“Sacred Music You Can Trust”
3 November 2007
“It’s Christmas”, the latest from Majesty Music and Kenon Renfrow
Selections include: Jingle Bells • Have Yourself A Merry Little Christmas • White Christmas • The Christmas Song • Toyland • Winter Wonderland • I’ll Be Home For Christmas
Apparently, all that’s required for these days for music to qualify as “sacred” and “Christ honoring” is for it not to be rock and roll….
Listen to samples here (I suggest beginning with “Winter Wonderland”)
55 Comments
leave one →
What is MM doing? Are they trying to produce crossover music and break into Broadway?
And are they TRYING to provide ammunition and lighter fluid for those of us who have already expressed serious concerns?
This is truly sad.
*sigh*
Stay the course
OK Greg,
I’ll bite. In your listing of the songs on the CD you did not mention the sacred songs, only the secular songs. I pulled out the catalogue that advertised this CD and found three additional CD’s that are completely void of sacred material. The vast majority of the material they are selling is sacred. Are you saying that it is wrong for a Christian company to sell any material that is not completely sacred? Are you saying that it is wrong for a believer to listen to any music that is not sacred? I have purchased many Majesty Music recordings over the years and have noticed what I think is a purposeful design to expose people to different musical styles. They may not always be my flavor but that does not necessarily make it evil. I think you are being a little hard on these folks. But that’s just my opinion.
Scott
Scott said:
To answer #2 first, no I don’t think it is wrong for believers to listen to music that is not sacred.
Regarding #1, let me flesh out my concerns a little:
The Recording Represents a Stylistic Departure
If there were ever any question before, this recording serves as a clear illustration of the shift in music philosophy taking place in Greenville-dom. The style of the music on “Winter Wonderland,” for example, contains clear examples of “sliding” and shuffle/swing type rhythm that people in that circle of influence have roundly denounced in vocal music for decades now.
The Recording Represents a Misuse of Trust
Majesty Music was built around a catalog of music intended for use in church ministry. In fact, the company was once known as “Musical Ministries.” Frank Garlock and his son-in-law Ron “Patch” Hamilton have established a reputation in Fundamentalist circles around their slogan, “Sacred Music You Can Trust.” The artist in question on the CD, Kenon Renfrow, is well known as well, having been a frequent speaker on music-related topics at places such as The Wilds. His reputation is further cemented as a music instructor at Bob Jones University, which has established itself, among other things, as a champion of “Traditional Sacred Music.”
It seems inconsistent, then, to present a recording in a catalog that clearly bills itself as “sacred” and “Christ-honoring” that is almost half composed of secular Christmas selections. Putting a song like “Toyland” alongside “Who Is He In Yonder Stall” presents all kinds of confusion to Christians, particularly in a climate where Jesus Christ is already obscured in a Christmas season fraught with secularization and commercialism. What place does celebrating the sentimental obsession of childhood happiness connected with getting toys have alongside lyrics such as this?
Does Mr. Renfrow have any business recording songs like “Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas”? At this stage, I will leave that up to the reader- I’m not going to argue strenuously against it. However, it does seem to me that the influence generated by Garlock, Hamilton, BJU, etc. has in this case been arrogantly reduced to a marketing niche and fan base- “If we produce it, assume it will ‘check’ and buy it.” If Mr. Renfrow does indeed have the talent and desire to produce such music, market it to a secular recording label; play in the malls and piano bars and concert venues where such trivialities belong. But such a recording has no place in a catalog that has long billed itself as “Sacred music you can trust.” Renfrow, Garlock, Hamilton, and co. should be ashamed of using their positions of ministry and influence for lesser causes of meeting the desires for sentimental entertainment and benefiting from sales of such financially.
hey, Greg, I have to simply add dittos to what you said in that last comment. I thought about commenting when you first noted this piece, but I was too depressed by it. My comment would have gone like this:
“Man oh man oh man…”
Everything is in flux, and it is hard to see such things as this showing up. It looks like cracks in the fortress walls. I hope that it is not.
Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
I’ve brought it up before and I’ll mention it again. The way you discuss this and the way you’ve discussed MM previously seems to reflect a personal gripe with Majesty Music. It’s disagreement, but it’s more than that… deeper than that. At least that’s what it looks like to me.
I think your point of view would be more helpful to others if you could eliminate whatever it is I’m sensing.
Jason,
I have nothing personal. Those who have known me for a while can testify that I have generally been a proponent and user of Majesty’s resources for the last decade of ministry. I quite literally grew up listening to Patch records.
That being said, I do believe that our judgment and scrutiny should be tighter when it comes to ‘our own.’ I trust that this will have some influence to help MM consider their direction and its consequences.
Greg,
you’ve done well in pointing this one out…They need a sub-label: “Secular Music You Can Trust…” frankly, I am serious about the other label–the marketing genii can better determine the label name.
Once again, if you critique ideas and methodologies, some folks will think you are ad homineming…so what’s new…
I have no problem with the styles of the secular songs in question on this recording (and I don’t particularly care what “checks” or not at a particular university), but I would agree that such songs have no place in the catalog/recordings of a ministry that provides “Sacred Music [We] Can Trust.”
“Sacred [or] Secular Music You Can Trust” reminds me of the election slogans I have been hearing over the past few weeks (Vote XXX for leadership you can trust!). These slogans all beg the question of whether this music (or that politician) is that which we SHOULD trust–that which has proved worthy of proper trust. Many do not like that question, though, because it puts the onus of responsibility squarely back on our own shoulders and makes us think rather than allowing someone else to think for us.
