew into our workplace I commented how idiotic it is to believe that such a creature happened by accident for no reason. The Muslims agreed. But that hardly made them Christians. Fortunately, we were able to have other conversations about the uniqueness of Christ and his work on our behalf. Nothing in the verse would objectionable to them.

When through the woods
And forest glades I wander
I hear the birds
Sing sweetly in the trees,
When I look down
From lofty mountain grandeur
And hear the brook
And feel the gentle breeze

Then sings my soul,
My Savior God, to Thee,
How great Thou art!
How great Thou art!
Then sings my soul,
My Savior God, to Thee,
How great Thou art!
How great Thou art!

 This second verse is only slightly better in that it includes "Savior God." But, again, completely applicable across almost any and all religions.

When Christ shall come,
With shouts of acclamation,
And take me home,
What joy shall fill my heart!
Then I shall bow
In humble adoration
And there proclaim

Ah, finally the name of Christ! This mention does exclude the religions which deny the second coming of Christ, but says nothing about qualifying for salvation. In addition, it neglects the fact that not every believer's hope is in the heavenly places. For many, their hope is on the earth and he will come back and rule and reign here. Those of us who understand the distinction between the "parousia" and the "epiphenea" of the Lord may get something out of this verse, but that truth is not clearly taught here (I doubt the writer understood it anyway).

In the end, it is nice song. Nothing wrong with it. It's not sinful. And it does allow us who know the true God to praise him for his creation and the promise of the return of Christ. But that hardly makes it deep, sacred, or particularly doctrinal. As we have noted in studied on the name of the Lord and in the scriptures use of pronouns, the Lord knows who are his and he knows our hearts. You can sing "How Great Thou Art" and include in your hymnal and on a CD, but if you don't know the Savior personally through resting in his finished work, it's useless.

Yesterday in our local meeting, one of these songs we sand was "Reckless Love." I'm not a big fan of the song for a number of reasons, but be that as it may, it's just as focused as "How Great Thou Art" and in some ways even more so.

O, the overwhelming, never-ending, reckless love of God
O, it chases me down, fights 'til I'm found, leaves the ninety-nine
I couldn't earn it, I don't deserve it, still, You give Yourself away
O, the overwhelming, never-ending, reckless love of God

"I couldn't earn it" is more Evangelical that anything in the "sacred hymn." I'm not a big fan of either Elevation Music or Hillsong Worship, but the lyrics in Hisllsong's "The Passion" are equal to or superior to most of the lyric on the top hymns list. Certainly these lyrics are far more precise and doctrinal than anything in "How Great Thou Art:"

The passion of our Saviour
The mercy of our God
The cross that leaves no question
Of the measure of His love 

Our chains are gone, our debt is paid
The cross has overthrown the grave
For Jesus' blood that sets us free
Means death to death and life for me 

The Innocent judged guilty
While the guilty one walks free
Death would be His portion
And our portion liberty

I've covered this before, but the lines, "the cross has overthrown the grave," and "death to death," have more truth about what was accomplished in the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ than almost any hymn about the cross.

The Bible Must Define Our Terms (Follow-Up On CCM Post)

In our last study concerning music used by Christians (David Cloud Makes Up Scripture), we noted that critics of contemporary music throw out the words "worldly" and "carnal" and "sensual" while failing to define these biblically. We looked at the use of "sensual" in Ephesians as Paul implored believers not to walk according the way of the Gentiles.

I wrote in part:

Men may miss the works of the flesh listed by God because men often substitute their
own opinions. This tendency of man clouds his view of scripture because it appeals to his flesh. (We will look at this in our next study.)

In this short follow-up, I want to quickly look at the works of the flesh as they given to us in scripture. We looked at this section of scripture in our series on walking in the new nature. You can review that HERE.

Galatians 5 lays out for us the works of the flesh. In fact, the Holy Spirit tells us these are "evident" [Greek: phanerós - apparent, plainly recognized, shining forth].

Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. [NKJV]

Let's also use these translations so we can have a clear understanding of these sins.

