Harold Martin, editor

BRF Witness

Route 10, Box 201-N

York, Pennslyvania 17404

December 6, 1998

Dear brother Harold,

Not infrequently when I read The Winess I find myself wishing that I could pursue further in dialogue the topic presented, and have at times thought to write a letter. I should add that much of the time I am heartened by The BRF Witness and have profited from many of its insights. Too often when people are in agreement they say nothing to encourage, but speak forthrightly only when perturbed. Although in this letter I will take issue with a recent newsletter, I trust that my comments will be welcomed in the same spirit that The BRF hopes that its often pointed criticisms of the Church of the Brethren would be received.

The issue I would like to address is that of Vol. 33, No. 6, Styles of Christian Music. Somehow I had thought for the past year or so that The BRF might address the matter of Christian music, and had even conjectured on what the BRF might say. Anyway, I appreciate getting the issue on the table in a way that over-all is gracious and positive. Some of my thoughts follow:

(1) On page 2, referring to songs that continually repeat a word or short phrase, Elizabeth Elliot Gren is quoted that such songs "are mantras which belong more to a gathering of New Agers than among the worshiping people of God." I have heard this accusation before and must take serious and biblical issue. I would perceive that her assumption is that repeating phrases, even though Christian, would induce some sort of hypnotic or mind-altering consciousness, such as in some forms of buddhism and hinduism (the Hare Krishnas come to mind). Yet take a close look at some scriptures listed on page 7. In reference to Revelation 4:8-11 brother Brubaker uses the phrase "continual singing, worship, and praise to the One who sits upon the throne and to the Lamb." Indeed! For the beasts continually repeat the "mantra", "Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come." Day and night without rest this praise comes forth. Even now as I write, even now as you read. And at the same time, the twenty four elders fall prostate before the throne, saying their "mantra," "Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created." This, brother Brubaker, is the heavenly music we should pattern after, as you so aptly state in your concluding sentence on page 10. And behold, it is repetitive!

One might counter that these repetitive phrases have powerful theological content. True. But so does the simple phrase, "I love you." Indeed, I have never been reprimanded by my wife for saying this phrase repetitively during times of intimacy. Those of us who sing repetitive phrases to our God are not trying to induce some sort of religious stupor, but rather, seeking to focus our hearts upon God without the distraction of mental and theological constructs (more about this later). Why do most of us close our eyes when we pray? Is it biblical? Hardly! Indeed, the scriptures seem to indicate that in biblical times prayer was open-eyed. "And Jesus lifted his eyes and said, "Father...'" (John 11:41) (see also John 17:1). So why our closed eyes in prayer? It could look like some Eastern mysticism, right? No, we close our eyes so that our surroundings do not distract us from our focus on God. It can be a struggle against our flesh nature to pray. And the same is true with worship. Using repetitive phrases helps to focus.

I have been told that many of those who we look up to as models of the Christian faith used repetitive "mantras" throughout their day, as a way of practicing unceasing prayer to keep their focus on Christ. For example, Francis of Assisi repeated throughout his day, whenever not engaged in conversation or direct problem solving, the phrase, "My God and my all." Hundreds of times daily, while most of us would just have our brains on idle. I know of a Christian man who prays continually, "Be merciful, O God." Over the years of this practice this man has developed a beautiful compassion to others as well.

(2) The BRF Witness article expressed the concern that many of the contemporary worship songs lack "doctrinally rich" content. This reminded me of friends from The Netherlands, a husband -wife ministry who spend much of their year touring the United States and Europe teaching the music of Charles and John Wesley. The music is of course doctrinally very rich, and this couple does an excellent job teaching and singing it. They lead exemplary Christian lives. They have the talent to be very entertaining although they do this sparingly. Yet I have several times heard criticisms from older, "mature Christians" who seem to dislike the intellectual effort needed to receive this music.