What level of piety do we wish our children to have? What level of sobriety and seriousness do we wish to characterize their attitudes toward Christ’s Advent and the music which communicates its truth? What level of excellence do we wish them to satisfy them musically? All of these questions, and many more, must be considered before one has a basis to properly determine that a musical offering is one which we SHOULD trust.
Perhaps you’re right that you write as a friend. It sure doesn’t come across that way. That’s between you and God.
From the sound of these comments, it seems like several of you would have no problem buying this same CD from a secular company. It’s the fact that it’s a “ministry” that bars them from producing this CD. Why? Pettit got away with “Clean Pickin’.” SoundForth got away with the soundtrack to “Sheffey.” Shelly got away with “Back to Bach.” Is anyone willing to argue that “Pigs Don’t Live in Houses” or “Let Those Pearlies Shine” are Christian songs?
Someone even went so far as paint it in the light of selling out for money. Frankly, I think that’s pretty low.
Greg,
One quick question for you and the others. Have any of you contacted Majesty Music directly with a phone call, email, or letter expressing your concerns over this and other things I’ve seen posted in the past? When I worked there for a short while, I heard of several who did contact Majesty when they had a concern and they were always answered in a timely manner. If we are shooting to be biblically accurate, do we not owe it to this company to directly contact them and follow Scripture’s commands? And this can not be passed on as a private conversation so that excludes following biblically prescribed routes to be taken. After being in the ministry now for 7 years, I know that route well and know the trouble that usually lies behind it. I do enjoy Majesty and will continue to purchase products of theirs as long as I believe they are right. That is my conviction and that is between myself and the Lord. And if others disagree, should they not seek to disagree charitably and not in “I’m right and you’re wrong” mode?
Pastor Linscott’s exhortations and explanations seem to me in the very best spirit of friendship as described in Prov. 25:5-6. It is neither loving NOR friendly to fail to warn believers about the effect of such musical offerings on their piety. Likewise, efforts to warn Renfrow and the leadership of Majesty Music of their errors and exhort them to Biblical change seem fully within the commands of Galatians 6:1.
Since you brought it up, Jason, I would like to go on record as one who would not buy this CD from anyone at any price (but then I would not buy any of the others CDs you mention, either). Why would I want to encourage my children to foolishness, frivolity, and impiety? They, as I, have more than enough of that encouragement already from their sin natures.
If you think this thread is harsh, read what http://remonstrans.net/ says about this CD. Someone over there also is critical of a piano CD from a Greg Howlett that IS sacred music. I think that I view the attitudes being exhibited both here as very petty and pathetic.
I would agree with Buddy Thomas. It’s funny, Dr. Renfrow is presently my piano teacher at BJU and he hasn’t mentioned any of you all calling or writing to confront him about his CD. I talk to him everyday and I bet he would have mentioned it. I’ll ask him if you have. Also, I believe some of your comments tend to judge motives. Who are you to judge another man’s motives? Why don’t you let the Master judge His servant. Frankly, the division that you cause by your seemingly overly judgmental spirit is one of the biggest problems with Fundamentalism today and is precisely the reason that many godly people my age are leaving Fundamentalism.
If you truly want to obey the spirit of Scripture, then remove your comments of this blog site and apoligize to the people of Majesty Music, and Dr. Renfrow.
Jason,
Some of the other CDs you mention might also be similar reasons for concern- particularly the Pettit example. I do think that if you have been following some of the conversations regarding music and affections, you would also understand that there are also concerns with songs like “Pigs Don’t Live In Houses.” However, that isn’t the point of this concern, which is much less subtle in its nuances for us to see.
As far as producing the recording for money goes- I ask you, what other motivation would you be able to possibly conclude? Making a recording of “I’ll Be Home For Christmas” certainly serves no possible purpose of exalting Christ or instructing the saints to godly living and obedience. For sake of discussion, providing “clean, wholesome entertainment” might not be the most heinous thing a Christian has ever done, but the fact is, it also isn’t particularly obvious act of overt Christian ministry. The fact is it is being offered for sale at the rate of $14.98 plus shipping. The fact is that if the same songs (including the sacred ones) had been recorded by say, George Winston (or in the Pettit example, Earl Scruggs), they would be notoriously out of place in the MM catalog. If it isn’t for money (at least in part), what else is it for? They are marketing a recording to a niche of people that would have some reason to buy it because of label recognition and familiarity with the artist.
Buddy,
Brother, I know you enjoy a personal friendship with the MM folks. But, speaking frankly, I know that those who are much closer and have much more influence than someone like me (such as more experienced pastors, some fellow faculty members and colleagues) actually have spoken to them on issues like this, and on this specific CD. This trend still continues. And, FWIW, “Biblically prescribed routes” that you seem to refer to would ultimately conclude in being disfellowshipped from a local assembly- a relationship I do not enjoy with those in question.
So, while I do hope they will listen, I am also hoping that believers in their general sphere of influence will also consider carefully the sources they “trust” for “sacred” and “Christ-honoring” music. As one who has in my ministry history done things like make MM catalogs available to people in congregations where I have served, I do think it is important for people to understand there are concerns I believe they should be aware of.
But, as far as “disagreeing charitably” goes, I do not think I am being pugnacious or spiteful. But I do believe these to be serious matters that will have consequences in the lives of believers whom I have (or will) cared for in the course of pastoral ministry. I would gladly have Ron Hamilton in my home for dinner (if I ever do get my own home again!
), and could sincerely share with him how his ministry has encouraged me at specific times in my life. However, I would hope he could also charitably listen to some of the issues I have found troubling, including this particular matter.
