jump to navigation

The Fat Lady July 30, 2007

Posted by Jeff Voegtlin in : Music, Worldliness , 4 comments Print This Post Print This Post Email This Post Email This Post

First, a general statement about generalities. Anyone can find an exception to a generality. But, generalities are generally true because, generally, they apply to the majority of the particulars. Someone who denies the general truth by pointing out a particular exception is more comfortable with the doubt and uncertainty of human reasoning and is not being honest with the truth.

Second, while I have not made this application in any of the posts I’ve made this month, others have turned the focus of my writing toward music for worship–music used in church. But I’m not talking about worship music. I’m talking about all music. I don’t want to separate the sacred from the secular. I assure you that I understand that some music that is appropriate for any part of life is not appropriate for worship. But my conclusion would be, that music that is NOT appropriate for any part of life is surely NOT appropriate for worship. Except that, in a way, all music worships something.

Finally, to bring together my first post and my second post, if we are not to love the world, neither the things in the world; and if we can observe how the context of our culture/world through music expresses its love of, or worship of its things–the flesh, the eyes, and pride; we should be able to see what music we should not love.

Now let’s be honest. Have you ever seen the music on MTV or vh1; CMT or BET? It doesn’t take long to plainly see and hear music that worships the lust of the flesh - sensuality, sexuality, women, promiscuity, etc. You can also see music that worships the lust of the eyes - eyes that are never satisfied, eyes that are covetous, desiring materialism, cars, things, etc. And you can see and hear music that worships the pride of life - it pays homage to good old number one. It serves self. It is in rebellion against authority. In our culture, it is easy to see and hear these types of music and it should be easy to then stay away from that worldly music.

In another culture, they may use different music to worship its worldly elements — the flesh, the eyes, and pride. But honestly, seeking Christians, in any culture should be able to apply these principles to their own culture and their own music.

Amorality Isn’t July 28, 2007

Posted by Dave Mallinak in : Music , 14 comments Print This Post Print This Post Email This Post Email This Post

The claim that a thing is amoral is a claim that it is neutral. Amoral means neither moral nor immoral – the absence of morality. Amoral indicates that a thing is neither good nor evil, neither virtuous nor vicious, neither lawful nor lawless, neither right nor wrong. Thus, amorality means neutrality.

We have been told that God filled the world with amoral or neutral things — flowers, bugs, dogs, cats, sounds, smells, tastes, sights, and so on. Certainly it is true that none of these things can be sinful in and of themselves. As the catechism tells us, sin is want of conformity to, or transgression of, the law of God. A smell cannot transgress God’s law. A taste cannot transgress God’s law. A flower cannot transgress God’s law. Only creatures can transgress God’s law.

But the above analogy falls woefully short of a thorough thinking through of the issue of amorality. Certainly sounds and smells and tastes and scenery cannot sin. But men can. Men can sin by smelling, by tasting, by handling, by looking. Nude bodies, though hardly neutral or amoral, are not inherently sinful. God gave one to each of us, to the praise of His glory. And, God has given a context for righteous nudity. The determining factor is not the fact of the nude body, but rather the use of said body.

But we still haven’t gone far enough in our thinking. The claim that a smell or a taste or a sound is amoral, or neutral, is deceitful and vain. The claim that there is anything – any square inch on the face of this earth that is neutral – is a claim that there are things or places where the Sovereignty of God does not govern. Such claims are in fact immoral.

Amorality is not a neutral claim. Not at all. Amorality claims independence from the rule of God. Amorality claims that not all things were made by God and for God. Amorality claims that the earth is not the Lord’s, not the fullness thereof. Amorality claims that there exists, somewhere in the world God created, a place where Christ is not Lord, and where middle ground can be found between truth and falsity. “Amorality” is not an amoral claim.

Music is not amoral. Music, despite claims to the contrary, always takes a side. Either music gives glory to God, who is worthy to receive it, or it does not. But to make this proposition clear, we need to look fundamentally at the foundations of music.

Man neither invented nor created music. When God created the world, Job tells us that the morning stars sang together, and the sons of God shouted for joy. Some say that when God created the world, he literally sang it into existence. When God created Lucifer, he created in him the ability to produce the most beautiful of music. God created music. Music was created by Him and for Him.

