Joyful Noise

Trying to escape the implications of ones biased and negative comments by prefacing it with the word "if" is a cop-out and disingenious, to say the least. It would be quite like me saying "If the comments of ______ were not from such an asinine arrogantly narrow-minded and biased perspective I am sure he would gladly go out and purchase the book and read it before commenting on it." Well, you see I used the word "if" so I really must not have meant what I said if the shoe does not fit. It is also just an extreme hypothetical example to illustrate a point and is not meant to be directed toward anyone in particular and should not be understood to be a direct personal attack on a real person.

Tom

Christian includes two chapters in his book that comment extensively on Bacchiocchi's book. While I haven't read the JATS articles, I would suspect that those two chapters cover some of the same ground or are based on the articles. Christian does point out many of the serious fallacies, inconsistencies and poor scholarship to be found in Bacchiocci's book. I read some of Bacchiocci's early drafts and was incredulous at the exceedingly poor scholarship and have been greatly dismayed at how readily it is so uncritically accepted by those who simply want to hear that their personal distaste for modern music is righteous. If one is evaluating either book on its inherent bias, Bacchiocci's book is the hands down winner in presenting a narrowly biased perspective. While it may not be the message that some want to hear, Christian presents a far more balanced and rational perspective that may allow for a broader range of music and musicial tastes. And he lays out some very good Biblically based principles to evaluate any music (rather than simply devaluating one particular type) and provides sound guidance on revitalizing worship, regardless of the musical style being used.

While I am quite sure that those who just seek confirmation of their own bias in favor of only music by long since decomposed composers will see Bacchiocci's book as presenting the truth as they want to hear it and will be greatly disinclined to evaluate it critically. One does not need even a pretense of rationality or logic in that context. One could quote the phone book and say that contemporary Christian music is evil and everyone in that crowd would say AMEN. Criticism of what one already dislikes or perceives as bad need not be too deep or sensible. BUT if the objective is to convince those who are thought to be corrupted by the music being condemned, Bacchiocci and those whose methods and materials he is following and using are doing such a poor job that they discredit themselves almost immediately. Their logical dissonnance will mean they are quickly tuned out and they will simply never reach their target audience.

Christian's book should be useful guidance for a much wider audience within Adventism. If all you are looking for is a blunt instrument to bash that which you already dislike or are only seeking strained accolades for your own musical preference you may be disappointed. But you will find a practical and level-headed Christian approach to music for personal and group worship.

Tom

The focus of this topic is on Christian's book.

As his book in not online anywhere, any negative critiquing of this book requires quotes. The same is true when referring negatively to any other offline book in relation to this book under discussion.

I permitted the "if" posts to remain, however, in the future, any questionable usage of "if" that directly or indirectly berates another, whether or not a member of MSDAOL, could be removed, especially if a complaint is received.

Here are a couple quotes from Joyful Noise that speak to Christian's musical preference. He spends the first chapter explaining where he is coming from and what lead him to write this book.


“I don’t often listen to music of any sort these days---I prefer silence---but when I do, it’s
usually hymns: choral, a cappella, orchestral, folk, or bluegrass. For me, the great old hymns found in our hymnal have a wonderful ability to focus the mind on God and help one say no to temptation.” p7.

“I enjoy classical music of many sorts, though I seldom listen to it. I also enjoy some types of jazz and swing, especially clarinet solos, and bluegrass, though I rarely listen to them. I used to love opera, especially Mozart and Verdi, but when I read the librettos in English and discovered their focus on sin, I stopped listening, though I still enjoy the overtures.” p8.

Before I quote more extensively from his book, I will seek his permission. Stay tuned for more.

Tom

Tom,

As Ed Christian is also a member of MSDAOL, he may wish to share it here himself, however, if he gives his permission, you are free to quote away.

One question though, isn't it permissible and not infringement of copyright laws to quote a small amount from somebody's published writings? If yes, what is a small amount?

-----

Everybody,

If he does post here, I caution anybody who disagrees with him to critique his written material with quotes in a kindly manner within acceptable limits per copyright laws which I hope Tom can establish for us here, however, please do not critique the author himself.

In other words, treat him and others as you yourself would like to be treated whenever anybody disagrees with you.

Daryl,

Good question! This falls under the concept of "fair use" under US copyright law that would allow for use and copying of a copyrighted work within certain limitations. ( I can't speak to Canadian law, although I suspect some similarity.) In particular the type of fair use in question would be using the copyrighted work for the purpose of comment and criticism. There is no hard and fast rule as to the amount that may be reasonably used for this purpose but it is looked at both qualitatively and quantitatively. Of significance is the effect of the use on the value of, or potential market for the work.

That's it in a nutshell.

Tom

Thank you, Tom.

Then in a nutshell it seems that it is OK to quote without permission as long as comments are posted for or against the quote. In other words, as long as it is critiqued.

Tom,

I have not read Christian's book you are so enthusiastic about. However, this I must say. IF his book on music is on the same level of scholarship as shown in his several AR articles (especially one on the Sabbath Pleasure) that I had some "pleasure" reading, I wouldn't waste my time reading it.

As I see it, the guy's point seems pointless making readers confused about what he really is trying to say.

The "Iffy-critics" should have no excuse now. I just checked and the book is at the ABC and available through whatever normal channels of book purchasing one prefers. It was not yet on the store shelves when I first mentioned it, so I recognize that I had a headstart advantage in commenting on the book.

Tom

This is the summary found on the back cover of the book:

"Too many Christians assume the music they like is the music God likes. They then forbid the music they don't like. Unfortunately, this attitude often drives away young people. Joyful Noise argues that Christian music should be judged not by our own tastes, but by its spiritual fruits. If music leads people to God or keeps people close to God, then God approves, whether or not we ourselves like it."

"When it comes to music in the church, however, Christ's plea is for unity. Appropriate church music doesn't alienate or offend, but brings people together and lifts them up to God."

"Caution: this book may change your life--and your church."

A very significant part of Christian's book deals with the topic of the second paragraph of that summary. In chapter 4 entitled "Guidelines for OUR Music: Congregational Worship" Christian stresses the importance of unity especially when it comes to worshipping together as a congregation. Of seven principles identified and explained in that chapter, three specifically address unity of the believers in worship music.

Tom

Daryl,

You might want to pay attention to that "If" word again. Really though, the part you did not highlight explains the connection and significance. But set aside the aspect of your own personal taste, comfort zone, etc. and objectively consider the key elements of the statement - "leads people to God" and "keeps people close to God". Try to consider how either of these could possibly, even in your wildest dreams, be a bad thing. Aside from music, now consider the many ways in which God can accomplish this or ways that people have learned to accomplish these goals. How many of those ways work for you personally? How many of those ways do not work for you personally? Would you be willing to deny God or His people opportunities to penetrate the shell of a sin-hardened soul and touch that heart with the gospel in ways that don't do it for you, for the sole reason that such ways don't work for you and speak to your soul or even if you know that for you personally the exact opposite effect would be the result?