The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. [NIV]

And manifest also are the works of the flesh, which are: Adultery, whoredom, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, strifes, emulations, wraths, rivalries, dissensions, sects, envyings, murders, drunkennesses, revellings, and such like... [Young's Literal]

We see some clearly carnal things in here. Sexual sin, drunkenness, witchcraft, jealousy, murders, dissension, rage, selfishness, etc. Yet the critics of CCM such as David Cloud and Way of Life melt "sensuality" and "wordliness" down to the backbeat used in contemporary music. Of course, this is purely speculation on his part and an argument which starts with the conclusion he seeks. Sometimes the critics place their arguments on silly things like music played to plants, etc. Again, these are appeals to the carnal mind looking for justification. They are not biblical arguments.

We know from elsewhere in Paul's warnings that the love of money is behind all sorts of evil (1 Tim 6:10). As Petra was playing concerts in the 1980s and giving altar calls, men like Benny Hinn and Jimmy Swaggart and Jim and Tammy Bakker were fleecing God's people with hymns. The Catholic Church, for centuries, was home to the worst debauchery you can imagine. Popes and Cardinals with mistresses. Rape, incest, pedophilia was commonplace.

Do you want to see the fruit of sexual sin? Look no further than these. Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart, The Mormons, the Catholic Church... all connected to wicked sin we dare not even mention. Shall we blame the hymns? How did their suits and ties and hymns and "sacred traditions" protect them from sensuality? It's all nonsense, but an argument which appeals to pride and to the flesh.

To suggest that CCM bands like Servant or White Heart were producing what these hymns-only, "Christian" ministries produced is to ignore the facts and seek only that which you want to find. Show some clips of drugged out hippies in San Francisco in 1967 at a rock concert and suggest that the same thing happened at all Contemporary Christian festivals. That's the trickery of those who spread slander and the wisdom of men as bible truth. Utter nonsense.

I attended Creation Fest in Pennsylvania in 1986. Creation Fest is a four day Christian music festival featuring multiple artists. While I have an issue with a number of things taught by some of the teachers, I can report that it was hardly like Haight-Ashbury! I attended the festival again in 1992 and I purchased a very conservative book from the book tent. In that crowd were Christians from the progressive to the conservative. The music neither created nor destroyed either.

The more I meditate on this topic, the more I see through the carnality of the accusers. I see "rage" and "envy" and "hatred" and "idolatry" and in some corners "debauchery" and "sexual sin." Latin chants and classical music could not contain the flesh (and still do not), yet the scripture is some contemporary music has changed lives for Christ. I've seen it countless times.

That is not to say there is no room to examine contemporary music. As with all things, we must test the doctrines. We must "convince, rebuke, exhort with all long-suffering and doctrine." But to sit back declare contemporary music itself "sensual" is not only lazy, it's unbiblical. It appeals to the flesh and plays on the emotions of the weak. Can we find sexual sin in CCM? Sure. But as we've noted, we can find gross, rampant, horrifying sexual sin among the hymn users (and among the classical composers upon whom many of the hymns are based).

Satan's wiles are clever. His subtlety is in presenting to the flesh that which puffs it up and makes it feel "holy." While the works of the flesh are "evident," his tricks are not. He presents himself as an "Angel of Light" and his ministers are "the ministers of righteousness." Satan stands in the pulpit, not at the local bar. Satan's churches are "sacred" places. They are "solemn" places. Even the unbeliever "feels God" when he enters.

Test all things. Don't be lazy and just believe contemporary = carnal, the Lord wants us to be more discerning. And just because the guy selling you this simplicity is wearing a tie and listening to "In My Heart There Rings A Melody," it doesn't mean a thing. If that matters to you, you may be carnal. You may be washing the outside of the cup while the inside is still filthy.

"Man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.”

"But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty..."

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness."

“Now you Pharisees make the outside of the cup and dish clean, but your inward part is full of greed and wickedness."

Beware the Angels of Light:

David Cloud Makes Up Scripture (Concerning Contemporary Music)

Way of Life Ministries

There are some good things about David Cloud's Way of Life ministry, but not enough for me to recommend it. He fails to rightly divide the Word of Truth, teaches Greek Mythology, and, ironically, often has an earthly focus. He promotes the blasphemy of the doctrine of God torturing unbelievers with fire without end. He also takes the demonstrably silly position of faith in the infallibility of the King James Bible.

But where he does preach Christ and the sufficiency of his death, burial, and resurrection we can give praise to God and be thankful. For whatever reason he preaches Christ (I am not the judge of another man's servant, I cannot know his heart), I rejoice that Christ is preached.