But we should go further. Music fundamentally is a combination or succession of sounds. Consider sound. God made the earth in such a way that a dish can fall to the ground and shatter, and the shattering of the dish will make a sound wave that vibrates two bones in my ear, enabling me to discern what just happened. The sound of a breaking dish can hardly be termed “neutral.” Miraculous, perhaps, but not neutral. God made it, and it gives us cause to glorify him. The same can be said for the sound of a baby’s cry, for the sound of a plucked string, for the sound of a snore, for the sound of a Harley.

God, in His infinite wisdom, has enabled man to distinguish between sounds, to the extent that man has developed complex systems of arrangement and identification. Consider the alphabet. What is it really, but a means of symbolizing the sounds used in language? The letter “D” means nothing without the sound that it symbolizes. Is “D” neutral? God created a world in which the letter “D” would symbolize a particular sound, and that particular sound would mean something.

At this juncture, the “amoralists” will no doubt jump in to argue, “yes, but the letter ‘D’ can be used for good or for evil, lawfully or lawlessly.” And they certainly would be correct. Anything that God has created can be used as an instrument for rebellion against God. But to do so is to misuse, to pervert the correct use of that item. God made it for His own glory. It is not neutral.

The letters of the alphabet symbolize the sounds used for speech. Numerals symbolize numbers. The notes on the scale symbolize the sounds used in music. Middle C cannot be inherently sinful. God created Middle C and man discovered it. God created it for His glory, to be used in His service both in worship and in bringing delight, as man thinks on whatsoever things are true, and honest, and just, and pure, and lovely, and of good report, and virtuous, and praiseworthy.

Middle C is moral. Middle C is good. Middle C is right. But Middle C can be misused. It can be perverted. Evil men can worship and serve the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. These evil men use Middle C in their rebellion against the Lord God, who gave them a tongue to sing and ears to hear and fingers to pluck. Man does not create music.  That has already been done.  Rather, man imitates the Creator in creating musical arrangements. Man, being creative, combines sounds into melody and harmony. Yet man rebels against the Lord in creating rebellious music. ‘Tis not the vibrations that rebel against God. ‘Tis man who misuses the vibrations to create a rebellious sound. A sound of war. Of war against God.

Need we go further? How about the scales? Without reservation, we can say that the scales are good, not neutral or amoral. The power of God gave the scales a sound, a melody, and with those scales, men are able to create beautiful music, virtuous music, praiseworthy music. The scales take sides. They are to the praise of the glory of His grace.

If David said, I will set no wicked thing before mine eye, then there must be wicked things that might be set before eyes. If God said to think on the things that are true, honest, just, pure, lovely, of good report, virtuous, and praiseworthy, then there must be things that aren’t. If God calls for skilled music (Ps 33:3Open Link in New Window; I Chr 15:22Open Link in New Window; 25:7; 2 Chr 34:12Open Link in New Window), then there must be unskilled music. If we speak to ourselves in spiritual songs, then there must be songs that are not spiritual. Music, like every other sight, smell, taste, or sound, is never neutral. All things were made by Him and for Him.

The Role of Discernment in the Issue of Music July 24, 2007

Posted by Kent Brandenburg in : Music , 20 comments Print This Post Print This Post Email This Post Email This Post

Almost three thousand years ago, Solomon wrote in his Divinely-inspired book of authoritative wisdom, “Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding” (Proverbs 4:7Open Link in New Window).  Get understanding after you get wisdom.  Get wisdom after you get knowledge.  We get knowledge from God’s Word.  We get wisdom from the Holy Spirit to accurately apply the Word of God.  We get discernment from regularly and consistently applying God’s Word accurately, so that right decisions become the pattern for our life.  Job put it this way:  “And unto man he said, Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding” (Job 28:28Open Link in New Window).

A Satanic Attack

The history of mankind reads also as the record of Satan’s attack on the Word of God.  From the Garden of Eden to the Wilderness of Temptation, Satan has opposed God’s plan by undermining God’s Word.  He questions its inspiration, “How do we know God said it?”  He questions its preservation, “How do we know this is what God said?”  He has been recently gaining a foothold with “How can we know what God meant?”—the attack on the clarity of Scripture.  A corollary to this recent conspiracy of Satan is:  “How can we know the application of what God said?”