With regard to music, countless personal testimonies give evidence of the power of music to help accomplish the eternal goals of leading someone to God and helping keep a soul close to God. What if the same personal testimony came from two different people, one listening to a Fannie Crosby hymn and another listening to Handel's Messiah - would you consider a qualitative difference in the spiritual experience and result of the two individuals based on their musical preference? My own mother who is a musician would greatly prefer the former music and absolutely would not be as likely to be blessed by Handel's music as she simply doesn't like classical music. But I have sung many of the choral portions of the Messiah and am greatly blessed by that music as well as the great gospel hymns that my mother taught me to appreciate. I have also experienced the same blessing (I do recognize it as being the same because my spiritual reactions and thoughts are very much the same.) from some far more contemporary Christian music. And that is the experience of countless other Christians who have been brought closer to God and kept closer to God through contemporary Christian music. Each type of music has lead me toward God or helped me stay close to Him by focusing my mind and heart on Him. Is there a difference? Only in the musical vehicle that helped bring me into a closer relationship with God. The end result was the same. That is the point.

Tom

[ July 01, 2003, 07:54 PM: Message edited by: Tom Wetmore ]

Greetings, Friends:
I want to sincerely thank Tom for calling your attention to my book "Joyful Noise." Tom, as you are well aware, your quotes are well within the boundaries of fair use. Quote away! You are representing me accurately.

I also want to thank Daryl for his kindly, conscientious reminders to people. May God bless you.

Pete P Pete, part of "Joyful Noise" is indeed based on the two articles on music I published a year ago in JATS. One very valuable thing about publishing them there first is that several thoughtful critics took the time to argue with specific aspects of what I had said. I discovered that the reason was that I had not clearly communicated my ideas. (It's not easy.) I was able to do a lot of rewriting and add many pages, with the result that most of those who didn't understand changed their minds and came to agree with me. Given that you label me a leftist (I'm a registered Republican), you probably still wouldn't agree with me, but I do hope the book is clearer than the articles.

As Tom pointed out, I love the great old hymns. I wish we spent a lot more time singing them. I've recorded a three tape album for American Cassette Ministries of me reading the lyrics of 150 hymns as poetry, so their wonderful messages can be better understood.

I believe, though, that one prominent example of FALSE WORSHIP and BLASPHEMY in our churches today (more specifically white North American and European churches) is singing HYMNS in praise to God AS IF WE DIDN'T MEAN IT. Lukewarm, Laodicean singing of hymns is not true worship and it doesn't lead people closer to God. However, that doesn't mean we need to throw out the baby with the bathwater. I urge you, if you love hymns, sing them with all your heart, as if you really believed. And teach others to love them, too.
God Bless
Ed

Good to see you back on here, Ed!

I agree that it isn't always easy conveying one's accurate thoughts on here.

I would be interested in your thoughts, and anybody else's thoughts, on the following similar topics:

http://www.maritime-sda-online.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=21;t=000032;p=1#000010

http://www.maritime-sda-online.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=21;t=000026;p=1#000005

Please click on the above link and, if you have any thoughts, please reply to them in those respective topics, rather than in this one.

The 4th chapter of "Joyful Noise" is entitled "Guidelines for OUR Music: Congregational Worship." In that chapter Ed Christian explains in detail 7 principles for group worship. Here are the basic principles for your edification and discussion:

"1. Music is not of itself sacred or secular, whatever its style. Classical and sacred are not synonymous. Quality of composition or performance does not make music without words suitable for the worship service. When instrumental music calls to mind sacred lyrics, it can lead to worship, though generally less efficiently than music with words. At best, from a spiritual viewpoint, music without words in the worship service provides a background for meditation. However, many listeners don’t make use of this opportunity."

"2. Any style of music can entertain. Entertainment is not in itself wrong, in its place, but the worship service is not the best place for entertainment, because the more we are being entertained, the less we are worshiping. Thus the worship service will be more spiritually profitable if we avoid music that entertains. 'Special music' in the worship service can sometimes provide an opportunity for meditation or allow God to speak to the listener, but primarily, I believe, it entertains the congregation, despite the performers’ desire to give glory to God."


"3. Everything in the worship service should encourage an intense unity of the believers, a unity of thought, feeling, and worship, preparing believers to receive God’s Word to them. Any element of the service that lowers congregational fervor or detracts from congregational unity should be changed or deleted. Silence should not be equated with true reverence or worship (though true worship is often silent, of course)."


"4. Congregational singing is the only music encouraged in the New Testament for group worship. Vigorous congregational singing has potent physiological, mental, and spiritual effects. When vigorous congregational singing continues for some time, it encourages a feeling of unity among the singers. Vigorous congregational singing is our fullest expression of corporate worship."


"5. Tepid congregational singing is false worship, a mockery of worship. It says, in effect, 'God hasn’t done much for me and doesn’t really deserve my worship.'"


"6. Vigorous congregational singing is always appropriate during the worship service, and many musical styles are acceptable for such worship, so long as those present are not offended. Music that offends some in the congregation is not acceptable, because it destroys the unity of the body of Christ."


"7. Some Christian songs are appropriate for outside the worship service, yet not for
congregational singing. Songs for congregational singing should praise God in some way or teach and admonish the congregation. They should have lyrics that are fitting for many people to sing at once, rather than focusing on individual experience. Their tunes should also be melodic, as this makes them easier to sing and remember."


Tom

Daryl,

You asked, “Does Ed Christian give any examples of vigorous and tepid congregational singing anywhere in his book?”

Yes, he discusses these points quite a bit in his book. I think that essentially he is talking about enthusiasm and feeling in our singing – singing from our heart as if we truly mean it. His use of “tepid” conveys lukewarmness, apathy or a lack of genuine feeling. Music is an expression of the heart and the way some folk sing you would think their hearts have stopped beating. Here is his description of the effects of vigorous congregational singing:

“When we sing vigorously, we breathe deeper and we exercise our chest, back, and abdominal muscles. This floods our cells with extra oxygen, making us feel alert, strong, and energetic. It also releases naturally occurring substances in our brains that relax us, decrease sensitivity to pain, give us a feeling of well-being, encourage a feeling of compassion for others, and lower our inhibitions slightly (making it easier for us to respond to the work of the Holy Spirit on our hearts).”