Cloud and CCM

I would like to just briefly address his position on Contemporary Christian Music from a somewhat different angle than usual. I have covered the arguments against contemporary music elsewhere on this blog and have noted the heresy and weakness in some of the hymns in doing so. But, in the end, this blog is about the absolute sufficiency of scripture. We compare scripture with scripture and, where we can because we should, we allow scripture to interpret itself.

One of the main objections to contemporary music is that it is "worldly." This term must be understood biblically. There are many things which are "worldly" (of the world) which men revere. Men revere the traditions of men. Men revere earthly ordinances. Men revere rules and pseudo-holiness (such as tie-wearing). Men may miss the works of the flesh listed by God because men often substitute their own opinions. This tendency of man clouds his view of scripture because it appeals to his flesh. (We will look at this in our next study.)

Let's look at how subtle this error can be.

The worldliness of Contemporary Christian Music is seen in that the contemporary music itself borrows from the world’s sensual rhythms. Contemporary Christian Music openly and proudly uses any type music in the service of the Lord and refuses to separate from music that is openly used in the worship of the flesh and the devil. 

-David Cloud (Excerpt, Why We Are Opposed to CCM) 

Note what I have underlined. We are to take Cloud's definition of "sensual" and assume it is God's. There is no scriptural basis for this. There are countless contemporary songs which are far less carnally moving than some pieces of classical music. His argument appeals to the pride and self-righteousness of his readers. It feeds their carnal understanding.

Beauty Can Be Deceptive

I once spoke to a pastor who told me the story of a wealthy donor who wanted Ave Maria played at his daughter's wedding in his church. He refused.  Oliver B. Greene tells the story of listeners remarking to him how "beautiful" the funeral mass for JFK was. He responded in disgust that it was not beautiful at all. To their eye is was outwardly "holy," yet this is Satan's greatest tool. He presents himself as an Angel of Light and slips in leaven.

Black Sabbath isn't slipping in any leaven. The local progressive pastor and "sacred cathedrals" (as conservative Prophecy News Watch prefers) are far more dangerous.

How did the hymns serve the Catholic Church for centuries? Did it keep them from carnality? Hardly. The tales of debauchery among the clergy and among the classical musicians themselves is staggering. There are as many dangers in classical music as in any music. Ave Maria appeals to the flesh. Hitler's propagandist, Goebbels, understood the power in Wagner's music. The pro-homosexual movie, Philadelphia, features a soundtrack replete with classical music.

Check out the soundtrack to the wicked film, A Clockwork Orange if you think somehow classical or traditional music cannot be corrupted or be paired with evil.

Way of Life Wants You to Feel Your Theology, Not Test the Spirits

Would any of us conclude that Petra's "Praise Ye the Lord" appeals to the flesh while the works of homosexual composer Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky do not? Way of Life would like us to believe Tchaikovsky's "9 Sacred Pieces" is from God, while Keith Green's "Make My Life A Prayer to You" is sensual? If that latter moves David to sin, I think he has a larger problem than contemporary music.

Make My Life a Prayer to You (Keith Green)

A lot more convicting than "In My Heart There Rings a Melody."

Let us look at one of our epistles for this age, Ephesians:

This I say, therefore, and testify in the Lord, that you should no longer walk as the rest of the Gentiles walk, in the futility of their mind, having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart; who, being past feeling, have given themselves over to lewdness [sensuality], to work all uncleanness with greediness.

Now, did these believers give themselves over to sensuality because they walked in the old nature or because they listened to contemporary Christian music? That's a rhetorical question if you did not know. If you avoid living a sensual life, learn to walk in the new nature. You cannot do that by imposing the traditions of men on your life. That will lead to pride and failure. For carnality takes many forms.

Staying in that stream of reasoning, are the lives of classical musicians in New York or even in the local College of Music more or less inclined to holy, biblical living and right doctrine than my life and doctrine because I prefer contemporary music? I'm hoping you see how stupid this line of reasoning can get. It is earthly reasoning. It is a vain philosophy not built ion scripture.

There is more hope for the lost classical musician who starts listening to Keith Green than the one content to bathe himself in classical masses. As you listen to Handel's Messiah, remember he also wrote quite a bit of Latin church music for pagan Catholic feast days. Does the latter sully the former (or all of his works for that matter)? No. We are capable (or should be) of judging musical pieces on their own. I can find truth in some of Handel's words, and heresy in others. That is up to me. They delivery of that music, in almost every case, has no bearing.