The conscience works off the law of God, written or in the heart (Rom. 2:14, 15Open Link in New Window).  Satan opposes by confusing God’s righteous standard.  He damages the combined conscience of a nation and of mankind.  Satan himself rejects God’s law and influences all people to do the same.  He blurs the boundaries to harm the operation of man’s God-given, inbred warning-device.   The negation of the law lessens the work of the conscience over sin.

Satan replaces God’s direction with toleration.  He persuades men not to judge.  His world system has taken on this ungodly philosophy, and now it has spread into churches and religious organizations.  He attacks the principles of God’s Word.  He convinces men that they no longer have Scriptural authority to apply Biblical principles to their way of life.   When we can’t consistently apply the Bible to our lives, we don’t have wisdom, and when we lose the ability to do this, we lose out on discernment (”understanding”) too.

Satan would love more than anything to take away from the worship of God.  To do this, He would gladly confuse men about what pleases the Lord in worship.  The devil happily nullifies the kind of music that God enjoys, songs that match His character or nature.  He can sabotage the worship of the Lord by causing doubt about someone’s ability to judge what God likes and doesn’t like.

An Issue of “Liberty”

Within this new Satanic assault, if someone cannot provide a text of Scripture that plainly cites the wrong action, the deed now becomes a Romans 14Open Link in New Window “liberty” issue.   An appropriate subject of this new tactic writes on his blog:

We find essential silence. Scripture never discusses the lasting qualities which make certain kinds of music inherently superior to others. Scripture doesn’t teach that certain associations make certain music styles inherently evil or unredeemable. Scripture never points out a specific cultural variety of music for our emulation. . . . From our New Testament vantage point, living in the age we live in, we are to abstain from things or actions which are clearly revealed in Scripture to be immoral or evil. In the absence of Scriptural teaching as to which music is unclean, we have liberty in that area, as long as we do all to the glory of God. . . . It must be a clear teaching from Scripture. If not, we are left with individual applications of principles, and a command in Rom. 14Open Link in New Window to get along with other believers though they may differ with us on the particulars of how they use music, (sic) as how they distinguish (or not) days or how they use various foods/drinks.(1)

The position is that since the Bible doesn’t use the terminology ‘rock,’ ‘rap,’ ‘pop,’ jazz,’ or ‘country-western,’ we can’t judge those musical styles to be wrong.   With the absence of those terms, we are bereft of the ability to discern what kind of music God wants to hear from us.  They would say that we can only judge the words of a song, not the musical style.

Using the Same Understanding of “Liberty”

Based upon this same standard, can they or anyone else prohibit (they’re Rom. 14Open Link in New Window issues):

You could probably add to the list.   Based on their standards of judgment, none of these are wrong because nothing in the Bible says that they are.   In their point of view, you might be able to apply principles, but then human opinion would come in, there would be disagreement, and you would need to defer to Romans 14Open Link in New Window on this.  The purveyors of this false view of liberty will argue that these issues are entirely different.  I don’t believe so.  Most of them are exactly like the music issue in the application of Scripture, except that Scripture has more to say about music than the above issues.

We Can and Should Discern Right and Wrong Music Using Biblical Principles

Of course, I believe that we can apply Biblical principles to all of the above activities.  Perhaps sometime I’ll let you know what I think of each of them using verses of Scripture.  We can know what God wants us to do regarding each one of them, using the Bible.  This is actually where wisdom and Scriptural discernment come in.  To make every principle of the Bible amoral or a liberty issue takes away almost any need for discernment. No one needs wisdom or discernment if obedience to God relates only to explicit statements of Scripture.  This continues the attack of Satan on Scripture, his assault on discernment and the ability to apply the Bible to a believer’s life.

Music communicates.  Psalm 92:3Open Link in New Window speaks of a “solemn sound,” Psalm 89:15Open Link in New Window a “joyful sound,” and 1 Corinthians 14:8Open Link in New Window an “uncertain sound.”  Those are by no means the only sounds music can communicate.  As a means of communication, just like speech, it can be filthy, corrupt, proud, sensual, fleshly, and blasphemous.   If we don’t know what corrupt communication is, which requires discernment, then we can’t even judge words, let alone music.  Music can exalt God or degrade Him.   Words can be wrong.  Music can be wrong.  Both need to be judged.  Both need discernment, and the Holy Spirit through the Word of God will give that kind of understanding to a genuine believer.