And in a footnote he mentions a personal experience of what he is talking about:

“One of the most memorable evenings of my life was spent in a hymn-sing led by a man who knew how to lead singing (Charles L. Brooks, an editor of the hymnal I use) and a pianist who knew how to accompany hymn-singing (his daughter). The leader took us through dozens of songs, helping us learn how to sing, how to understand the songs, how to enjoy them. As he moved us from anthems of praise to quiet songs of contrition and surrender and back again, as he gauged and controlled our enthusiasm, we coalesced. I began with a migraine headache. I ended feeling wonderful. This was my introduction, 15 years ago, to the glory of hymns and the physiological effects they can have.”

Having also experienced singing hymns with C. L. Brooks and his wonderfully rich voice and genuine enthusiasm, I understand exactly what he is saying. That spirit is contagious like the infectious laughter of a child. Even the most dour saint will at least smile a little.

Tom

Tom,

I agree with both you and Ed Christian that we need to sing from our hearts and not only from our lips (lip-service).

Daryl,

Of the seven principles of worship music that Ed proposes, three directly address unity. To say that unity in worship is a theme of his book is almost an understatement. It is a concern that Ed stresses over and over throughout the book. In the introductory paragraph to his concluding chapter, “The Church I Long to See” he sums up what is on his heart in writing this book:

“Music has divided for far too long. This book has been an attempt to show that such division is unnecessary, harmful, and in opposition to Jesus’ prayer that His followers would live together in unity. What follows is not specifically about music, but about the unity of the body of Christ, the people of God. It lays out my dreams of what the church could be if we were willing, what God longs for it to be. Compared to unity, the music wars are of little importance.”

An essential element of our group worship is to help unify the body of Christ and of all things, music should be a catalyst to help build that unity of God’s people rather than divide us. What follows is a sampling of other quotes from throughout the rest of Ed’s book regarding the importance of unity in the context of this potentially divisive issue:

“Jesus was particularly concerned for the unity of His people. The divisions within Christendom make worldwide unity difficult, but even in the local congregation there are often divisions. When we allow them to continue, we keep Christ’s prayer from being answered as He wished.”

“Whatever music we ourselves prefer, we must keep in mind the unity of God’s people. Maintaining that unity may call for compromise, for accepting what we ourselves don’t much like, for not insisting on our own musical preferences if some are offended by them.” Chapter 2 [Ed later further defines what he means by compromise – “not a compromise of principles, but a willingness to put the needs of others before our own needs.”]

“Today researchers know that vigorous singing or similar physical participation in music can release naturally occurring chemicals in the brain that ease pain or lead to a feeling of well-being. Such feelings are not in themselves spiritual, but when they accompany the spiritual they intensify it and encourage unity, joy, and care for others.” Chapter 3

“Our primary concern as we consider what music to use in the worship service should be its effect on the worshipers. Does it bring them to a unity of spirit? Does it make them more receptive to the work of the Holy Spirit? Does it help convince them of their need of a Savior, remind them there’s power in the blood, encourage them to be like Jesus, inspire them to praise God with their whole heart?” Chapter 4

“Everything in the worship service should encourage an intense unity of the believers, a unity of thought, feeling, and worship, preparing believers to receive God’s Word to them. Any element of the service that lowers congregational fervor or detracts from congregational unity should be changed or deleted. Silence should not be equated with true reverence or worship (though true worship is often silent, of course).”

“I admit that this is an unusual position. However, what most concerned Jesus as He prayed in John 17 was the unity of the believers. Three times Jesus commanded, ‘Love one another’ (John 13:34; 15:12, 17). I assume he meant it.

“It seems to me that we praise and worship God best when we do it from a position of loving unity. When we are filled with love for each other, when we come to feel open to each other, concerned about each other, connected to each other, then I think we can feel the Holy Spirit descend upon us, whether we be silent or singing, and true worship begins.” Chapter 4

“I believe that everything in the worship service needs to be subordinate to the goal of worshiping God in unity. If the organ prelude and the special music lower the spiritual temperature by drawing people away from each other and focusing on a private experience of God, replace them with congregational hymns.” Chapter 4

“True worship should come from brothers and sisters coming together in unity (Psalm 133:1).” Chapter 4

“Because congregational worship isn’t true worship unless the congregation worships as one, and because congregational singing not only helps us achieve that unity but is the primary way the church worships at one time, we need to devote more time to learning how to sing together, and we need to devote more time to singing together.”

“We need to surrender ourselves to the good of the whole body and sing with our hearts. I believe this is the worship God desires, rather than a worship that is decorous and reverent, but dead.” Chapter 4

“Unity is built when God’s people develop a relationship with each other, when they truly care for each other and carry each other’s burdens, and this is Christ’s desire for them.” Chapter 8

Tom

I am all for unity but not if it means compromising our Bible-based beliefs for the sake of unity.

That is why it important to know what the Bible and the SOP have to say about this most important subject.

Daryl,

As the bracketed quote I included above about "compromise" indicates, Ed Christian is in agreement. He is not talking about compromising principles. He also devotes a chapter specifically to determining the Biblical principles of music.

And here is an EGW quote that Ed also includes in the book:

“The evil of formal worship cannot be too strongly depicted, but no words can properly set forth the deep blessedness of genuine worship. When human beings sing with the spirit and the understanding, heavenly musicians take up the strain and join in the song of thanksgiving.” (Ellen G. White, Testimonies for the Church, vol. 9, p. 143).

Tom

The following article is soon to be published in one of the Adventist youth maganzine that I have some relationship with. Seeing the subject of unity mentioned in the context of worship styles and music, I thought the following article (written by a pastor friend in my own Conference) would provide some needed insight on this topic to forum participants. Kevin custs through the surface and goes into the heart of the matter surrounding this debate of worship among other things, and I hope it is as edifying for you all as it was for me.

--------------------------------------------

LIFESTYLE AND WORSHIP CHOICES: WHY THEY MATTER

Kevin D. Paulson


Questions of personal behavior and the manner of our worship have become hot issues in the contemporary church. Many wonder how, and if, these discussions matter to their relationship with God.

It is time to lay aside the authority of human opinion, human scholarship, and human experience, and get back into the Word.


Two Underlying Theories

The current debate over standards in the Seventh-day Adventist Church is, in large measure, handicapped by two series of misunderstandings: (1) the theory that finding God’s will for our lives is a subjective, individually unique process, with no changeless standard of right and wrong that all can know and comprehend; and (2) the theory that lifestyle and worship choices, while perhaps important, have no bearing on salvation.

Both theories contradict the Bible, and must be exposed as false before we can fully appreciate the counsel of God regarding how we should live.


Clarifying Our Authority

The first of the above theories is most serious of all, since it concerns the basic question of what our authority is. If we can’t agree on this, any further discussion of Christian beliefs or lifestyle becomes pointless. Without a standard to which ideas and actions are compared, discussions of this sort become no different from the arguments heard every day on CNN’s “Crossfire.” They might be amusing, entertaining, and occasionally informative, but they settle nothing.