Jonathan,
It would be interesting to discover if, say, Tim Fisher followed your suggested course of action with Amy Grant before publishing The Battle for Christian Music.
The fact is, Dr. Renfrow has made a recording available to the general public. It will be therefore be subject to public scrutiny. It’s all well and good to appeal to “the Master judging His servant” etc, but the fact remains that to be biblically compliant, a pastor is called upon to guard and protect. Some threats are more overt, and some are more insidious. I believe this matter represents a trend that is insidious and if continued, will bear out consequences not beneficial to our spiritual climate. Dr. Renfrow may need to be confronted, but since he has made the recording availble to the masses, he is not the only one that needs to be.
Whatever happened to that 2-4 beat thing? Which fundamentalists were talking about that?
Lyn, I wasn’t referring to you. Your attitude here tipped me off that you were the exception to my statement.
Greg, I agree that public publications are subject to public scrutiny. Regarding money, of course they did it for money. Musicians like to eat too. =P My judgment was against the idea that they “sold out” for money. Doing something for money because you believe it is perfectly appropriate is a far cry from doing something for money that you think is wrong, but are willing to do anyway. It is the suggestion of the latter that I view as low.
I agree with the label niche thing. So if one of these secular companies produced it, do you think it would contain the Christian music as well? Do you think it would be “clean” (in the sense of being musically conservative)? I don’t think it would be. So they have provided a service by providing these secular Christmas songs in a conservative setting. And by the way, I’d rather my dollars go to a Fundamentalist organisation than to the secular labels.
Just my thoughts.
Pretty amazing. I am quite sure that people like Renfrow, Petitt, Patch, Howlett and whoever else are laughing their heads off when they read this stuff. They know they are not going to sell anything to people like you and you are just giving them free publicity.
Majesty Music markets to mainstream fundamentalism, not the small fringe on the right of fundamentalism who spend their time throwing rocks. You guys are losing the war–you might want to start your own music publishing companies because you are never going to get a larger company like Majesty to publish music for the four or five of you left in the Beethoven camp.
Yes, Garlock has the right to change his mind about some of the rubbish he taught in recent decades. We should all be thankful that he has. That is not inconsistency–that is growth.
Jason,
It seems we would differ on how we might define “conservative.” Allow me to provide you with the Webster definition:
Your working definition, if I may be so bold, seems to resemble “C”onservative as defined in definition two (“our trusted conservative publishers produced it, therefore it must be conservative”). I, on the other hand, would argue that it defies a true conservative spirit as we see delineated in the third definition. It is going against the established norms,and neither is it particularly moderate or cautious. It is trailblazing (at least in our context), which, whether you believe it to be inherently right or wrong, certainly isn’t “conservative” as it relates to the principle of the word.
John,
Thanks for your contributions to the discussion.
As a Fundamentalist, I am not particularly concerned with how “mainstream” or popular my views appear to be, as long as I believe them to be sound and right from Scripture and principle. If these men choose to laugh, they may do so. I’m not really looking for their acceptance.
Regarding your take on “growth,” I would drolly note that a similarly described process takes place when I leave food in the back of my refrigerator for a week or two. It seems to me that this is not the kind of “growth” I would find to be desirable.
Also, I believe it has been said before, but if you are going to put me in a “camp,” I would at least prefer to be in the Bach one…
Greg, The music may not be as conservative as you want it to be, but it is conservative. It’s produced and arranged in a conservative, classical idiom. Of course you have the right to think it’s not conservative enough. Maybe it’s not. But I think we’d be losing perspective to say it’s not conservative.
Greg, if any allusions to mold are in order, they apply to people who play organ music on their site and spend an inordinate amount of time battling against musical progress and preference. Bach was not the end of musical development–he was the beginning.
I say this kindly…:)
JohnK, your comments, if intended seriously, reveal you to be aesthetically ignorant. The music on Majesty Music’s Christmas CD has nothing to do with musical progress. It is pure shtick: “an entertainment routine or gimmick.”
Furthermore, Bach was neither the beginning nor the end of musical development. Many serious musicians do view his music as representing an esteemed pinnacle of musical and spiritual development.
Great organ music, Pastor Linscott!
Lynn, many of us are sick of elitists trying to label good music as “shtick.” You know (or at least should know) that the label is being misused. You put yourself squarely in the Remonstrans crowd when you pull out that label.
Bach was not THE beginning of music, but was near the beginning of music as we know it in western civilization.
If you think that Bach was the pinnacle of music, you know little about music. No real musician believes that–only a few radical far-right fundamentalists fall for that.
That is about as silly as saying that technology was at its pinnacle during that period. Or medicine or any number of other things. The truth is that music has progressed far from Bach’s days, though every musician gives him credit for being a pioneer.
As a general rule, I don’t often post on such topics due to my enjoyment of some forms of secular music (jazz, smoothjazz, some C&W, folk, bluegrass, certain pop styles; well, you get the idea). But I have to say I find myself in total agreement with Mr Linscott’s position here. Majesty is mildly hypocritical to allow such a mixture of the secular and sacred while they promote worship and the sacred, and seemingly condemn the secular.
It can be definitely confusing to those without spiritual discernment when Bob Jones has enough on its plate re its recent pronouncements. Why give such ammunition to the enemy? I remember when I was a student at BJU that the dorm radio played Broadway-type (SECULAR) tunes, or Rogers and Hammerstein-type stuff on Saturdays. Guys would “dedicate” a tune to their sweethearts and such. I found it a little disconcerting that BJU would demand devotion to the classics, preach against the secularization of music, and play such stuff.