Scripture is the Sole Arbiter of Truth

Pictured is there church where I grew up. It was part of the most "sacred" of all sacred churches and our parish was in the most conservative Arch diocese in America. I never wore shorts (nor was I allowed). We sang hymns. We had a pipe organ. Meanwhile, some of my fellow altar boys were being brutally, sexually abused. I suppose I should blame the hymns?

I wore a tie every day to school there. There was plenty of sensuality (as there has been since Adam). In fact, ritual and rules empower the flesh.

This is where I fellowship now.

Now, in between I fellowshipped at two of the most tie-wearingest, Organ-playinist churches you can image. Lovely people, but just as much in the flesh in many ways as anything I see now (we even had sex scandals in those "old time religion" gatherings).

One main difference from those places and my current fellowship is the numbers of professions of faith. I don't personally remember more than a few during my 14 years in the "traditional" setting, but in the last 7 years where I am now, I've seen literally thousands. I'm not saying there not have been people who received life, but I'd be hard-pressed to name them. Take that back, one kid I knew who is now a great father and husband and committed Christian found life through the witness of the Wednesday night praise band.

We Must Always Rejoice When Christ is Faithfully Taught

Can David Cloud rejoice that Christ is preached at a Petra concert?

No, he's too busy deciding what is sensual.

I've been to all kinds of concerts. In fact, the first altar call I ever heard as a devout Roman Catholic was at a Petra concert (I didn't feel very sensual). The first exposure I had to many scripture verses was found in the music of Petra, Keith Green, and Phil Keaggy. One thing I can assure you, being at a Petra concert was nothing like being at a Prince concert. It's ridiculous to lump them together. It'd be like me saying singing "Saved By the Blood of the Crucified One" is the same as singing "Ave Maria."

[Aside: they both contain theological error, one is just worse than the other]

Now, you might have objected to me lumping Ave Maria in with your hymnal, but I hope some might be able to see through their pride and flesh and see that I was only doing what David Cloud tries to do: lump all music in a particular style together, without cause, just to come to the conclusion he wants you to make.

If we want to employ "guilty by association" on classical music then we not only can point a finger at the Catholic Church and hymns, we can look to the New Age movement and its use of classical music.

If Petra = Black Sabbath, then Holy is the Lord = Ave Maria

And I have a better argument as Holy is the Lord and Ave Maria are both from the music of Schubert.

Here is just one comment from Ave Maria on YouTube:

I just broke down crying in front of my mom because of this song. I wasn't even sad. Pretty embarrassing as a man in his 30s. But, it is just so hauntingly beautiful.

Sounds pretty sensual and carnal to me.

How many Christians would tell you Ave Maria and the ritual of the Catholic Church is beautiful?

Logical Fallacies Create Chaos

All of the other anti-CCM arguments carry similar logical fallacies. Not all Contemporary Christian musicians are ecumenical (do you think I am!).  Keith Green certainly was not. The CCM band, All Saved Freak Band, has a song called "Prince of the International Kaleidoscope" which contains these lyrics:

International bankers and roundtable groups
got all the nations jumpin' through hoops.
But out of their ranks I doubt if there's one
that knows that their father's a Jesuit's son.
With all of these maneuverings.....
There is no hope in the pope
All the king's horses and men
Couldn't put Rome together again

I'm more conservative than David Cloud and less ecumenical. And when David Cloud creates his own definition of "sensual," he is appealing to pride, tradition, anger, and self-righteousness. He is not appealing to scripture. His tradition makes scripture of no effect. Am I guilty of what I am accusing Way of Life of doing? Perhaps so, but the sins I suspect are rooted in scriptural definitions. I am not David Cloud's judge. I only seek to apply his own rules and reasoning to his doctrines and preferences.

Beware Tradition and The Vain Rules of Men

In this age, Paul leaves us a solemn warning in Colossians 2:8

Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.

By proposing that the music of centuries of Catholic worship is superior to contemporary music produced by those with a new, divine nature, Way of Life is appealing to your conceit. Almost always, the mocking of contemporary worship and the caricature of its proponents is delivered by those with an heir of superiority. They become puffed up and proud. The use of hymns (the words of many they have never truly considered) become their scripture.