The Bible not only maintains that an absolute standard of right and wrong exists; it also maintains that this standard is knowable by finite humans, and that all are accountable to God for how they fulfill that standard (James 2:10-12). Without this standard, God’s Ten Commandment law, we can’t possibly know we’re sinners (Rom. 3:20; I John 3:4), and thus we can’t know if in fact we need a Saviour (Gal. 3:24).

The Bible declares of itself: “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (II Tim. 3:16). The Bible is not the product of human opinion and speculation, but of the Holy Spirit speaking through men of God (II Peter 1:19-21). And what the Holy Spirit inspires is to be understood by comparison with itself (I Cor. 2:12-14)
--precept upon precept, line upon line, here a little and there a little (Isa. 28:9-10). Thus does God’s Word develop a consistent portrait of the divine will, by which all ideas and actions must be measured (Isa. 8:20; Acts 17:11).

While Seventh-day Adventists hold the Bible to be the test of all doctrine, experience, and lifestyle, they also recognize the Biblical truth that the prophetic gift didn’t stop with Revelation 22. Scripture maintains that this gift would function until the return of Christ (I Cor. 1:6-7), and that God’s last church would be characterized by a special bestowal of this gift (Rev. 12:17; 19:10; 22:9). Seventh-day Adventists maintain that this prophetic voice was placed in our church through the ministry and writings of Ellen G. White.

Despite the insistent claims of critics, many of whom shout their dissent from classroom podiums and Internet chat rooms, Ellen White’s teachings harmonize fully with those of the Bible. While not every explicit counsel she gives is repeated in Scripture, every principle on which she elaborates finds its basis in Scripture. The Bible, for example, says nothing about tobacco or recreational drugs; Ellen White, by contrast, speaks against both. But the Bible does speak of our bodies being the temple of the Holy Ghost in which God must be glorified (I Cor. 6:19-20). The Bible says nothing about fictitious reading, as does Ellen White. But the Bible does contain the command, “Whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, if there be any praise, think on these things” (Phil. 4:8).

When we ponder this passage from Philippians especially, the impact on one issue in particular is nothing short of awesome. If the principle found in this verse were followed, very little of modern entertainment—movies, soap operas, novels, etc—would be deemed acceptable for the Christian.

One tragedy in modern Adventism has been the tendency of some to blame Ellen White for every extreme idea or practice that occasionally comes into the church. Even today there are some who assume that according to Ellen White, church members should dress like the Amish, eat no refined foods ever, never swim in mixed groups, avoid dating, and reserve the first kiss for the marriage altar. But the fact is that no such counsels exist in the writings of Ellen White. They may represent the opinions of sincere people, but that is all. Only the written counsel of God can be our authority in settling spiritual issues.


But is it a salvation issue?

Nearly always, in a discussion of standards, someone brings up this question. When all is said and done, people want to know, do my choices in such areas make a difference to my eternal destiny?

Much confusion exists in contemporary Adventism over the doctrine of salvation. Many mistakenly believe that when the Bible says we aren’t saved by works (Rom. 3:20,28; Gal. 2:16; Eph. 2:8-9), that this includes even the Holy Spirit’s work in Christian lives. It isn’t hard to see the result of such thinking. The Spirit’s transforming power in the lives of converted Christians is what true obedience is all about. And if one is supposedly saved apart from this transformation and obedience, it logically follows that the Christian’s lifestyle choices—whatever they may be—don’t affect salvation.

But the salvation by works condemned in Scripture has nothing to do with the empowering work of the Holy Spirit. Rather, the works-righteousness condemned in Scripture has to do with surface religion, ritual piety, the sort of hypocrisy Isaiah and Jesus denounced in their day (Isa. 1:10-17; Matt. 23). Paul likewise maintains, in Romans 2:17-23, that the Jews who thought they were justified by the law had made boastful deeds of professed piety a substitute for genuine, heart-based obedience. The Bible is clear that such hypocritical works have no value whatsoever with God.

But the Bible is very clear that while we are not saved by mere surface activity, we are in fact saved by the Spirit’s inward work of renewal and sanctification (II Thess. 2:13; Titus 3:5). Both Jesus and Paul declare that obedience to God’s commandments is the condition for our receiving eternal life (Matt. 19:17; Luke 10:25-28; Rom. 2:6-10; 8:13; Heb. 5:9). But both also make it plain that only through heaven’s power is such obedience possible in our lives (Matt. 19:26; John 15:5; Phil. 2:12-13; 4:13). In Paul’s words: “For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die; but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live” (Rom. 8:13).

In other words, religious activity apart from conversion will save no one. But religious activity produced by conversion is the condition of our salvation. Once this is understood, it becomes clear that anything God says in His written counsel regarding how we should eat, dress, socialize, worship, etc, is involved with our salvation. Jesus declared that man shall live “by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” (Matt. 4:4). Everything God says is salvation-related. If it wasn’t, God would have left it alone.


Even Little Things Matter

Many try to dismiss certain lifestyle issues in the church as minor matters, claiming that “Jesus is more important than rules.” This point is often raised when questions like adornment, vegetarianism, and similar topics arise. “Majoring in minors” is a favorite label often attached to those who consider these issues significant.

But if the prophet Daniel hadn’t paid attention to the comparatively “little” issue of eating the king’s meat, he and his companions might never have stood firm when the trumpets sounded on the plain of Dura (Dan. 3:4-6). Very likely they would have been slaughtered with the other wise men at Nebuchadnezzar’s command, since that first compromise might well have led to others which would have made it impossible for the Lord to reveal the king’s dream to Daniel (Dan. 2:19). The devil always make sure that each step of compromise is small enough to defend. The stories of many Bible characters—Samson, David, Solomon, Judas, and countless others—graphically illustrate this point.

One piece of fruit from the wrong tree may have seemed minor to Adam and Eve. But God’s command forbade this, and by disobedience they unleashed six millenniums of horror, loss, and tragedy. Remembering some extra oil might have seemed a small thing for the foolish virgins in Christ’s parable (Matt. 25:3-4). But it was that small choice that barred their admission to the wedding feast.

Perhaps, when compared to other issues, things like jewelry and hamburgers and romance novels are indeed minor. But it was Christ Himself who stated, “He that is faithful in that which is least, is faithful also in much” (Luke 16:10). Those in the church who seek to draw attention away from lifestyle standards in order to be more “Christ-centered,” would do well to consider these words from the lips of our Lord.


A Closer Look at One Issue

Worship styles have become one of the most contentious issues in today’s Adventism. And the popular line heard so often is that how we worship is really no one’s business but ours, that “great minds” need not worship alike, and that culture, generational tastes, and the resistance of older members to change of any kind is what drives this argument.