Conclusion

God expects us to “prove all things; hold fast that which is good” and “abstain from all appearance of evil” (1 Thessalonians 5:21, 22Open Link in New Window).   In other words, He wants us to have wisdom and understanding, that is, discernment.  When God says “be not conformed to the world” (Rom. 12:2Open Link in New Window), He means that we have to discern the spirit of the age and not be like it.  When He commands us to “abstain from fleshly lusts” (1 Pet. 2:11Open Link in New Window), He expects us to discern what fleshly lusts are.  When God exhorts us “not [to be] brought under the power of any” (1 Cor. 6:12Open Link in New Window); it isn’t optional.  We are required by Scripture to practice discernment.

Since music is a worship issue, hardly anything is more important than our discernment concerning music.  Tolerating all styles as adequate or acceptable for worship not only lacks discernment but destroys it as well.  Worst of all, God isn’t praised.  God expects us to learn what is good and bad music, and test all of it, especially that used in worship of Him.

Footnote: 

(1) Fundamentally Reformed.

Word Has Meanings July 21, 2007

Posted by Jeff Voegtlin in : Music , 10 comments Print This Post Print This Post Email This Post Email This Post

All languages consist of individual parts that essentially have no moral value. The smallest parts even have no meaning: qwertyuiop, asdfghjkl, zxcvbnm. The meaning comes when you take the smallest parts (letters) and arrange them into words. This is a simple proposition that works to refute the idea that music is amoral. Music has often been called a language. The idea, while true, does not solve the problem outright. The reason is that “word has meanings.”

Let’s take the word ‘jam.’ How many meanings can you think of for this simple word?

  1. I put jam on my toast this morning.
  2. These latest developments have me in a jam.
  3. Just jam the towel in the bag.
  4. I jammed my toe when I had to jam the brakes at the traffic jam.
  5. The basketball player had quite a jam!
  6. Let’s get our instruments and jam!

How about these words:

Where do all these meanings come from? They come from two places: the context immediately and the culture ultimately. I understand what meaning to put with ‘jam’ because I can read the other words and understand their relationship to ‘jam.’ I can read and understand the sentence because I am familiar with my own culture.

Can you imagine what the same arrangement of letters would mean in a different culture? What does ‘jam’ mean in Finnish, Dutch, Malaysian, German, Spanish, French, etc. Even English has cultural differences. I recently traveled quickly through London. While we in America wonder, everyone in London knows what ‘Mind the gap’ means (Watch your step). ‘Way Out’ in England means ‘Exit’ in America.

Our understanding of a language is dictated by the culture in which we find it. I believe the same is true with musical language.

Here’s your assignment: what does the music of our culture that worships sex, materialism, and rebellion sound like?

The Musical Style We Offer to God: Can It Be Inherently Sinful? July 19, 2007

Posted by Kent Brandenburg in : Music, Worship , 1 comment so far Print This Post Print This Post Email This Post Email This Post

An incredible lack of discernment exists in the area of worship music.   Someone can’t be wrong on worship and be right with God.  It is very serious.  Our music is offered to God.  Some say God likes all music offered to Him, because musical style itself is amoral.  Arguments are made with that regard over here.  I write some brief rebuttal below here (see 4., 8., 9.).  God requires wisdom from believers that is guided by Biblical principles and the leading of the Holy Spirit.  We can judge properly and we are to judge.  In 1 Thessalonians 5:21-22Open Link in New Window, God commands, “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. Abstain from all appearance of evil.”  So we’re to judge everything, except for worship music?  No way.  If anything is to be judged, it is to be our worship and according to a strict standard.

The music-is-amoral crowd (essentially only a group of professing evangelicals; almost everyone else in the world knows and says it is moral) says that this is one thing that we can’t judge.  We can know what the attire of a harlot is. We can know what “the world” (world system) is.  But they say that we can’t know what inherently moral or immoral music is.  When Scripture commands us to “abstain from fleshly lust,” we are assumed to know what “fleshly lust” is.  We are supposed to know what “uncleanness” and “inordinate affection” is in Colossians 3:5Open Link in New Window.  We can judge any and all of these things.