I believe it is needful to have doctrinally rich music. But not exclusively! This is because we are not only rational, thinking creatures but also emotional, feeling persons. The gospel is good news not only for our minds but also for our emotions and feelings. Jesus calls us to "love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment" (Mark 12:30 KJV). Jesus certainly is commanding us to love God with all of our mind, yes. But also, to love Him with all of our emotions and feelings as well, something that is woefully lacking, I believe, in many white Protestant churches (including conservative ones). In 1993-94 I spent considerable time in Philadelphia and on several occaisions attended the Germantown Church of the Brethren, which as you are aware is mostly black. I liked attending there because not only were the sermons and many of the songs doctrinally solid and meaty but were also emotionally strengthening. The historical experience of the black church is one of oppression and struggle, and their music tends to reflect this through emotion rather than through doctrine. I would even venture to say that one of the reasons that 11 am Sunday is so segregated across the land is not only due to racial prejudice but also due to the differing cultural/theological paradigms involving emotion and rational thought.

A few years ago an Englishman, David Watson, wrote an excellent book, Called and Committed. Although Anglican, Watson could have been writing a fresh vision for the Brethren. Watson notes that worship is intimacy with God. He writes, "The commonest [Greek] word for worship, proskueo, occurring 66 times in the New Testament (the other six words are used only once each), means 'I come towards to kiss.' This is the language of intamacy and love. Christianity is a love affair with God and with his Son Jesus Christ" (p. 73). He further quotes A.W. Tozer that "worship means to 'feel in the heart.'" Watson further states that "with the help of the Spirit, we need to bring ourselves to where all that is within us will bless his holy name."

That worship is intimacy with God seems to me to be the essence of the gospel, the truly good news! "Hear ye, hear ye, hear ye, can you believe it, the Creator of the Universe wants to draw close to me, a sinner yet, and love me, hold me, enjoy me!" Incredible news!!!

Thus many of the new, contemporary choruses are songs not about God but rather songs to God. When I am intimate with my wife, I do not generally rhapsodize over the merits of her cooking, child-rearing, or her other accomplishments. Intimacy is much deeper than doctrine. It is adoration, it is communion, it is the mutuality of love given and love received.

As I survey the doctrinally rich hymns of the past 250 years, I find few of them really addressed to God in a personal, intimate way. You listed one of them, "O Sacred Head Now Wounded." But the other, "A Mighty Fortress" is not intimate (although doctrinally powerful and moving). "Holy, Holy, Holy" and "Great is Thy Faithfulness" and "How Great Thou Art" are some others that are intimate and compelling doctrinally. But the majority of classic hymns are about God, not love songs to God. Again, we need both doctrinal songs and "emotion" songs.

When I was in Philadelphia I attended on several occaisions a nearby messianic (Christian Jewish) synagogue on Friday evenings or Saturday mornings. Although the preaching was doctrinally challenging, and the worship music was in large part taken from the Psalms or other biblical passages, what was especially impressive was the worship dancing. During some of the congregational songs, some of the people from the congregation would come forth to an open area near the front and would dance. Sometimes it was just the women, sometimes just the men, usually it was both, and frequently children would join in. Although esthetically pleasing (as music usually is), the dancing always seemed pure and holy to me. I felt that these dancers were worshiping God with their bodies as well as with their hearts and minds.

I find it incongruous to the gospel that so many Christians feel inhibited and shameful about presenting their bodies before God in holy worship. Personally, I do not feel the Church has ever satisfactorily purged the gnostic heresies from her ranks, and has accepted too much of the incipient problems of Neo-Platonism into her heritage. That is, spirit is good, flesh is evil. I will not take up more time with this syncretism, but would point out that Jesus is God in come in flesh, that our bodies are thus imputed a goodness because of the Incarnation, and that our bodies can be given over to holy expression to God. Certainly dance (or music, or sex, or speech, or beauty, or just about anything) can be given over to lasciviousness. But worship dance is certainly scriptural (ie. Psalm 150), indeed, celebratory dance appears to have the tacit approval of Jesus, as illustrated in the parable of the prodigal son (Luke 15:25).

The Witness article brings out an instructive lesson concerning "Motive versus Medium" in illustrating the story of David bringing the ark of the covenant into Jerusalem (I Chron.15:13-15). Reading to the end of the chapter, we see once again David bringing in the ark, again with great celebration and festivity. In the last verse, we see mention of an incident more fully explained in II Samuel 6:14-23. David strips down "to his underwear" and dances with all his might before the Lord. His wife Michal, daughter of Saul, is disgusted and embarrassed by this "undignified worship", and rebukes him soundly. The verdict? Judgment upon Michal, who is cursed with barrenness for all her days. I wonder if some of the barrenness that is so pervasive throughout many of the churches of the land is because the congregants are more concerned about how dignified they appear before others rather than fully and joyfully giving of themselves body, emotion, mind, and strength before God. A dried-up church is a sad sad thing to behold!