But from the beginning, the Bible is clear that who we worship is not the only thing that matters. How we worship matters also.

Take Cain and Abel. Both professed to worship God and brought offerings to Him. But because Cain chose to worship in a manner other than what God commanded, his offering was rejected (Gen. 4:3-5). The children of Israel at Mount Sinai claimed to be worshiping God when they made the golden calf, which is why Aaron proclaimed the worship of this idol as “a feast to the Lord” (Ex. 32:5). In later years, King Jeroboam of Israel used the same “culturally relevant” symbols to represent the true God (I Kings 12:20-33).

But God had no more respect for Aaron’s and Jeroboam’s worship innovations than He had had for Cain’s. Indeed, this issue mattered so much to God that three thousand Israelites were put to death as a result (Ex. 32:28). And Jeroboam’s worship experiments so provoked the wrath of God that the king’s entire family was exterminated, and Israel eventually taken captive (I Kings 14:10-16).

One cannot read these stories without recognizing that how we worship is as important to God as who we worship. The attempt by some to view most—if not all—worship choices as a subjective, individual matter is simply not in harmony with the message of Scripture.

Ellen White, over a century ago, predicted the worship forms that are causing such division in the church today. Many are surprised, even shocked, to learn this. Contemporary music, theatrical drama, “clown” ministries—all are mentioned in her writings. And under divine inspiration, she has warned us against them:

“The things you have described as taking place in Indiana, the Lord has shown me would take place just before the close of probation. Every uncouth thing will be demonstrated. There will be shouting with drums, music, and dancing. The sense of rational beings will become so confused that they cannot be trusted to make right decisions. And this is called the moving of the Holy Spirit.

“The Holy Spirit never reveals itself in such methods, in such a bedlam of noise. This is an invention of Satan to cover up his ingenious methods for making of none effect the pure, sincere, elevating, ennobling, sanctifying truth for this time” (1).

“Not one jot or tittle of anything theatrical is to be brought into our work. God’s cause is to have a sacred, heavenly mold. Let everything connected with the giving of the message for this time bear the divine impress. Let nothing of a theatrical nature be permitted, for this would spoil the sacredness of the work.

“I am instructed that we shall meet with all kinds of experiences and that men will try to bring strange performances into the work of God. We have met such things in many places. In my very first labors the message was given that all theatrical performances in connection with the preaching of present truth were to be discouraged and forbidden” (2).

“We need to study methods whereby we may preach the gospel to the poor and downtrodden and degraded of humanity. But let no one think that God will approve of a method that will require a man to act the part of a clown, or like a man who has lost his senses. Such methods as these are wholly unnecessary and inappropriate” (3).

What is especially sobering is her statement that these styles of music will come into our church “just before the close of probation” (4). That gives us an idea of where we are in history!

In Revelation 13 we learn that the great final test for humanity will be over worship. Just as Adam and Even confronted a choice between two trees, you and I will be faced with a choice between two days of worship. And if we delude ourselves into thinking that how we worship doesn’t matter so long as Jesus is worshiped and praised, how will we stand when other Christians seek to convince us that making a big deal over which day on which to worship is—like other standards we’ve come to think lightly of—just another legalistic technicality?


The Bottom Line

When Saul of Tarsus, the once-proud persecutor, found himself blind on the Damascus Road, he cried from the depths of a heart now contrite, ”Lord, what wilt Thou have me to do?” Acts 9:6).

Here, at the bottom line, is the key to the whole debate over standards in the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

Such discussions serve no purpose so long as they focus on how much of the world I can bring into the church, how much of self I can cling to and still call myself a Seventh-day Adventist Christian. Religion is not merely one of life’s many priorities, to be counterbalanced with the others. My relationship with God is not merely one of my many relationships. True conversion is not a negotiated settlement; it is unconditional surrender.

Only when the written counsel of God is accepted as the absolute sovereign of all we think, say, and do can we rightly answer the question, How should a Christian live? It is time for Seventh-day Adventist young adults to at last fall on the Rock Christ Jesus, let themselves be broken, and thus join the Master in His prayer, “Not My will, but Thine, be done” (Luke 22:42).

REFERENCES

1. Ellen G. White, Selected Messages, vol. 2, p. 36.

2. ----Evangelism, p. 137.

3. ----Signs of the Times, March 19, 1894.

4. ----Selected Messages, vol. 2, p. 36.


Kevin Paulson is pastor of the Peekskill, New York, Seventh-day Adventist Church, just north of New York City. He is also editor of Quo Vadis, a magazine for SDA young adults. Kevin invites his readers to contact him by e-mail if they wish, at Kevin@quovadismagazine.org.

"Justin" (or should I say Kevin?),

Perhaps if you would actually take the time to read Ed's book you would understand what he is saying and realize how off the mark your out-of context comments and criticism really are. Even if you had actually paid attention to just the seven principles he proposes for worship music that I posted previously you would realize the ridiculousness of your question "Does this mean that the whole congregation should yield, for the good of the whole body, to the wishes of some misguided young people who want to employ the rock style music in the congregational worship?" The sixth principle says "Music that offends some in the congregation is not acceptable, because it destroys the unity of the body of Christ." How much more plain and simple does he need to get?

How on earth do you deduce "subtly negative associations" from advocating MORE congregational singing of hymns , avoiding empty formal worship, truly caring for one another and carrying each others burdens -- all to be done in a spirit of love and unity? I am amazed and dumbfounded!!!

As for your supposed "negative association" about his comment about decorous but dead worship, I think he is being far more diplomatic and reserved about the very same problem that EGW addressed:

“The evil of formal worship cannot be too strongly depicted, but no words can properly set forth the deep blessedness of genuine worship. When human beings sing with the spirit and the understanding, heavenly musicians take up the strain and join in the song of thanksgiving.” (Ellen G. White, Testimonies for the Church, vol. 9, p. 143).

Or how about this one:

"There is too much formality in our religious services. The Lord would have His ministers who preach the word energized by His Holy Spirit; and the people who hear should not sit in drowsy indifference, or stare vacantly about, making no responses to what is said. ... There should be wide-awake, active churches to encourage and uphold the ministers of Christ and to aid them in the work of saving souls. Where the church is walking in the light, there will ever be cheerful, hearty responses and words of joyful praise." (Ellen G. White, Testimonies for the Church, vol. 5, p. 318)


Tom

"Justin",

It is alarming and sadly ironic how contentious your comments are over, of all things, the subject of unity. I would simply invite you to do two things. Do an electronic search in EGW's writings using just two words, "unity" and "importance". And read 8T239-243.