As a basis for your understanding that music can be moral or immoral and so that you can judge these things, I have provided just a few websites for you to look at.  What do you do with this kind of material?  Find out what God likes and doesn’t like.  You can understand what music has the inherent qualities He doesn’t like and you never offer that up to Him.  You know He won’t like it, because it doesn’t match up with His holy character.

1—(click on March/April, then click on Morality in Music under The Arts) This is a Catholic, not someone in the evangelical/fundamental music discussion, but someone highly qualified musically. Jonathan Peters is a graduate of Thomas Aquinas College. He is currently working towards his masters degree in music composition at Northridge University in California.

2—Another Catholic article—why print these?  This is about whether music has an effect, and the Catholics won’t be seen as having a theological axe to grind.

3—”Final Paper: Does Music Affect You?”

4—Here is a brief excerpt of a paper entitled: “Negative Music And The Effects On Human Behavior.”

5—This research says that it is this: “The present study focused on mood effects of high-tempo (HT) or low-tempo (LT) music on a high-or a low-arousal stressful task condition (HST or LST), manipulating the relationship between affective valence and psycho-physiological arousal.”

6—Here’s a study titled: “The role of music in adolescents’ mood regulation.”

7—Here is an 18 page article with research that shows that the music itself causes problems.

8—Look for: “Is listening to negative lyrics or “angry” music really harmful for my child?” Notice that it differentiates between negative lyrics and “angry” music. Here’s how it starts: “Question: Is listening to negative lyrics or “angry” music really harmful for my child? Answer: Yes — although, surprisingly, the sound of the music has more impact than the lyrics.”

9—Here is a source of history of music. Found here is this: “Those moaning saxophones and the rest of the instruments with their broken, jerky rhythm make a purely sensual appeal. All of us dancing teachers know this to be a fact. . . . The music written for jazz is the very foundation and essence of salacious dancing.”

10—I don’t even want you to look at this site, but I link it to show that it exists, as written by someone just being honest about music.  “The earthy tabla beating a steady pulse brings the body into a rhythm, creating a natural form and structure. This structure grows from the ground up. Being receptive to the nuance of music - and often live music - the dancer’s feet and hips feel the rhythm. The oud and qanoon’s vibrations and sensual quarter tones bring their movement and mystery to her belly and hips. Arms surrender and ride on the airwave of the flutes. The dancer is absorbed into the music, and the music into her.”

11—This is full of applicable quotes—very convincing.

12—”Zouk music makes you want to move, it has a sensual rhythm that is sexy and powerful.”

13—”Rockabilly was perhaps the most sexually charged music American white people have ever made. It was full of supple, slap-bass-driven rhythms, and while it was as manic as two high school kids having a quick one while their parents were away, it still swung, and swing is a sexual rhythm.”

14—”The highlight of the evening was their ‘52000ft High’ with its very contagious rhythm and beat that makes it hard not to stand up, put your glass down and dance. It’s got a sexy rhythm, enticing you to move sensually on the dance floor.”

15—”Often at the conclusion of a recital, the musician may choose to play a “thumri’ or “dhun.” This semi-classical style is much freer and completely romantic, sensual and erotic.”

Notes are to music what letters in the alphabet are to words.  The notes or letters can be put together to communicate the wrong message.  God wants the right message communicated to Him.  False worship occurs in two ways:  1)  We worship the wrong God, and 2)  We worship God the wrong way.  Wrong music offered to God is at least worshiping God the wrong way.  If someone thinks that God wants that kind of music, then he might also be worshiping the wrong God.

Who Needs Psalm-singing? We’ve Got Hefty Chorus Thingy’s! July 17, 2007

Posted by Dave Mallinak in : Music , 18 comments Print This Post Print This Post Email This Post Email This Post

See the newest song for discipling children! Guaranteed to mature them in the faith! Clearly an anthem of conquest! Everybody! Sing!

Potato Chip, potato chip.

Crunchy Crunchy!

I love Jesus a bunchy, bunchy!

Peanut butter, peanut butter.

Creamy, creamy!

I hate the devil, he’s a meany, meany!

Destined to go down in history with the great Hymns of the Faith. This song deserves to get pasted right in the front cover of your Praise Hymn chorus book. Highly recommended for building your Future Giant of the Faith. Now if we can just get it to fit to the tune of Holy, Holy, Holy…

P.S.