3. The final issue I would like to write about is that of the gospel, contemporary culture, and music as a medium of communication. The Witness article takes a cautious approach toward contemporary Christian music. A study of the history of church music, of which I am no expert but have read some, reveals that music styles have often been controversial. Furthermore, music has quite frequently borrowed from the styles contemporary to the current time period. It has been said that the music style one likes is that which one enjoyed at the age of twenty. Be as that may, hymns such as "A Mighty Fortress" and "Amazing Grace" were derived from bar room drinking tunes. It seems that the same tune sung by drunkards and carousers is also sung, with different words, by the redeemed. So could it be that today, a music style sung and perhaps even originated by those who drink and carouse be taken by the redeemed? The World Wide Message Tribe is a British ministry that uses rap music, rock music, and strong evangelical preaching to reach out to hundreds of thousands of young people for Christ every year (mostly in public schools in England, no less!). The testimonies of this group and others like them show that contemporary music is an effective medium in which to set the stage to present the gospel to young people, especially to unchurched young people. By unchurched I mean those who have not grown up in church. And churches that discount or despise "Christian rock styles" yet have little fruits to show in reaching unchurched young people, might have an accounting to do. Billy Graham uses contemporary Christian "rock" groups at many of his crusades, James Dobson uses such groups to reach teens, and so on. Children raised on the old classic hymns may indeed stay with them for a life time, but few from outside the church conclaves will be attracted to the antiquated music styles and antiquated verbage. One a missionary goes forth to a foreign land to proclaim the gospel, he or she uses the native tongue. A missionary to Mexico preaches in Spanish. So, a missionary to the United States should use the cultural language native to the target population. In this context, to stay only with the old classic hymns is an afront to our culture, a rejection of the work of the Holy Spirit active in the Church today, and very possibly an idolatry of the past.

One might ask, are these contemporary music groups solid spiritually? I have been around a fair number of them, and can say that some appear very mature and committed to Christ, others probably less so. Some of the lyrics to the songs have heft, some are trite. Some of the sounds to my ears are sweet, some of the sounds are cacaphonous. And certainly, as in much of contemporary American culture, much music is commercialized, hyped, market-driven ( a troublesome topic in itself to deliberate!). A powerful temptation has always existed to idolize people with "out-in-the-front" ministries, whether they be preachers or musicians. And talented preachers and musicians (or smart people, rich people, athletic people, beautiful people) have likewise a powerful temptation to bask in the glory of their fame. This of course can and probably typically does occur even down to the local church level. I soaring soprano, booming baritone, or fanciful pianist can get just as much acclaim and sense of self-importance down at the local church playing "Rock of Ages" in a relative way as can the Christian media stars of today.

What would Psalm 150 look like if it had been written in 1998? I think it would include pianos, organs, and choirs, and, oh yes, electric guitars, tamborines, drums, and (do I dare say it?) "jumpin' up-and-down dance", shouting, clapping, foot stompin', and all this in the church building (David called it a sanctuary). And yes, the people would be exhorted to have a great time, a celebratory time, an emotionally-cathartic (healing) time together. After all, should not the Lord God receive the fullest of all who we are?

The book of Psalms begins with a doctrinal exhortation to walk in obedience and uprightness before God, and that same book ends with unfettered praise to God. Our response to the One who has made us, saved us, and drawn us close to Himself in love for eternity should be the heart-felt response of all our being in gratitude, obedience, contition, faithfulness, wonder, celebration, and a love to gush out into the whole world that also needs so utterly desperately to know that One. Hallelujia!!!

**********************************************

Thank you for allowing me to express these comments. Please understand that I continue to wrestle with some of the issues you have presented in your article. We live in a time like unto a whirlwind, and issues such as music style indeed do suggest prayerful deliberation. May you continue to speak forth an uncompromised witness to Jesus Christ as much as is within you, and may the presence of the living Spirit be your comfort and joy.

Allen Johnson

Rt. 1, Box 119-B

Dunmore, West Virginia 24934

cc: Eric Brubaker