They make assessments according to the principles of this world, and not according to Christ. Often they make jokes instead of truly showing concern if they really believe Christians are engaged in open sin (which is why I don't think they believe it's that bad, it's just another thing to puff up the religious ego).

We have looked at this topic before (links below), but the seriousness of the charges brought by men like David Cloud (who embrace fables and the rudiments of the world) moves me to address it again. I had considered addressing all of his arbitrary, worldly objections, but they all seem to fall into the same errors.

I generally do not wear a tie (although I did as a Baptist Supply speaker), I have played and have written contemporary music (yet I have no objection to the hymns unless they are heretical), and I recognize no traditions of the church which I cannot find in scripture. In all these I place scripture above all. It is the final arbiter of truth, not my personal opinion. In this way, I believe I am far more conservative than Way of Life. I base my conclusion on doctrine, not on preference or the arbitrary opinions of men.

And what do we do with The Mormon Tabernacle Choir? Benny Hinn Ministries? Jimmy Swaggart? All with multiple albums of hymns (they also love the KJV). Guilty by association?

If David Cloud thinks a Bryan Duncan or a Steven Curtis Chapman album is more sensual than Ravel's Bolero or The Love Theme from Romeo ad Juliet, he isn't listening. Now, if one is walking in the new nature, no piece of music, even if its intent is to be sensual, should sway him. Cloud has tie-wearing, fable-believing Christians clasping their ears lest Satan get them to commit adultery after they accidentally hear Run For The Prize by Petra. They are slaves to the flesh and slaves to their guru.

They make the Word of God of no effect.

Run for the Prize (Petra)

Ave Maria (Pipe Organ, classical music, and ties!)

Cathedral of Christ the King

Additional Entries

This Hymns Business - Part 1

This Hymns Business - Part 2

This Hymns Business - Part 3

This Hymns Business - Part 3

For His Mercy Endureth Forever

In Part 1 and Part 2 of this little series, I made note (as part of the accusations against contemporary worship or CW) the charge of CW being repetitive. Previously, I simply noted that repetitive is in the eye of the beholder. One of the common pejoratives leveled is to call all CW “7/11 music.” That is, “7 words, repeated 11 times.”

Although I would dispute the accuracy of such a generalization, let me take just two examples of how applying this standard to all music presents an interesting dilemma for the hymns-only folks.

I would first point to the only songbook we know is inspired of God, the Psalms. In Psalm 136, the words “For His mercy endureth forever” repeat 26 times; “5/26” if you will. Compared to 7/11, that’s fewer words repeated more times (with the understanding that Psalm 136 has additional verses). And how many times have we been told to find comfort in the fact that the words “fear not” appear scores of times in scripture?

We note that the Reformation is built upon six words, “the just shall live by faith,” a scripture which appears three times in the Word of God. When God repeats something, we pay closer attention. We would not accuse God of “vain repetition,” nor would we approve of man’s vain prayers. But when there is a scriptural., eternal truth about God or the faith, repeating it to emphasize it (not used as some sort of magical incantation) is surely edifying.

Let me point to just one example from the “sacred hymns,” this time going all the way back to 1899 for “O How He Loves Me.” We will start by looking at the chorus:

Oh, how he loves me,

Oh, how he loves me;
I know not why, I only cry,
Oh, how he loves me.

All kinds of problems there for the hymns-only crowd. Lots of “he loves me,” crying, and it’s repetitive. If we look at the verses, the problem only gets “worse” (using their criteria). The phrase “oh, how he loves me” is sung every other line, 10 times total for the song. The word “me” appears 16 times (and there are also a number of uses of “I,” “my” and “mine.”) “Love” or “Loves” appears 14 times.

Turning back to the original article, in which the author chose to compare “One Thing Remains” with “Rock of Ages” (we made our own comparisons in the previous notes), I’ll stick with the “offensive” CW song he chose and compare it with the “sacred hymn”O How He Loves Me.”

  

"One Thing Remains" 

Higher than the mountains that I face
Stronger than the power of the grave
Constant through the trial and the change
One thing… Remains

Your love never fails, never gives up
Never runs out on me [3x]

On and on and on and on it goes
It overwhelms and satisfies my soul
And I never, ever, have to be afraid
One thing remains

In death, In life, I’m confident and
covered by the power of Your great love
My debt is paid, there’s nothing that can
separate my heart from Your great love...