Majesty, stay sacred, and maintain a solid testimony for the Gospel of Christ. Don’t muddy the waters with such nonsense. I stand with your judgment, Mr Linscott. Right on, Brother.
Remember, one of the lines in “Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas” reads:
“through the years we’ll always be together, if the FATES allow”
I would say this is hardly a christian witness to the grace of God (and I really don’t have a problem with this tune, per se, except it should NOT be entwined with the sacred music sung for the love of Christ and his Advent). I’m not trying to sound hypocritical myself, but I get Mr Linscott’s point very clearly. Sacred music is sacred.
So which of the people quoted on this page are fundamentalists?
Lyn, do you permit your children to sing any “fun songs”– for instance “The Wheels on the Bus” or “Old Macdonald”? Are you arguing that these types of song encourage foolishness and impiety?
Dale, where does Majesty or BJU condemn secular music? I’ve only ever heard specific secular styles condemned, not the fact that specific music is secular.
In my lifetime the easy-listening “Winter Wonderland” style has always been accepted by fundamentalists in secular music. I don’t see this CD charting new ground in that regard.
I didn’t listen to very much of the sample audio, but what I heard didn’t sound too sensual. In my opinion the ruling fundamentalists of the last generation erred in their micro-analysis of musical idioms, and the resulting prohibitions. I seem to recall that even Frank Garlock and Ron Hamilton use a back-beat in some of their music; nearly every fundamental high school plays sleigh ride–including the “jazz” trombone section–on their Christmas concert; etc. So, I can understand criticism on this basis. I suspect that the older generation of fundamentalists have realized music can’t be so neatly analyzed. At some point the rest of us may have to cut them some slack.
(I’m sorry my comment above is somewhat awkwardly written. I wrote it quickly then hit submit, forgetting I would see no preview. Hopefully you can make sense of what I wrote.)
Michael, sorry for the confusion. You are correct, and I should have said “certain secular styles” are not appreciated by the BJU folks. I know that the type of music I’m listening to right at the moment (smoothjazz [secular] on the internet) would most likely result in a few demerits if listened to it at Bob Jones, and expulsion if it continued.
To me, here lies the hypocrisy: secular is secular, sacred is sacred. According to Bob Jones, classical music may or may not be secular, but it is acceptable. Jazz may or may not be secular, but it is not allowed. Rogers and Hammerstein is OK, but Van Morrison is not. “If the fates allow” is OK, but Chris Tomlin causes jitters?
If you wish to play secular music, fine, but don’t wrap it up with sacred (eg- Majesty Music), pawn it off as “glory to God in the highest”, while drawing attention to fun in the snow and the “fates” allowing anything. Quite confusing to a person apart from Christ, and that, my friend, may become a stumbling block. I think Bob Jones U should be absolutely above reproach for the sake of the witness of the Gospel. And I’m not a BJU basher. I just wish it wouldn’t do stuff like this. Sometimes I’m ashamed to tell people I went there. That was thirty years ago.
Keep Majesty sacred, and stop wrapping up secular stuff with the sacred just for the cash flow. I see it as hypocrisy, and I don’t mind jazz or Cat Stevens. I also love liturgical music (we’re [ahem] LCMS), chants, Luther’s hymns, and Bach (go figure), et al.
Just a comment on the term “shtick” above… What could this particular offering be other than that? The CD seems to be exactly the same as the many Christmas albums put out by secular recording artists over the years that include secular and sacred songs. You can find albums like this by almost every performer from Presley to Nat King Cole to Jim Reeves to… whoever (I know I am dating myself with these names, but I am an old dude and feeling older with each passing moment.)
The music in question may not be wrong, as such, although I didn’t find it appealing. But the whole album and the whole effort seems to be so much like the crass commercialism of the secular musicians who do the same thing. Give the people some sentimentalism and it sells.
There is no ground-breaking new music here. There is at least a *hint* of a sound that seems like it contradicts the well known principles taught by Dr. Garlock and the many BJU professors over the years.
So why do it? The term ‘shtick’ seems most appropriate, and there seems to be no really good reason for promoting it.
I hope it isn’t a sign of things to come.
Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Greg,
You are dead wrong on this. You are pitting your musical preferences against others’ preferences. This does not show mature Christian character.
You can characterize the music as sentimentality, but you will not find agreement from me. This music is not pure feeling without regard for intellect and reason. It may evoke feelings in those who associate such music with certain seasons and memories. But what you call trivial here, others call fun and delightful.
Lyn,
I think that you have bought into a false idea of what piety is. Piety is not the absence of the secular; it is a respect for the sacred and a dedication to spiritual duties. Ken Renfrow is as pious as any man I have met. Don’t doubt his piety because his musical tastes are broader than yours. Listen to his sacred arrangements and you should hear his piety come through–he has great respect for things sacred.
I think people who propagate the mindset expressed by Greg and Lyn and others like them here in these comments are confused themselves by creating a false dichotomy between the secular and the sacred. IT DOES NOT EXIST. All of life is worship. All of life is sacred. That doesn’t mean that all music must be overtly religious in lyrics and tune. Does that mean that “Jingle Bells” is appropriate for a church gathering? It certainly could be, depending on the purpose of the gathering.
There, of course, is also music that is worldly. There is music that is anti-Christian and immoral. However, not all secular music is worldly as biblically defined. I think though that this is really the undertone of this article. You may say “secular” and “sentimental” and “foolish” and “trivial” but you actually believe that the music is morally defective–it is worldly. It is sinful. And thus, it must be shunned by Christians and publicly berated.
I think you’re wrong in that respect as well with regards to this recording.