Might I suggest another verse? It could possibly enrich the song that much more…

Kool aid, kool aid.

Sippy, sippy!

I love my church.

It’s so dippy, dippy!

Firecracker, firecracker.

Bangy, Bangy!

Come ride my bus!

It’s so clangy, clangy!

P.S.S. - Now you try! Add your own verse! Give it your best shoddy shotty!

The Place to Start in Evaluating Music July 11, 2007

Posted by Kent Brandenburg in : Music , 48 comments Print This Post Print This Post Email This Post Email This Post

If you look at music in the Bible, you will notice that the kind believers play and sing will be directed to God.

Psalm 9:11Open Link in New Window, “Sing praises to the LORD, which dwelleth in Zion: declare among the people his doings.

Psalm 13:6Open Link in New Window, “I will sing unto the LORD, because he hath dealt bountifully with me.”

Psalm 30:4Open Link in New Window, “Sing unto the LORD, O ye saints of his, and give thanks at the remembrance of his holiness.”

Psalm 66:1Open Link in New Window, “Make a joyful noise unto God, all ye lands.”

Psalm 68:4Open Link in New Window, “Sing unto God, sing praises to his name: extol him that rideth upon the heavens by his name JAH, and rejoice before him.”

Psalm 95:1Open Link in New Window, “O come, let us sing unto the LORD: let us make a joyful noise to the rock of our salvation.”

Psalm 96:1Open Link in New Window, “O sing unto the LORD a new song: sing unto the LORD, all the earth.”O sing unto the LORD a new song: sing unto the LORD, all the earth.”

Psalm 98:1Open Link in New Window, “O sing unto the LORD a new song; for he hath done marvellous things: his right hand, and his holy arm, hath gotten him the victory.”

Psalm 104:33Open Link in New Window, “I will sing unto the LORD as long as I live: I will sing praise to my God while I have my being.”

Psalm 149:1Open Link in New Window, “Praise ye the LORD. Sing unto the LORD a new song, and his praise in the congregation of saints.”

Ephesians 5:19Open Link in New Window, “Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord.”

Colossians 3:16Open Link in New Window, “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.”

You can see that Scripture says that God’s people should direct their music toward God.

When we know that our music goes to God, then we ask, “What does He want?”  We write, play, and use music that will please God and not ourselves.  Music should not be a matter of our taste, but of God’s taste.

Most wrong philosophies of music do not consider first whether God is praised and honored by the music.  Instead they ask whether the people or the audience enjoy it.  When man becomes the measure for music, it won’t be good.  Music isn’t for anyone but God, whether it be solos, duets, or groups.

Spiritual Songs July 8, 2007

Posted by Jeff Voegtlin in : Music , 19 comments Print This Post Print This Post Email This Post Email This Post

There are many times that God says significant things in passing. One of those instances is in Ephesians 5:19Open Link in New Window. Here, while speaking of a Spirit-filled life, the Bible tells us to speak to ourselves in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, and to sing and make melody in our hearts to the Lord. The point is to speak to ourselves, to sing and to make melody; but in passing, the Bible tells us something about music. The Word says psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. I want to key in on the term spiritual songs.

If God uses the term spiritual to describe songs, then there must be songs that are spiritual. Now, in the world we like to live in, you can have spiritual songs, neutral songs, and unspiritual songs. But in the world God created, the one since ruined by sin, there are only two options. Christians must realize that we live in a world of antithesis. The sooner we understand this, the easier it will be to have biblical discernment. When God said he would put enmity between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent (Genesis 3:15Open Link in New Window), he showed us what the battle of every age would be–spiritual vs. unspiritual. God vs. the Devil. Christ vs. Satan. The Christian vs. the cosmos.

This principle can be clearly applied to music. Our music is either spiritual or unspiritual. It serves Christ’s purposes or Satan’s. It loves God, or it loves the world. It worships God, or it worships the god of this world. As I develop this theme, I will explore and attempt to identify worldly music. Music that worships the things of this world. Those things are the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life (1 John 2:16Open Link in New Window).

The JackHammer Garden July 3, 2007

Posted by Jack Hammer in : Jack Hammer , 3 comments Print This Post Print This Post Email This Post Email This Post

We come to the Garden alone, but the dew shook off of the roses.

And the voices we hear, whispering in our ear, the Hammer of Jack exposes.