“Oh, How He Loves Me” 

I have a Friend, a precious Friend,
Oh, how he loves me;
He says his love will never end,
Oh, how he loves me;

Refrain: Oh, how he loves me,
Oh, how he loves me;
I know not why, I only cry,
“Oh, how he loves me .”

Why he should come I cannot tell,
Oh, how he loves me;
In my poor broken heart to dwell,
Oh, how he loves me; [Refrain]

He died to save my soul from death,
Oh, how he loves me;
I’ll praise him while he gives me breath,
Oh, how he loves me; [Refrain]

He walks with me along life’s road,
Oh, how he loves me;
He carries every heavy load,
Oh, how he loves me; [Refrain]

He has a home prepared for me,
Oh, how he loves me;
With him I’ll spend eternity,
Oh, how he loves me; [Refrain]

Now, if you can tell me how the second is discernibly more “sacred” than the first, I’d be interested to hear it. And I could surely find “deeper” CW and more shallow “sacred hymns.” As this study set out to emphasize, what matters in our music should be “is it biblical?,” and/or “does it edify (strengthen) our faith?” 

Music is meant to strengthen what is already there, it is not primarily a teaching tool. This is why the Mormons can sing the hymns (including the wonderful “Rock of Ages”) and not be moved and why I can sing “One Thing Remains” and be edified.

For those who think the hymns or the hymns-only position is somehow a sign of biblical orthodoxy or doctrinal purity, you’d love the Mormon position on music. Read all the pages and see how much they love and revere the “sacred hymns.” Mormons do not allow contemporary music for their “sacrament meetings.” 

“Some religiously oriented music presented in a popular style is not appropriate for sacrament meetings.” (LDS Handbook 2).

I’d rather gather with the truly regenerated saints, than with hymns-heavy LDS adherents. Wouldn’t you?

Final note: I do agree that there are many hymns which express deep faith and edify, but I cannot take the position that “hymn=good” or “contemporary=bad” lest I fail to test the spirits, lest I swallow false doctrine, lest I start to judge by standards not found in scripture. Music should be doctrinally correct, understandable and edifying. Beyond that, you’re creating your own “truth.”

This Hymns Business - Part 2

In Part 1 of this little study, we briefly looked at some of the accusations against contemporary worship (CW) and the parallel arguments for the use of the hymns (H). The study was inspired by yet another article on the superiority of the H.

The article juxtaposed a popular CW song (“One Thing Remains”) with a classic H (“Rock of Ages”) to show the supposed shallowness of all CW compared to the depth of all the H. Again, I have nothing against the H, and I agree that many contain excellent doctrinal content, but each must be judged on its own merit. I gave my example of CW v. H by comparing “This I Believe” with the H “In My Heart There Rings A Melody.” The latter being somewhat generic and applicable to all kinds of heretical groups. It also contains rather weak sauce in its refrain, “In my heart there rings a melody, there rings a melody of heaven’s harmony; in my heart there rings a melody, there rings a melody of love.”

If I posted those words and said they’re from a CW song, the knives would come out from the H-Only crowd.

We could make these comparisons all day. What is missed is that we should be doing this with all music. In the end, some H and some CW will be deeper than other H or CW. In either case, the doctrine should be what matters. I don’t mind “In My Heart There Rings A Melody,” just don’t tell me it’s superior to Keith Green’s “There Is A Redeemer” simply because it’s a hymn.

Just to close that chapter, I’d gladly compare CW song “Your Love Never Fails” to H such as “I Serve A Risen Savior” featuring the refrain, “You ask me how I know He lives; He lives within my heart.” 

That’s rather subjective, isn’t it? It could be seen as weak and not terribly biblical. Musically, it sounds like a 30s drinking song too.

Truth be told, many of the proponents of H are probably as opposed to contemporary arrangements as they are to the songs themselves. Many CW churches use updated versions of the H. So, even though the content is the same, they object to the music. With that in mind, let’s quickly look at the common accusations again.

• CW is “me” centered
• It’s not very deep
• The music is not “high” music
• It tends to be loud
• The songwriters sometimes have suspect lives
• It’s repetitive

On first blush (and I acknowledge this list in mine, based on experience), none of these is particularly biblical. Many of the H are “me-centered.” The Bible knows nothing of “high” music. The Psalms speak of loud music (“Praise Him with loud cymbals; Praise Him with clashing cymbals!” - Psalm 150). How many of the H are based on music written by unbelievers? Neither Fanny Crosby nor William Booth wrote music, they sometimes incorporated known tunes of their era (Booth saying that the familiarity of the tunes attracted interest). How many classical music composers led suspect lives? Repetitive is in the eye of the beholder.

It’s fine if you prefer H (or even if you hate CW), but we do not have a biblical basis for judging someone based on his preference in this area (as long as the content of the songs are biblically accurate). The writer of the article which led to these short studies belongs to a church which denies eternal security. Obviously, singing “Blessed Assurance*” hasn’t helped him in that area.

I was listening to a radio network which plays only H. Fine. I sometimes enjoy hearing H. The DJ came on and before introducing the next song he named the network and added, “where the drums don’t drown out the message.” Now, on the face of the statement, he’s wrong. That is, if you attend a CW service, not only will you most likely hear every word, the words are probably splashed in huge letters on a screen (yes, some people freak out over screens too - see also “not a biblical issue”).

But what came next was even more stunning, he played an instrumental! That is, he played a song with NO message! I know a lot of hymns and I did not recognize the tune. For all I know, he could have simply been playing the music of some godless or heretical composer. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by instrumentals? No, by the Word of God.

These little studies are not exhaustive (nor are they meant to be). I simply want to start looking at music, literature, art, preaching through the lens of doctrine and not through the ever-changing, subjective moods of the flesh. That works both ways.

*The chorus of “Blessed Assurance” (“This is my story, this is my song/ praising my Savior all the day long;/this is my story, this is my song/ praising my Savior all the day long) could easily be a CW worship chorus. 

Secular music, do you say, belongs to the devil? Does it? Well, if it did I would plunder him for it, for he has no right to a single note of the whole seven. Every note, and every strain, and every harmony is divine, and belongs to us. - William Booth

This Hymns Business - Part 1

There is a subject that I have seen debated since the day I became a Christian. That is the question of music in The Body (the church). It’s a very large topic, but I’d like to break it into small, digestible bits. But if you want to save time and avoid reading these notes, music in The Body should be judged the same way we should judge everything: by scripture, by doctrine.


My only dog in this fight is truth. I enjoy both the hymns (H) and contemporary worship (CW). I judge each the same way: doctrinally from an Evangelical, biblical perspective. To that end, I like some H and some CW; I don’t like some H and don’t like some CW. Similar to my previous note on the names of the Lord, I really don’t care what you use, as long as it’s based on ultimate truth and as long as you don’t use non-biblical reasoning to condemn others who choose differently.


The arguments against using (CW) are generally the same (and it’s fair to say the attacks on CW are far more common than any on the H). If we turn these back on the H themselves, well, they don’t always fare well. It seems that where leeway is given some H, the same is not accorded to CW.

The accusations against CW are usually:

• It’s “me” centered
• It’s not very deep
• The music is not “high” music
• It tends to be loud
• The songwriters sometimes have suspect lives
• It’s repetitive

Of course, the first step would be to judge the criticisms, are they biblical criticisms? A second angle we need to keep in mind, what is the role of music in the Body? Instead of necessarily taking the accusations and assessments individually, I’ll incorporate them as they seem fit.


For today, I will simply start with the worship song used at the meeting of The Body which I attended today, compared with a popular hymn often used in “traditional” services.

 We gathered around the song “This I Believe,” the chorus to which is:

I believe in God our Father
I believe in Christ the Son
I believe in the Holy Spirit
Our God is three in one
I believe in the resurrection
That we will rise again
For I believe in the name of Jesus

Let’s compare that to the traditional hymn, “In My Heart There Rings a Melody” (1924)

In my heart there rings a melody,
There rings a melody with heaven's harmony;
In my heart there rings a melody,
There rings a melody of love.

I guarantee you, the Mormons have a lot more problems with the former over the latter. If I told you the second was CW, the critics would howl at its shallow nature, its man-centered construction and its kowtowing to the “simplistic love” of modern heretical thought.


Next time we’ll look at the criticisms in light of reality and, more importantly, in light of scripture. The biggest mistake we can make is to accept ALL H just because they are H or to accept ALL CW just because they are CW. Let truth reign over all.