Pastor McCrorie, I am clueless as to where you could have gotten your notion of how you think I define and apply piety. Given what you have written in the past, I am also disappointed that you would jump to such public conclusions about my viewpoint without first asking me what I actually believe. The conclusions to which you have jumped actually represent a gross, unrecognizable distortion of what I believe.
You did not ask; however, since the subject of piety has come up, here’s what I mean when I talk about teaching piety to our children. When I speak of piety, I mean a deep reverence for God and, by extension, a profound seriousness about truth. In sum, I want to learn, and teach my children to learn, to “love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might (Deut. 6:5).”
Lyn,
Ken Renfrow would agree with you on piety. So what’s the big deal? You called his recording something that would encourage “foolishness, frivolity, and impiety” in your children. I think you’re dead wrong.
Either you think that the secular music Ken uses is fine but shouldn’t be mixed with sacred in one CD or you believe that the music itself is morally deficient. I’m willing to bet that you believe the latter, and that you attribute that deficiency to a lack of piety.
Am I wrong?
Why is this produced under the moniker of “sacredness”? Perhaps it is because the publishers are relying on the movement aspect of f’ism to sell the album. (By that I mean maybe its because we have gotten to the point where we think “hey, its coming from ______________ it must be ok?”) Maybe its because they cannot perceive the difference between secular and divine? Maybe it’s because our lines btwn sacredness and secular are being fuzzified? Maybe they don’t see what the big deal is about mixing the secular with the divine under the “sacred” label? Is that a matter of lack of discernment? Is that because we have been mixing secular and divine for years, and we don’t care?
The ironic thing is that many of us who disagree with selling this fluff under “sacredness” wouldn’t hassle MM if they sold it under “secularness.” But…then, maybe you couldn’t sell as much? I want to grant the (Phil 2) benefit of the doubt to the personalities involved, but it still means we should ask questions…
BTW, I like fluff as much as many people…and expect such intermingling from Bing, Frank, or Harry Connick–but they wouldn’t be so careless as to sell the whole of their album under “sacred.”
Brian….
Where to start?
I think, for now, I will let someone else speak here- in this case, Jay Adams. He is talking about counseling and not music, but I think the point about the validity of distinctions will be evident regardless (bold emphasis mine):
(A Theology of Christian Counseling- More Than Redemption, p. 22-23)
Brian,
When I noted it was trivial, it was in comparison to the message of eternal value and worth. There is nothing wrong with “fun and delightful” in particular contexts- I agree. I’ve been known to chuckle at “Grandma Got Run Over By A Reindeer.” But as I have already noted several times before, for a professed Christian to include “fun and delightful” selections alongside those with messages of profound, eternal significance serves to obscure the significant and reduce the profound.
Do you really think it’s that big of deal to include both secular and sacred on a CD? People like me would listen to all of it and enjoy all of it. Others can play certain tracks and even repeat them endlessly. The choice is up to the individual listener isn’t it?
You’re upset at the packaging, not the songs themselves? I just want to be clear. I thought in light of your initial comments that you placed the songs just slightly above rock-n-roll in value.
Brian-
Yes, my main concern in the post is the packaging of the songs together- using a ministry platform such as MM for the purposes of entertainment. That isn’t to say that the styles aren’t somewhat concerning to me, but if Renfrow had released a secular collection under as secular label and kept it out of the MM catalog, it would have been a different issue. I believe they are teaching a lesson to those who listen (whether intentionally or not) that ultimately serves to further degrade the concept of “Sacred Music”, particularly in the minds of those less musically inclined.
Likewise.
Yes, Pastor McCrorie, I believe you are wrong about many things. You have set forth a false dichotomy. It is not correct to say that my only choices are (A) thinking that the secular music Ken uses is fine but that it should not be mixed with sacred in one CD, or (B) thinking that the music itself is morally deficient. Furthermore, you are wrong to believe that I am trying to judge Ken Renfrow’s motives and piety as opposed to his product. (I had never heard of Ken Renfrow before this blog post, and I have made no judgments of either his motivation or piety. I have made judgments of his product based on the mp3 samples made available on his website.)
On Thursday night the Chicago Symphony celebrated the 50th anniversary of the CSO Chorus…with a concert that combined Poulenc’s “Gloria” with the wordless chorus to Ravel’s ballet, “Daphnis et Chloe.” Whoops. It was, at least, a juxtaposition—but I’ll bet that most of us would have gone, if we could afford the $50 cheap seats.
I know…snarky example…but I want to say that this sort of thing has been going on for a very long time and the problem is monolithic enough to perplex even careful observers. So I would like to disagree with the “cut and dried” solutions that leave no room for personal convictions that differ between believers.
Can we say that we all agree this sort of “secular” v. “sacred” mixing should not happen on Sunday morning when the church gathers? So, no more Eucharist celebrations featuring the music of U2. [That happened this weekend, too. Insert other examples here.]
And, can we say that “concert” program music and recitals and “school education music” (Christian schools, especially) might sometimes pose enough logistics problems that we are willing to tolerate, in some cases, some mixing of sacred music with secular? Hopefully, skilled educators will order their program with some logical consistency. My people used to organize their recitals so they began with the classical repertoire and ended with well-prepared songs of devotion. It was mixing, but it seemed to work.
I mention these areas of commonality because I think most of us would agree to these as possible “fence posts.”
Now, about mixing this stuff on the same CD….
Well, personally…I’ve been wishing that one of the conservative Christian music producers would come out with a CD of secular Christmas songs. I love “I’ll be home for Christmas” and “White Christmas” and others, but those songs on any other CD are way too jazzy (though I suppose there might be some of Bing Crosby and Perry Como around somewhere).