And he rat-a-tats, and he tat-a-rats, and he JackHammers away to a beat;

and the joy we share as we hammer there, none other has ever known.

We like music. The sound of JackHammers pounding concrete is music to our ears. We like music that reverberates. We like reverb. We like to talk about music. So we will.

All month in July, JackHammers hammer away on music. Kent wrote the book on it. He has lots to say. A concerto was named after him. Jeff can play. Maybe he will. Dave can hit play on his CD player. But he doesn’t know how to iPod. He’ll find some shallow song to mock.

JackHammers got rhythm. All singing the same tune. But it might not be relaxing. Enjoy!

On Investigating a Predator Pastor July 2, 2007

Posted by Dave Mallinak in : The Ministry , 15 comments Print This Post Print This Post Email This Post Email This Post

First, we should be very clear that this post is not talking about a pastor who yields to temptation and stumbles into sin. The Bible is very clear that in such a case, when a pastor is overtaken in a fault, the spiritual are to restore such an one in the spirit of meekness.

But our confusion often begins at this particular juncture. How are we to know the difference between a pastor who uses his position to prey on people, and a pastor who genuinely was overtaken in a fault? For starters, the pastor who stumbled in the heat of the moment will not be demanding forgiveness and restoration. Nor will he be insinuating or implying that we ought to be thinking restoration. Nor will he wait to get caught. He will come forward with his sin himself. His first desire will be to come clean, to make himself accountable, submitting to the church, and making things right. If his sin has disqualified him either temporarily or permanently from ministry (and he will not use semantics for a covering — see Psalm 51Open Link in New Window for a sample of true confession), then he will step down immediately. It is absurd to argue that a pastor who refuses to confess his sin, who demands forgiveness and demands that we ignore his sin, who refuses to step down, should be restored to anything.

When a pastor sins and immediately does the right thing, submitting himself to the Word of God and to the spiritual authority of the church, then Galatians 6:1Open Link in New Window comes into play; restoration can take place to the extent allowed by Scripture. In this case, we are not dealing with a “Predator Pastor.” But when a pastor is busily (and overtly) attempting to cover his sin, to diminish it, to rationalize it, and to force your hand through demands for submission, forgiveness, and/or restoration, then we have a predator on our hands. How then do we deal with such an one as this?

First, we must remember our Scriptural duty to maintain the purity of the church, and as with our children, we must not let our soul spare for his crying. Because of their position, pastors have a particularly potent ability to manipulate. We must not be manipulated. When we combine the trust normally vested in a pastor with the position of authority inherent to pastors, we get a dangerous mixture, and any attempt to go against that pastor can be fraught with danger, full of confusion and difficulty. In such a case, our love for the truth must trump any loyalty to a man.

Any charge of sexual misconduct must be taken seriously. We must examine evidence. Churches often make the mistake of ignoring the obvious in favor of feelings. Church members rarely feel that their pastor is capable of sexual misconduct. But our feelings about the possibilities say nothing about the facts of what actually happened. We must weigh evidence, not feelings.

But weighing evidence, unfortunately, is not always an exact science. As has been mentioned previously, cases of sexual misconduct can be difficult or nearly impossible to investigate by their very nature. Sexual sins rarely have witnesses. Establishing two or three witnesses could require waiting for two or three victims to suffer abuse and to come forward. That can be next to impossible. Certainly, if there is more than one accuser, or if witnesses do come forth, their testimony should be heard, and if their testimony agrees, let every word be established.

Some will insist that “if you didn’t see it happen, then you can’t know.” Not so fast. Other evidence must also be considered. For instance, we often overlook “boundary violations,” those violations of space and time and appropriateness and ethics that always accompany any sort of sexual misconduct, and particularly are always present in the case of a predator pastor. Those investigating allegations of misconduct must always be alert to inappropriate contact and conduct on the part of the accused. Boundary violations must not be taken lightly, and certainly cannot be ignored. Does the accused admit to “inappropriate contact?” Are there witnesses who can establish unethical behavior? Have witnesses observed procedural violations? While certainly not conclusive, these are or should be obvious warning signs, and must be taken seriously.