More directly addressing your comments above:

"There are some who will wish to follow their own crude notions; but they must learn to receive advice and to work in harmony with their brethren, or they will sow doubt and discord that they will not care to harvest. It is the will of God that those who engage in His work shall be subject to one another. His worship must be conducted with consistency, unity, and sound judgment. " - 5T270. [emphasis added.]

"Under two heads, love to God and love to our neighbor, all the precepts are bound together in a sacred unity. These two principles are immutable, as eternal as the throne of God. By them man's character is tested, and he is shown to be obedient or disobedient. Those who obey the first, loving God supremely, will pour out the riches of God's goodness in love and compassion to their fellow-men. They will do far more than merely acknowledge the truth; they will offer far more than a ceremonial worship; they will give to God the whole service required by Him; for supreme love to God is an evidence that the truth is an abiding principle in the heart." - ST, January 25, 1899.

And last, your statment "The true unity (that the Bible talks about) can never be built on the basis of developing a relationship among sinners." We are all sinners. All we have to choose from to establish any human relationship is sinners. How do we connect with sinners in order to present the gospel to them if some sort of relationship is not established. Jesus himself united pure and holy divinity with sinful humanity in order to save us. He did not shun sinners but sought a relationship with sinners to save them. I think you greatly misrepresent what sort of unity Jesus prayed for.

Tom


[ July 25, 2003, 03:55 PM: Message edited by: Tom Wetmore ]

Tom, Tom,

You've been busy searching EGW writngs...

Read carefully what I said and what EGW said also. We don't diagree. The order of our focus is foremost the love of God (and all of His precepts and principles) and then comes the love of our neighbors.

Without the first firmly settled in our mind and heart, our ragged attempt on the second never amount to anything in the scheme of God's salvation plan. Ed Christian's statement, in my view, lacks clear focus on this order of the Gospel.

The unity based on the mere relationship among beleivers without each one of them having a clear focus on the first by showing the willingness to deny self's various menifestations is that of a social club. Some may call it the Adventist Club.

I am not buying this sort of unity, bro, because I've seen too much misuse by unsavory characters with this sort of concept.

I will gladly subject my opinion to others when their proposition is solidly based on God's command and promise. I will not do so just because it comes from so-called some authority figures or it is the majority opinion. Based on my cursory review of our Christian history, it is evident to me that this is never a safe option.

Justin

I am finding this topic interesting.

Only a few days ago here at Maritime Campmeeting I purchased Ed Christian's book, Joyful Noise.

As soon as things slow down here I plan to get into that book and contribute more to this topic.

I also believe it is a good thing to compare it to any of the writings of EGW on this topic, and anything closely related to this topic of worship, music, and unity.

Daryl, have you finished the book yet?

Tom

I only arrived back home a couple of days ago.

I also am reading about 3 to 4 books at the same time.

I soon plan on spending more time reading that book.

Just reviving this topic to make it easier to find for those who follow my suggestion elswhere to come here and read this topic.

Tom

When I read the passages below I can see that God doesnt want for us to unify upon theological errors. Just as the Bible says to be joyful but not silly or jesting... there too is a huge difference between singing in the Spirit and stooping to the level that we were already warned of taking place in these last days, such as dancing and drums, etc.

I dont think it is right to use the Spirit of Prophecy in such a way that you will draw out some passages and apply them in an unfitting manner... giving them a meaning that were never intended by the Author. We can know that if we read all of what Sister White said on a subject instead of taking one idea we like and them trying to gather up verses that seem to support our ideas while ignoring those that don't.

Claudia

----

Our High Calling, page 329, paragraph 3
Chapter Title: The Foundation of All True Peace
Jesus prayed that His followers might be one; but we are not to sacrifice the truth in order to secure this union, for we are to be sanctified through the truth. Here is the foundation of all true peace. Human wisdom would change all this, pronouncing this basis too narrow. Men would try to effect unity through concession to popular opinion, through compromise with the world, a sacrifice of vital godliness. But truth is God's basis for the unity of His people.

Sanctification, unity, peace--all are to be ours through the truth. The belief of the truth does not make men gloomy and uncomfortable. If you have peace in Christ, His precious blood is speaking pardon and hope to your soul. Yes, more, you have joy in the Holy Spirit, through accepting the precious promises. Jesus says, "In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." John 16:33. Therefore the world shall not overcome you if you believe in Me. It is a world that I have conquered. Because I have overcome, if you believe in Me, you shall overcome. . . .


Steps to Christ, page 120, paragraph 4
Chapter Title: Rejoicing in the Lord
Our Saviour was deeply serious and intensely in earnest, but never gloomy or morose. The life of those who imitate Him will be full of earnest purpose; they will have a deep sense of personal responsibility. Levity will be repressed; there will be no boisterous merriment, no rude jesting; but the religion of Jesus gives peace like a river. It does not quench the light of joy; it does not restrain cheerfulness nor cloud the sunny, smiling face. Christ came not to be ministered unto but to minister; and when His love reigns in the heart, we shall follow His example.

The Youth's Instructor, February 15, 1894, paragraph 3
Article Title: Words to the Young, Part IV
There must be a cleansing of the hands, and a purifying of the double mind. "Be afflicted, and weep and mourn: let your laughter be turned into mourning, and your joy into heaviness." It is right to be cheerful, and even joyful. It is right to cultivate cheerfulness of spirit through sanctification of the truth; but it is not right to indulge in foolish jesting and joking, in lightness and trifling, in words of criticism and condemnation of others. Those who observe such persons who make a profession of religion, know that they are deceived. They know that the hands of such professors need to be cleansed, their hearts need to be purified. They need to experience genuine repentance for sin. What have they to mourn over? They should mourn over their inclination to sin, over the danger they are in from inward corruption and from outward temptation. They should be afraid because they have so feeble a sense of the sinfulness of sin, and so little idea of what constitutes sin.

---


Just to add to this, we are in the time of the Cleansing of the Sanctuary, the time of Judgment. Seriousness is in order, especially in God's House.

You are so right on this Claudia.

If the Holy Spirit is with a church meeting in fact, no production, no show actually functions. All are in awed reverence and deep seriousness of love and wonder. Nothing is faked; nothing is false. All know that God is walking among them, the human glitter and razz-ma-tazz falls limply from their hands.

I have seen it happen. I yearn for this event to repeat each Sabbath.

"...we are in the time of the Cleansing of the Sanctuary, the time of Judgment. Seriousness is in order, especially in God's House."

It's an unpopular message, but oh, soooo true!

I just wanted to add something to what I said in my above post.

I dont know about the rest of you but I have been very interested in watching and following all of the State Funeral of President Ronald Reagan on TV... on the CNN Channel.