Most of us include some of the secular side of Christmas — the tree, stockings, decorations, etc. I don’t have any problem mixing the secular and sacred in that vein — why should it be a problem on a CD? I may not agree with the inclusion of every single choice (like “Toyland”) but I don’t have a problem with the general principle. I’ve been to many a Christian program where half the program is secular Christmas songs and half sacred.
Barbara,
Thanks for the comment. You mentioned:
The question that comes to my mind is what exactly made those programs Christian? Because Christians performed them?
You also seem to be putting a lot of stock in tradition and established practice. I’m not saying that this recording lacks precedence- I am saying that this recording (like much of our current culture) puts little to no thought into meaning. Instead, it seems to go with what is established as being “safe” and acceptable amongst a certain niche audience. Do you think Renfrow and the folks at MM don’t realize that there are people like you, who would like “less jazzed” versions of these songs?
It seems to me that Christian audiences are quite happy to be nostalgic. While there may be nothing wrong per se with warm fuzzy holiday feelings, where I think this goes horribly wrong is when we diminish the seriousness and centrality of the Advent of the Savior of the World by putting it on par with “Chestnuts roasting on an open fire.” It would be like me preaching a message, but between the Scripture reading and the sermon, providing the weather forecast. They just don’t go together.
I’m fascinated by this argument…there have been logical and philosophical points made on both sides. Preferences have been asserted, and minor points of wording were attacked. What shocks me most is the fact that from what I understand of “Christian Fundamentalism,” they are a group that focuses on the “foundations” of Christianity…the Bible and the doctrines that it teaches. Neither side of this debate seems to be “more fundamental” than the other. In fact, I haven’t even seen any particular Bible verses pointing out the problems in Majesty Music’s label or Dr. Renfrow’s CD. Most of the arguments that are made against the organization and the CD seem to be extensions of verses on separation. Separation, as taught in the Bible, expresses the need to separate from sin (II Cor. 6:17), false teachers (II John 1:10), and ungodly brethren (II Thess. 3:6). Unless secular music is equal to sin, I fail to see that this whole discussion hinges on the theme of biblical separation. This debate appears to be seeking answers to whether a Christian can produce secular and sacred works at the same time and still worship and glorify God.
Throughout history, Christians have been known in their respective fields for producing work that is both secular and sacred. Christian artists have produced beautiful woodcarvings for scripture texts while also creating secular pieces of art. Great Christian philosophers have produced works on both secular and sacred topics (sometimes in the same volume, e.g. Augustine). In fact, scripture mandates that every act of a Christian, whether secular or sacred, should glorify God (I Cor. 10:31). By inference, books, music, art, etc. produced by Christians can glorify God even if the content is “secular” in nature. All of these products, when void of sinful content, can be enjoyed by other Christians as well. The actions and products of a believer in the world and in his or her secular environment cannot be misconstrued as the addition of human philosophy to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The quotations from Jay Adams (9 November, 2007 – 3:02 pm) are warning Christians against accepting worldly and unbiblical philosophies into Christian theology and practice. This warning, based on passages like Colossians 2:8ff, applies to counselling, instruction in life, and preaching that uses worldly ideologies to direct others to truth and proper lifestyle. These arguments are a far cry from a Christian who seeks to bring happiness and cheer to a season that reminds all Christians (and some unbelievers) about their Savior through the medium of traditional secular and sacred pieces of music.
Although undoubtedly not intended to be worship music for a church setting, the music did excite me (yes, I do own the CD) about the season and Christ’s incarnation. As a Christian, and as a personal preference, I enjoy being lifted to these themes through work produced by another Christian rather than the same music produced by an unbeliever because I know that the believer is truly able to do the same work to the glory of God. If your preference in regard to the previous statement is the same as mine, your arguments will likely be in support of this CD; if your preferences are different, your arguments will likely be against this CD. The core of the issue at hand is, in truth, the dangers or blessings of using the secular works of a Christian musician to glorify God in both the producer’s own quality of workmanship as well as in the hearts of other believers.
Phil,
You must not have read the comments all that closely, because that was really not the debate at all.
I would be really curious to learn how adding to the confusion of commercialized Christmas (the meaning and message of “Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas,” for example) by homogenizing it with a celebration of the incarnation of the Savior of the world (say, “What Child is This?”) is doing “work to the glory of God.” At the very least, God’s glory is made more commonplace- the incarnation of Christ is apparently of no more (or less) significance that “chestnuts roasting on an open fire.” Sentimental comforts of home and tradition and peace with God through a Son sent to be a sacrifice for my vile, wretched sin- hey, it’s all good.
But as you say, it’s a matter of preference.
Greg,
I appreciate your critique. Although the tone was rather sarcastic, I do see that you raise a legitimate point concerning the core of the issue. In my original analysis of the blog, I had assumed that the issue was not in the fact that Christmas has been “commercialized,” but in the fact that a Christian musician/company had produced a CD that could in some way reflect the commercialization of Christmas.
I do stand by my original critique of the above discussion, namely, that it fails to back its arguments with Scripture. Also, I do maintain that the positions on this issue are largely matters of preference and not black and white Scripture. Even the nature of the individuals who have commented on the blog reflects that good Fundamental Christians can go either way on this issue. Furthermore, I do still believe that each individual’s view of the situation is influenced by the fact that the artist is a Christian. I do concur with you that the degree to which certain Christians are turned off by the “commercialization” of Christmas is reflected in their opposition of such a CD. But is an attack on the CD, because the songs it contains are related to traditional elements of American Christmas celebrations which have been commercialized, warranted?