During an investigation, church leaders should also pay attention to the way the accused answers questions. Rather than thinking that we will be able to detect a lie, based purely on feelings, we should instead look for deflections masquerading as answers. Above all else, predators wish to escape detection. We should note that goal. They do not want you to find the truth. Predators want to continue with their behavior. They want to protect themselves. They don’t care about the truth.

This means they are good liars. Not that lies can ever be good, but that they are practiced and polished in the art of lying. They are not novices in this area. And being skilled liars, they know what you are looking for. They know that they must keep their gaze steady. They have heard all about the “gaze aversion” secret, and they will avoid that mistake at all costs. Their body language will exude confidence, nor will they show any sign of nervousness. They have practiced the poker face, and the innocent routine. Go ahead! Try to catch them changing their story! But they have an explanation for everything, and you will need providential aide to catch them in a lie.

Rather than looking for the “obvious” signs of lying, which do not actually exist, we should pay attention to the more subtle signs of deception that are common amongst liars. Much has been written about this already, and a thorough discussion would take some time, but we should look briefly at a couple of indicators. One would be what psychologists call “emotional leakage.” Essentially, this indicator surfaces through odd emotional contrasts. For instance, a person is very warm and friendly, and suddenly shifts to cold and unfriendly. Another person goes out of their way to flatter, and suddenly insults you. Or, the happy suddenly becomes angry; Mr. Nice Guy inexplicably changes to Mr. Hateful. These Jekel and Hyde changes indicate deception.

A second subtle sign of deception is deflection and evasion. When the question is asked, does the suspect answer directly, or does he attempt to deflect and/or evade the question? There are many ways that liars will use deception. For instance, when asked, “did you touch her in any way?” he might respond by saying, “I would say no.” On the surface, an answer like that seems straightforward enough, until you consider that he did not actually say “no.” He only said that he would say “no.” Trite as that seems, it is a world of difference to a liar. Another example of deflection or evasion would be feigned shock and outrage that the question is being asked, or that anyone would think such a thing. A good liar uses very subtle changes to deflect or evade questions that he does not wish to answer. Anna Salter lists several ways, which I will include below:

1. Unfinished business: “That’s about all.” “That’s pretty much it”; “That’s about all I can remember.”
2. Answering the question with a question: “Why would I do something like that?”
3. Maintenance of dignity: “Don’t be ridiculous.”
4. Commenting on the question: “That’s a hard question.”
5. Projection: “Someone would have to be sick to do that.”
6. Denial of evidence: “You have no proof.”
7. Accusation: “Are you accusing me?”
8. Qualifiers: “I can’t say”; “I could say”; “I would say.”
9. Answers: “My answer is…”; “The answer is…”(1)

Note that none of these answers directly answer the question. Although these kinds of answers do not prove that the person is lying, they are warning signs, red flags waving furiously back and forth, bidding you to look closer.

In the absence of conclusive evidence, and when suspicion lingers and evidence is lacking, the Bible gives us another way to find the truth, one that we often overlook. Consider Exodus 22:10-11Open Link in New Window:

If a man deliver unto his neighbour an ass, or an ox, or a sheep, or any beast, to keep; and it die, or be hurt, or driven away, no man seeing it: Then shall an oath of the LORD be between them both, that he hath not put his hand unto his neighbour’s goods; and the owner of it shall accept thereof, and he shall not make it good.

Numbers 5:11-21Open Link in New Window also tells us what must be done in a case when there are no witnesses. Namely, the accused must swear an oath in the name of God that the charges are not true. Now, some no doubt will object to this advice. The Bible says “swear not at all.” But the Bible is not forbidding oaths. Instead, the Bible teaches that we should not need to swear an oath in order to tell the truth. God’s people love truth. If we only tell the truth when we swear an oath, then we are miserable liars. Rather, the truly honorable man swears to his own hurt without needing to change his story.

Whenever we have a lack of evidence but a persistent accuser, the investigators must explain the gravity of the situation, along with the serious nature of swearing an oath in the name of God. They should then require the accused to take such an oath. In doing so, we trust God to expose any lie. In other words, we put the case in the hand of God, asking God to bring the truth to light.

Above all else, we must remember that allegiance to the truth is our first allegiance. No pastor should ever put his own personal reputation or his own ambitions for position above the truth. No deacon or church leader should put his loyalty to a man above his loyalty to truth and justice. I would rather step aside one hundred times than allow justice to be perverted, or shelter a predator.