The complete respect, reverence and even the precision and formality that was demonstrated toward him through this entire thing inspires real respect and amazement in those who watched, unless you were made of stone. I cried over and over again this past week because of the respectful way this funeral was conducted... it really moved me to tears. You dont have to have a casual party atmosphere in order to feel genuine emotion.

People sometimes think they have to act as if they were at a casual "let it all hang out" party when they are at Church, at God's house, and that this somehow demonstrates their "love" for God. But I think it eventually has just the opposite effect... in causing irreverence towards God... and then finally making one lose all respect for God and for what Jesus has done for us.

When I say "formality" I do not mean a formality as in rigidity of heart... I am talking about the appropriate awe we ought to feel when in the presence of God. If people realize the respect and formality they ought to have at President Ronald Reagan's funeral, you would think we could show even more respect when at Church in God's house.

Even Ronald Reagan who had respect for God and for his country, refused to take off his suit coat when in the White House, no matter even if it was hot and uncomfortable. When anyone tried to get him to do that he would say "oh NO, I would never do that here".

Even though the man was not of our religious denominational beliefs, this man knew how to show proper respect for where he was at.

I am sorry but I believe that in our hearts we all know how we are to behave in the House of God... we can all read the passage below and we all know what it means. It doesnt mean we need to go set up some drums and have a party and belt out some song like we are at a night club. Sometimes honestly I feel as if it were almost an insult to even answer to these things when discussed. I honestly have a problem with even believing that anyone could honestly question this matter. We all know what is right...

Testimonies for the Church Volume Five, page 491, paragraph 2
Chapter Title: Behavior in the House of God
"From the sacredness which was attached to the earthly sanctuary, Christians may learn how they should regard the place where the Lord meets with His people. There has been a great change, not for the better, but for the worse, in the habits and customs of the people in reference to religious worship. The precious, the sacred, things which connect us with God are fast losing their hold upon our minds and hearts, and are being brought down to the level of common things. The reverence which the people had anciently for the sanctuary where they met with God in sacred service has largely passed away. Nevertheless, God Himself gave the order of His service, exalting it high above everything of a temporal nature....

When the worshipers enter the place of meeting, they should do so with decorum, passing quietly to their seats. If there is a stove in the room, it is not proper to crowd about it in an indolent, careless attitude. Common talking, whispering, and laughing should not be permitted in the house of worship, either before or after the service. Ardent, active piety should characterize the worshipers.

If some have to wait a few minutes before the meeting begins, let them maintain a true spirit of devotion by silent meditation, keeping the heart uplifted to God in prayer that the service may be of special benefit to their own hearts and lead to the conviction and conversion of other souls. They should remember that heavenly messengers are in the house. We all lose much sweet communion with God by our restlessness, by not encouraging moments of reflection and prayer. The spiritual condition needs to be often reviewed and the mind and heart drawn toward the Sun of Righteousness. If when the people come into the house of worship, they have genuine reverence for the Lord and bear in mind that they are in His presence, there will be a sweet eloquence in silence. The whispering and laughing and talking which might be without sin in a common business place should find no sanction in the house where God is worshiped. The mind should be prepared to hear the word of God, that it may have due weight and suitably impress the heart."

The express purpose of this topic is to discuss a particular book. Please confine your comments to the book itself and what it has to say. The subject of the last four posts, wonderful though they may be, are off in some other direction. If you haven't read the book, please refrain from further comment or if you have a burden to express yourself, start another topic about what you want to discuss.

Thanks,

Tom

I agree with Tom.

The last few posts were interesting, however, they are off topic, therefore, they should either be reposted in a relevant existing topic, or create a new topic and post them there.

Please do not post any further here off topic.

Daryl,

Quite some time ago you indicated that you had Ed Christian's book and that you planned to read it. Have you finished it yet?

Tom

REBECCA SAINT JAMES is going to be in FREDERICTON, New Brunswick (right here in the Maritimes!) on Saturday evening JULY 31! This is one of only 2 Canadian stops for all of 2004! The only other location will be at the Calgary Stampede! Check out her web page for further info! This is sure to be a memorable evening of worship as Rebecca presents an evening of Praise and Worship with her CCM style that presents nothing but the love of Christ!

In Samuele Bacchiocchi's Endtime Issues #155, there is a critique on the book "Joyful Noise". This may be right, or may not be, but is directly related to the topic so....

---

BOOK REVIEW
Ed Christian, Joyful Noise: A Sensible Look at Christian Music,
Hagerstown: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 2003, 173 pp. $12.99.

(Editorial Note. The reviewer, Wolfgang H. M. Stefani, is an Australian musician, scholar, pastor. He has earned graduate degrees in music, and a Ph.D. in Religious Education from Andrews University in 1993. His dissertation deals with "The Concept of God and Sacred Music Style." Stefani has taught church music,hymnology, philosophy of music, and religious education at the graduate and undergraduate levels. He has served for 14 years as a church musician: organist, pianist, minister of music, church music coordinator, and choir director. He has presented over 60 seminars on music in the United States, Mexico, Japan, Australia, France, Britain, Poland, and Scandinavia.)

Publication of Joyful Noise by Ed Christian has again raised the profile of the music debate.This is always valuable because there is still much to think through and learn about Christian discipleship in this complex arena of life. Joyful Noise is substantially a reworked collection of pre-published articles centered on criticism of Samuele Bacchiocchi's book, The Christian and Rock Music. It purports to be "a sensible look at Christian music" in order to bring healing on a sensitive subject and help alienated young people.

Christian's appeal that music should not become a stumbling block to unity and that all music must be put on the same evaluation table is commendable. His comments on MTV videos, entertainment, applause, the need for worship music to be more congregational than "special music;" why hymns have been rejected, and the need for good song leaders are timely. The final sixty or so pages of the book present as genuine reflections from the heart of someone with a pastoral concern for the church.

However, the central thrust and apparent purpose of the publication needs greater depth and exhibits a cutting tone and weak arguments. Those who believe that Christian decision-making in music is largely a matter of subjective taste-that "any style of music can be used to convey a Christian message" and that "God approves and blesses, no matter what the style of music" as long as the lyrics support faith and Christian unity is not threatened-will find this book a welcome confirmation of their viewpoint.

However, readers who sense the subject's complexities and who recognize the need for something more objective will be disappointed with the lack of penetrating analysis on issues grappled with for centuries. Some key concerns are as follows:

By framing his discussion as a reaction to Bacchiocchi's book, the author ignores the debate's wider context that transcends Christian denominational boundaries, world religions, cultures, and centuries. If resolution to the music debate was as simple as Christian suggests, why wasn't it resolved generations ago? Christian gives the impression that the music argument is essentially a battle between elitist Western classical music lovers and those who are pro-CCM (Contemporary Christian Music). This issue, however, is much more complex.

Christian's assertion that biblical references to music are "less useful than we think" while at the same time ignoring Ellen White materials is both surprising and unwarranted. In contrast, his emphasis on the so-called biblical imperatives of enthusiasm, clapping, and dancing leave one wondering what was so wrong with the Holy Flesh Movement in Indiana in 1900 which was opposed by Ellen White.

A disappointing feature of Joyful Noise is its cutting criticism of scholars in different fields of expertise. For example, the author caricatures Calvin M. Johansson's position by painting an imaginary picture of his preferred church as "dead or dying." In reality, Johansson is a professor at an Assemblies of God college and is known for his writings about Charismatic worship music practices.

Throughout the book, Christian's constant mantra is that musical style is neutral. He simply asserts this, never offering evidence for it. Although he admits that, "there are some styles . . . that even without words are dark and menacing," he keeps affirming that "God can be praised in every style." Ultimately, what Christian is saying seems to boil down to doing whatever you feel is right for you. Such subjectivity is not really helpful when people sense the need for guidance. Undoubtedly, people
come to know God through a variety of music styles, but God still holds his servants responsible for how they have represented him.

If we adopt Christian's view that all styles of music are equally valid and that congregational offence is a significant arbiter of what ought to be done in a worship setting, we actually legitimize the pretext for people to worship with whatever music they find congenial and to form special interest worship groups based on similarity of musical taste. By this reasoning, rather than nurturing unity, music could become an even more divisive force within our church.

Although Christian speaks about his vision in terms of church relations and worship which is laudable, he fails to enunciate a musical vision -a vision of what "could be" musically in the church. His music philosophy is thoroughly pragmatic. It does not necessitate or call for Adventist musicians, as part of our wholistic message, to make a unique artistic contribution as a singular aesthetic witness to the world.

The fate of our young people is far too important to let our music drift randomly with no distinctive vision of what "ought to be" to guide it. Musically, as in all other arenas of life, P.T. Forsyth's comment is pertinent: "Unless there is within us that which is above us we shall soon yield to that which is around us." I believe that there are young people within our ranks who, with their youthful idealism, enthusiasm, and God-given talent, would rise to the challenge of a viable alternative musical vision. Sadly, Joyful Noise misses that opportunity.

What is curiously absent from Bacchiocchi's editorial note at the begining of the book review by Stefani is that Stefani himself was a significant contributor to Bacchiocchi's own book. This tends to cast a different hue to the color of what would otherwise appear to be Stefani's objective lament that, "A disappointing feature of Joyful Noise is its cutting criticism of scholars in different fields of expertise."

Admittedly, Christian describes the chapter written by Stefani as "not objectionable" but perhaps most "cutting" to Stefani was that Christian had very little at all to say about Stefani's chapter. But as a significant contributor to and resource for Bacchiocchi's book, true reviewer objectivity seems in question and one is tempted to speculate that Bacchiocchi's choice of Stefani to do this "book review" for his own newsletter was a carefully calculated counter-defense of his own book because all Christian had to say about Stefani's contribution was that his chapter was "not objectionable" and that it had "more reputable sources than the other authors." That somewhat bland accolade of one of Bacchiocchi's strongest resources for his book was perhaps more of a left-handed compliment and difficult to take by such a notorious polemicist as Bacchiocchi. Bacchiocchi's own chapters and ideas in his book receive the most criticism and careful attention by Christian in Joyful Noise. But most telling of Bacchiocchi's motivation and attitude toward constructive crticism of his writing is his own correspondence with Christian on the topic. Christian shared with Bacchiocchi an early version of his critique of Bacchiocchi's book. Bacchiocchi refused to even read it.

I guess the question remains, Daniel, will you read the book yourself and judge it for yourself? What was EGW's statement about being mere reflectors of other men's thought?

Tom

I bought & read "Joyful Noise" recently as a result of reading this forum.

As I began to read this book, I eagerly anticipated a balance to the ideas that drums and beat are essentially of the devil, etc. While there is some of this balance in the book, it is also confusing. The 1st red flag came in Chapter 2: Biblical Principles That Help. On Pg. 15 in the footnote on the Sabbath, the author claims the Sabbath command is merely about ceasing work; that there is no command to worship. He thinks the word holy should have been translated merely “separate”. He writes:

“In the fourth commandment (Ex. 20:8-11) God commands that the Sabbath be kept ‘holy,’ but I think the Hebrew word qodes should in this context be translated ‘separate’ rather than ‘holy.’ God does not command worship in this commandment, but a ceasing from work (the word Sabbath means ‘ceasing’). . . .The fourth commandment gives as a reason for this ceasing God resting from his work on the seventh day of Creation (Gen 2:3) and blessing the day, not on His declaring it a day on which He is to be worshiped.”

Well 1st, I found the omission of the phrase "and hallowed it" (made it holy) from Gen 2:3 most revealing. This appears a rather blatant error considering the point of the author.

2nd, regarding Exodus 20: I am not a Hebrew scholar, but using the Strong's concordance in the Online Bible I could not find a single time anywhere the Hebrew word (Strongs #06942 qadash) is translated as "separate" Here are the number of times the word is used in the KJV OT with each translation:

KJV(AV)-sanctify 108, hallow 25, dedicate 10, holy 7, prepare 7, consecrate 5, appointed 1, bid 1, purified 1, misc 7; 172

Here are all the possible definitions from Strongs -- (the stem/tense here was Piel):

1) to consecrate, sanctify, prepare, dedicate, be hallowed, be holy, be sanctified, be separate
1a) (Qal)
1a1) to be set apart, be consecrated
1a2) to be hallowed
1a3) consecrated, tabooed
1b) (Niphal)
1b1) to show oneself sacred or majestic
1b2) to be honoured, be treated as sacred
1b3) to be holy
1c) (Piel)
1c1) to set apart as sacred, consecrate, dedicate
1c2) to observe as holy, keep sacred
1c3) to honour as sacred, hallow
1c4) to consecrate
1d) (Pual)
1d1) to be consecrated
1d2) consecrated, dedicated
1e) (Hiphil)
1e1) to set apart, devote, consecrate
1e2) to regard or treat as sacred or hallow
1e3) to consecrate
1f) (Hithpael)
1f1) to keep oneself apart or separate
1f2) to cause Himself to be hallowed (of God)
1f3) to be observed as holy
1f4) to consecrate oneself

It would seem to me that even if this word could have been translated "separate", that the meaning clearly would still have been sacred or holy.

This removal of "holiness" from the Sabbath would appear to be a part of the book's premise that worship style does not matter, except as how it relates to everyone getting along. This isn't quite the balance I was hoping for.

Having read what Ed Christian's had published in the Review lately, I don't find your observations at all surprising, Rich. He tends to get nebulous where standards of behavior are concerned.