To answer that question, allow me to follow a few lines of thought: First: What is commercialization? Commercialization, as best I can discern from your explanation, is the use of an event as a marketing scheme rather than for the nature of the event itself.
Second: What is the nature of the commercialization of Christmas? or in what way has Christmas been commercialized? Is it inherent with the gifts, songs, and traditions followed at Christmas time? If this is the case, most Fundamental Christians I know are guilty of “commercializing” Christmas; they don’t mind buying Christmas gifts for their kids, setting up Christmas trees, and singing traditional Christmas carols. The fact is that Christmas has been commercialized along with every other “Christian” holiday, but this commercialization is not inherent in the traditional elements of the event, but rather in the hearts of the individuals (Prov. 23:7; Matt. 15:19-20) who become consumed with the peripherals and forget the essence of Christmas; therefore, the mere exercise of these “peripherals” (for lack of a better term) or joy caused because of them cannot be commercialization. In answer to the question at hand (in what way has Christmas been commercialized?): Christmas has been commercialized in the hearts of believers who ignore their Christ for the celebration of Christmas. The heart of the problem is found, not in the celebration of an event, but in the sin nature found in the heart of every man (Jer. 17:9).
Third: Should the commercialization of Christmas cause Christians to shun the celebration of Christmas especially with regard to its traditional elements? I know a few members of an OPC congregation who do not celebrate Christmas (although for a wholly different reason), but most Christians I know do celebrate the season with all the traditional elements surrounding the Advent of our Lord and Savior as are appropriate in their cultures. However, for fear of suggesting proper actions by results from descriptive orthopraxis, I suggest that we look to other parallels in daily life. Should a Christian avoid working because that action can create an attitude of greed and therefore cause him or her to sin? Should a Christian man avoid buying food at grocery stores because the images on the magazines could cause him to sin? The answer to these questions lies in the heart of man. The problem is not the store or the job, the problem is the heart. If, however, one decides that the job, the store, or the celebration of Christmas is the heart of the problem, they should take the proper steps to avoid that area/situation. The truly logical, legitimate, and consistent course of action is to totally reject the celebration of Christmas as do my friends in the OPC camp. To hold to the practice of a commercialized Christmas while holding that the contemporary celebration of the event is sinful is a logical paradox. This paradox is more apparent when one comes to find that the celebration of Christmas/the Advent of Christ is nowhere commanded or presented in Scripture. Furthermore, even historians are not entirely certain of the date of Christ’s incarnation. The date that we celebrate is actually an invention during the time of Constantine designed to amalgamate paganism and Christianity. So, in answer to this current question (should the commercialization of Christmas cause Christians to shun the celebration of Christmas especially with regard to its traditional elements?), I answer: If a believer finds the current celebration of Christmas to be unbiblical or could cause them to sin, they should avoid the practice of celebrating Christmas; however, if the believer finds that the practice is acceptable and within biblical parameters, they can celebrate the event.
Fourth (a return to the basis of our original question): Does the CD in question actually reflect the commercialism of Christmas and therefore be avoided? This matter is actually one of great extension. First, one must declare that commercialism is a sin based upon its tendency to turn individuals towards idolatry. Second, one must define the secular elements of the traditional celebration of Christmas as commercialism (or what elements of the celebration that he or she deems commercialized, e.g. carols). Finally, one must assert that the commercialization contained in the songs effects the moral nature of a recording onto which they are placed (no matter what other content is found on the recording). These leaps are ones that I am unwilling to take and therefore I find that the CD does not reflect commercialism even though the songs in question spring from an event which to some degree has taken on secular/commercialized elements. Although, if one is willing to go to such an extent to declare this CD to be morally wrong, he or she must be willing to analyze other actions as well.
In Summary: Commercialization is present in Christmas; commercialization is an action that can lead to sins such as idolatry. These sins are sins of the heart and not inherent in the event of Christmas itself; therefore, Christians do not have to abstain from celebrating the event of Christmas in a traditional manner. The use of the CD in question reflects such a celebration of Christmas. However, I do grant that one could arrive at different conclusions than mine, but in order to be entirely consistent with these views, they must do away with all Christmas pageants/plays, trees, wreaths, carols, and lights as well as Easter eggs and candy, Thanksgiving turkeys, New Year’s Day celebrations and fireworks, and Fourth of July parades, because all of these things are linked to events surrounded in commercialism which can cause idolatry in the hearts of believers. I believe that instead of taking such unwarranted extremes, we should, rather, turn the focus of our preaching, teaching, and blogging on the proper focus of the believer’s heart during the seasons of the year that run rampant with commercialism (2 Tim. 2:22). Rather than attacking perceived elements of commercialism, we should be admonishing believers to turn from the idolatry of our age and back to the One Who gave Himself as a sacrifice for our sins (Gal. 1:4), for it is not in the commercialism of our age that sin is found, but in the hearts of men and women (Psalm 51:5). Rather than exercising ourselves in rabbinical discussions of minute issues of practice and their possible relation to situations of probable breaches of God’s law (e.g. Mark 7:5), shouldn’t we be teaching others to rely more on God’s grace to give them the ability (Gal. 5:16) to live in a culture corrupt with sin and still walk worthy of their Lord (Eph. 4:1; Col. 1:10; I Thess. 2:12)?
Phil,
Again, you seem to be missing my overall point. What I am NOT saying is that is wrong for a Christian to celebrate the season of Traditional American Christmas, and in doing so may be somewhat unable to avoid elements of the commercialized/consumerist approach. What I am saying is that to confuse this celebration with commemorating and reflecting on the Incarnation is creating confusion in the minds of those with whom we have influence, whether it is the outside, watching world, or the congregations we watch over as pastors or interact with as members.
Think about it this way- many Christians spend their Sunday afternoons viewing various athletic competitions. I will refrain from commenting on whether or not this is advisable or wise, but at this point simply observe that it is a common practice amongst professing believers. Now, imagine with me if you will, a self-identified publisher recordings of sacred music decided to release a cd that featured songs that celebrated the Christian fellowship we enjoy as part of a church (say, “Blest Be The Tie That Binds,” “I Love Thy Church O God,” etc etc), combined with assorted “jock jams” (say, “Take Me Out To The Ballgame,” Hank Williams, Jr’s “Are You Ready For Some Football,” or John Fogerty’s “Centerfield”- “We’re born again, there’s new grass on the field,” after all…). Lay aside the debates on musical style for a moment. Given just the content and contrasting subject matters- would that be appropriate?
My observation is that, while there may be, as you continue to observe, no explicit Scripture reference condemning what we see on the MM/Renfrow CD, there are practices we should be able to discern by the application of Scriptural principle. If you would care to argue against the idea of exalting Christ alone, for example, I suppose we could spend some time establishing that. I suspect you would not.
So, that being said, I would observe that American Christianity has many ideas of what it means to glorify and exalt Christ. After all, even the celebrated “Hannah Montana” has recently acknowledged she is “all about Jesus.” I would also observe, as I have in this post and comments, that many such efforts and the reasoning behind them are at best misguided and at worst profaning the name of Christ rather than exalting It.
There is no doubt that a market exists for this recording, or that this falls well within Christian’s “personal preference,” as you keep referring to. But Phil, you keep missing the point, and restating what others have already argued throughout these now 52 comments. I am glad you are revisiting this thread, and encourage you to keep reading. However, I would encourage you, if you respond again, to do so after taking the time to understand what is being opposed.
All we are looking at is a redefinition of terms. You refer to certain elements in the Christmas celebration as containing “confusing” secular themes, because they distract people from Christ during the Christmas season; I have referred to these themes as “idolatry” because they can be elevated rather than Christ Himself.
If exalting Christ alone = singing only Christian Christmas carols, listening to only Christian Christmas music on CDs, playing only Christian Christmas music, or recording only Christian Christmas music for fear of confusing the lost, then a logical and consistent approach is to avoid all secular elements involved in Christmas, because, they too, could create “confusion” in others. My point before was and still is: Where does a position such as yours end up when lived in respect to other elements of Christmas/other holidays? Either you reject the amalgamation of secular and sacred themes during this time of year, and therefore reject all amalgamated items such as this CD (e.g. tree, lights, candles, Santa, gifts, stockings, etc.), or you accept that the amalgamation is a fact and emphasize Christ as you enjoy the season while using amalgamated items (including the CD). To stand in the middle of these two positions is a logical paradox.
For many Christians throughout the world, Christmas is a time when they can worship Christ while participating in the traditional Christmas celebration and still remain focused and unconfused about the true meaning of Christmas. As for the world, they do not understand the true meaning of Christmas, and they will not understand until they are gripped by the Gospel. We are under no scriptural mandate to wholly “Christianize” portions of the year in order to clear up confusions about how “Christian” these portions of the year have been made in the past. We are under scriptural mandate to evangelize the lost (Matt. 28:19-20).
Just because the world is in darkness does not necessitate such extreme measures (not enjoying traditional elements of the holiday ourselves) in order to “clear up confusions” among the lost. It does, however, necessitate evangelism.
We are not told to clear up confusions about the Lord’s Day (however, I doubt that the lost seriously consider that the reason why Christians celebrate Sunday is in order to watch the Braves or the Cubs loose again – there is no connection between the two, and, therefore, no such CD will ever be produced). We are commanded to tell others of our Lord.
I have tried to respectfully deal with each of the problems you have brought up in this latest posting without being to excessive. “Creating confusion in…minds” was argued to be a sin problem, not a Christmas problem (Par. 3-4). The Sunday afternoon illustration was argued to be illegitimate and unnecessary (Par. 5). “Exalting Christ alone” through solely sacred music on Christmas recordings has been shown to be inconsistent with the manner in which we live our lives and celebrate other seasons (Par. 2).
Phil,
1. I am not arguing that Christians should not enjoy “traditional elements of the holiday.”
2. I am not arguing that we should avoid confusing “the lost.”
I am arguing that Christians should distinguish the traditional holiday (trees, gifts, stockings, and so on) from the Incarnation. As a pastor, I would not conduct a Christmas Eve Service wearing a Santa suit. When a purveyor of “Sacred Music You Can Trust” stoops to producing albums like this (or bluegrass banjos or barbershop quartets or…), you have a similar conflict of interest. If a Christian person decides to release such music, let them do so under a commercial venue in a marketplace where they are going to stand or fall on the merits of their performance, not trading on the notoriety and following they have gained through Christian ministry.
Phil, this isn’t for the lost. This is to make sure we as Christians are thinking about God- imagining Him, if you will- in the way He ought to be conceived. Reducing him to such a frivolous element (like a warm fire or a tree with presents) is not “sacred” in any way shape or form.
Check out the newest compromise. We must teach the difference , for if we don’t this is what they sell our children and grandchildren.
http://www.majestymusic.com/p-1492-merry-little-christmas-cd.aspx
or
Eze 44:23
And they shall teach my people the difference between the holy and profane, and cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean