# Theology of Song Writer and Hymnists



## Wynteriii (Dec 1, 2013)

How important is the theology of one who writes songs/hymns?

For example, there are plenty of evangelical churches leading worship with songs by David Crowder who is a universalist and agrees with as well as is a friend to Rob Bell. He has written songs that I would say are better then alot of CCM artist. He writes great songs about how "He is Our King","O Praise Him","All In All". This does not change how he is a universalist. 

I would think the majority on the PB would agree that theology matters but I know some who would claim that God could use Crowder to make a song which could glorify God.

Hopefully I'm not opening a can of worms.





Sent from my GT-P3113 using Tapatalk 4


----------



## Frosty (Dec 1, 2013)

David Crowder is a universalist? Didn't know this. Is it common knowledge?

I won't listen to Phillips, Craig, and Dean, as they are proven modalists.

Yes, it matters to me. Does it matter to everyone? I don't know.


----------



## JML (Dec 1, 2013)

I think that King David's theology was pretty sound.


----------



## kodos (Dec 1, 2013)

John Lanier said:


> I think that King David's theology was pretty sound.


----------



## Wynteriii (Dec 1, 2013)

Frosty said:


> David Crowder is a universalist? Didn't know this. Is it common knowledge?


It seems to be a fact in my church but I guess I should go to the source. As far as my research has gone, Crowder seems a bit friendly to Roman Catholic theology. 
David Crowder’s crowded theology. | Defending. Contending.

However, the question is still viable. Would you use hymns/songs that were created by those who you think had faulty theology.



Frosty said:


> I won't listen to Phillips, Craig, and Dean, as they are proven modalists.



The same people at this church who talk about Crowder, love the trios "Revelation Song"



John Lanier said:


> I think that King David's theology was pretty sound.



That sound better be a capella vocals!


----------



## kodos (Dec 1, 2013)

While we may be having some fun with saying that the theology of King David being sound, I think it is rather important for us to think about "who is authorized to write praise to put on the lips of God's people in corporate worship?" In the Old Testament it is pretty clear that this was overseen by the Davidic King and taken very seriously (see: 1 Chronicles 25 about how stringent the requirements were and how they were explicitly handed down, under the direct oversight of King David). And nowhere in the New Testament do we see that requirement removed, or an office of psalm writer established.

So, yes - the theology of the songwriter does matter, but I would go a step further and state that the songwriter has to be appointed to that position by the King. It is remarkable just how many hymns in use in God's Church today were written by heretics.

Consider your can of worms... opened.


----------



## Jack K (Dec 1, 2013)

I suppose I would prefer that all hymns be written by people of perfect theology. But I think it's far more important that hymns used in worship be carefully examined and approved by church leadership. The singing of songs chosen by people who have little training for the task and little regard for a song's theological message is a more serious problem these days.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Dec 1, 2013)

We wouldn't allow men who preach heretical theology or even Arminian theology in our pulpits or allow their prayers to be read, but why do we allow their hymns to be sung in our worship services?


----------



## Free Christian (Dec 1, 2013)

Real food for thought this thread. Things that have never entered my mind.
I like some of the old hymns and have never given it any thought. I love playing Amazing Grace on my blues harp too, my favourite!
So the question I now ask myself is, what do I do when the messenger is wrong but the message is right?
Im all for Psalms in worship and always will be and find there is something seriously amiss in churches that neglect the singing of the Psalms. Who sing hymns only!
But I have never thought about those who sing both before and where the hymn originated from, the persons personal doctrine.
So if the messenger is wrong but the message is right?
Interesting thread.


----------



## Logan (Dec 2, 2013)

My wife and I were reminiscing over a book of "Maranatha" this last weekend (we both grew up experiencing it). We were a little dismayed to see how many of the songs seemed to be just a little ditty someone came up with and it got stuck in the book. We also didn't see any mention of sin or repentance in there, just a lot of repeating of God's name, it was a one-sided picture and failed to capture many of the facet's of God's attributes or theology.

But as for the question, is it important? Yes. I forget where the quote comes from, but I think it may have been one of the early church fathers who said he cared not who composed the nation's laws if he got to compose its songs.


----------



## Cymro (Dec 2, 2013)

Is it not strange that the OT hymns or psalms were composed by men authorised and 
appointed by God to that office under the inspiration of the Spirit, yet the NT is thrown
open for any Tom, Dick or Harry to foist their poetic imaginations on the Christian public!
Who gives the mandate for such?And who vets the theology of such, for Christians have 
a diversity of preferences and prejudices? The Psalter because composed by the Word Himself,
is without error and therefore doctrinally sound.


----------



## Afterthought (Dec 7, 2013)

Wynteriii said:


> For example, there are plenty of evangelical churches leading worship with songs by David Crowder who is a universalist and agrees with as well as is a friend to Rob Bell. He has written songs that I would say are better then alot of CCM artist. He writes great songs about how "He is Our King","O Praise Him","All In All". This does not change how he is a universalist.


Some I know who are into CCM will say that it doesn't matter the theology of the artist, and if the theology appears to be bad in a song, one can usually re-interpret it in an orthodox manner while singing it. Indeed, a lot seems to come down to interpretation (which is why I used the word "appears") because if one were given a list such as, say, Rev. Angus Stewart (I think it was him?) made on bad theology in hymns, probably most of these would deny that such is bad theology because they interpret the song differently.


----------



## Pilgrim Standard (Dec 7, 2013)

Cymro said:


> Is it not strange that the OT hymns or psalms were composed by men authorised and
> appointed by God to that office under the inspiration of the Spirit, yet the NT is thrown
> open for any Tom, Dick or Harry to foist their poetic imaginations on the Christian public!
> Who gives the mandate for such?And who vets the theology of such, for Christians have
> ...



Well said Jeff.


----------



## Leslie (Dec 8, 2013)

How about he Wesley hymn, "And Can It Be"? Sure, he was Arminian, but his bad theology as regards election is not evident in the words of that song or of many others he wrote. If his expression of guilt and grace brings me closer to God, what is wrong with singing them? 
If the bad theology of the author, even though the errors are not expressed in the particular hymn, are a problem, then how about the personal sins of the authors? Newton was a slave trader after his conversion. David was an adulterer. I could go on. Will you throw out their music also?


----------



## earl40 (Dec 8, 2013)

Leslie said:


> How about he Wesley hymn, "And Can It Be"? Sure, he was Arminian, but his bad theology as regards election is not evident in the words of that song or of many others he wrote. If his expression of guilt and grace brings me closer to God, what is wrong with singing them?
> If the bad theology of the author, even though the errors are not expressed in the particular hymn, are a problem, then how about the personal sins of the authors? Newton was a slave trader after his conversion. David was an adulterer. I could go on. Will you throw out their music also?



Is there any doctrine Wesley didn't qualify with a contra meaning against reformed theology?


----------



## nick (Dec 8, 2013)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> We wouldn't allow men who preach heretical theology or even Arminian theology in our pulpits or allow their prayers to be read, but why do we allow their hymns to be sung in our worship services?



Why are you bringing logic into this? 

At least if it was preached or prayed, it wouldn't be repeated by the congregation (I hope), but hymns are expected to be memorized and sung by all.

I remember watching some people debate someone for using AC/DC's "Highway to Hell" as the first song in the worship service. When we are left as judge of what is "ok" for worship to God, we really don't have a defense other than preference.


----------



## jambo (Dec 8, 2013)

"Don't shoot me. I'm only the piano player," springs to mind.

When you sing the hymn you are singing from the heart. The hymn expresses a truth you firmly believe in and it expresses your heartfelt desire for God and to praise him. I would know about the older hymn writers but the names of modern hymn writers would mean nothing to me. As I scan the words I think, yes I believe this so I sing. If it should be bad theology then I would't sing it. 

In the introduction to Spurgeon's Own Hymn Book" he says

"Whatever may be thought of our taste, we have exercised it without prejudice; and a good hymn has not been rejected because of the character of its author, or the heresies of the church in whose hymnal it first appeared; so long as the language and the spirit of it commended the hymn to our heart, we included it and we believe that we have thereby enriched our collection."


----------



## Hemustincrease (Dec 8, 2013)

This is a brief excerpt taken from David Cloud’s website. Here is the link Why We Are Opposed to CCM




> Following are four of the reasons that we are opposed to it.
> 
> 1. Contemporary Christian Music is worldly music.
> 
> ...




It seems to me there is more to be concerned about with regards to CCM than just individual bad theology. David Cloud is not Calvinist of course, but Reformed Pastors such as Peter Masters of the Met Tab, recommend his writings on this subject.


----------



## py3ak (Dec 8, 2013)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> We wouldn't allow men who preach heretical theology or even Arminian theology in our pulpits or allow their prayers to be read, but why do we allow their hymns to be sung in our worship services?



The parallel is imperfect. When a living man is speaking, there is uncertainty about what may be said next. Without meaning to speak in defense of hymns, that uncertainty is not present in their use, because their form is fixed. The closer parallel would be to quoting from a book; and many quote, even approvingly, from books written by authors whose positions or actions would in many cases be thoroughly rejected.


----------



## jambo (Dec 8, 2013)

Hemustincrease said:


> This is a brief excerpt taken from David Cloud’s website. Here is the link Why We Are Opposed to CCM
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Some, but not all. One example is Vernon Higham's "Great is the Gospel of our Glorious God." Which would not fit into any of those 4 categories.

"Throwing the baby out with the bath water" is another phrase which springs to mind.


----------



## Hemustincrease (Dec 8, 2013)

jambo said:


> Some, but not all. One example is Vernon Higham's "Great is the Gospel of our Glorious God." Which would not fit into any of those 4 categories.



I am quite sure that neither David Cloud nor Peter Masters would count Vernon Higham’s hymns as ‘CCM’. Neither of them are opposed to ‘new’ hymns or living hymn writers.  Rather they oppose worldly, ecumenical and charismatic music.


----------



## Paul1976 (Dec 8, 2013)

I think reasoning through the question can shed some light on this. How bad must one's theology be to be rejected as a source of material to praise God with? Does one just need to have broadly reformed beliefs? A sound understanding of the five points? The right eschatology (whatever the right one is...)? A correct view on baptism? 

My point is, if we restrict songwriters to those with perfect theology, we won't have of new material to sing. Worse, I think the pride we'd exhibit in our superior understanding of theology would be far more harmful to us than singing a song or two with imperfect theology. I agree with earlier posts suggesting careful examination on a song-by-song basis. While I believe Wesley to be wrong on a number of issues, the words he wrote in praise of our great and glorious creator, sustainer, and redeemer are often superb and an excellent tool for worship. I would hate to be without them. 

And, while I find many of the psalm-only arguments above compelling, I personally doubt God would only want us to praise him through the dim pictures of Christ revealed in the Psalms. We will be singing praises of God and Christ and his redemptive work in heaven. I do not believe God intends for us not to praise His work on the cross now with songs written by those whose lives have been transformed by the event. This isn't to say that there aren't a number of poorly written songs, either full of bad theology, or devoid of God-exhaling theology. But, it's hard for me to believe God would not be glorified by many of the great songs written to Him since the New Covenant.


----------



## irresistible_grace (Dec 8, 2013)

Paul1976 said:


> And, while I find many of the psalm-only arguments above compelling, I personally doubt God would only want us to praise him through the *dim pictures of Christ revealed in the Psalms. *We will be singing praises of God and Christ and his redemptive work in heaven. I do not believe God intends for us not to praise His work on the cross now with songs written by those whose lives have been transformed by the event. This isn't to say that there aren't a number of poorly written songs, either full of bad theology, or devoid of God-exhaling theology. But, it's hard for me to believe God would not be glorified by many of the great songs written to Him since the New Covenant.



Your "doubt" is based upon the assumption that the pictures of Christ revealed in the Psalms are "dim" when in fact they are NOT. Christ himself tells us that the Psalms speak of him. I can't think of a CLEARER pictures of Christ's work on the cross than that which is found in Psalm 22... Christ himself sang the Psalms.


----------



## irresistible_grace (Dec 8, 2013)

The Singing of Psalms

I strongly suggest you listen to this sermon.


----------



## Cymro (Dec 9, 2013)

Really all hymns are suspect because they are reliant upon the disparate
,diverse sanctions of very theologically mixed appreciators, or detractors.
The fact that various denominations and independent churches have distinct
and separate hymn books proves the point. The Presbyterian differs from the Baptist and
has its own brand; the Congregationalist from Independent; the Pentecostal from the Brethren,
etc, etc! It would be at least one step to unity in worship if we sang God's precious word in the
sacred psalter. Free of error, spot or wrinkle.
As to our brother's point about dimness, the maxim "the N/T sheds light on the O/T" is often reversed
with the Psalms . They shed light on the New.


----------



## Frosty (Dec 9, 2013)

John Lanier said:


> I think that King David's theology was pretty sound.



I agree with the thought and what you're getting at.

Here's another question, though: Was King David's theology ALWAYS sound?


----------



## irresistible_grace (Dec 9, 2013)

Frosty said:


> John Lanier said:
> 
> 
> > I think that King David's theology was pretty sound.
> ...



Are you questioning King David's theology as is contained in the Inspired/canonical *Psalms, Hymns & Spiritual Songs* that God has providential preserved & given to His People to sing in Worship? Are you questioning God's Word?


----------



## Frosty (Dec 9, 2013)

irresistible_grace said:


> Frosty said:
> 
> 
> > John Lanier said:
> ...



No.


----------



## Cymro (Dec 12, 2013)

Mary, in reference to the hymn, "and can it be," it is not only
the error of Arminianism to look for but another equally as serious.
He states, "emptied Himself of all but love," which is a deviance from
the truth and a poetic form of kenosis, and indeed an impossibility.
As to David's sins they were confessed and forgiven and publicised in
scripture, but he did not foist error on the congregation of the righteous
through his psalms. "The Spirit of the Lord spake by me and His word 
was in my tongue."


----------



## Ken_lamb (Jan 3, 2014)

So I understand, insofar as it pertains to hymn writing I am making the following observations from comments I've seen here. 
To paraphrase:
*hymn writing ceased as a spiritual gift in the OT (?) specifically with the collapse of the Davidic kingdom
And/or
*all non-reformed hymn writers are living in unrepentant sin and their lyrics are not to be trusted (?)
And/or
*modern music is inherently charismatic (?)

I've been following an online blog discussion (http://religiousaffections.org/series/discussion-about-christian-rap-with-shai-linne/) for several weeks between reformed rapper Shai Linne (who is known for his deep and accurately reformed theological lyrics) and an SWBTS Hymnology professor Scott Aniol. 

Anyways, their discussion is not limited to hymns but about whether certain kinds of music is inherently sinful while others are worthy of glorifying God, and what are the distinctions between them. 

This has been a difficult blog series to follow. But it has definitely affected my opinion of worship. 

On Christmas Eve I attended a church service where the worship leader began dancing on stage and in true rock concert fashion came down off the stage during a song and grabbed someone from the audience and brought them back up on stage to dance and hammer away at the drums. 

Now I'm not one to shy away from rock and roll or even dancing (though I dance in typical white guy fashion) but there was something obviously irreverent about this performance and it was noticeably out of place for the context of the Christmas Eve worship service. Who were we worshipping at that moment. 

Part of me became immediately converted to the idea of the regulative principle of worship, at least in the context of corporate worship. 

But where I still struggle is with the act of personal worship. You know, like when Mary singlehandedly pours out the nard on our Lord at the shock of observing disciples. How dare she, how extravagant! And...Jesus rebuked them for their hard hearts and false piety.

When I listen to an album of Shai Linne, I'm not imagining that Shai is some sort of egotist just trying to be in the lime light. What ever light is shined on him he always redirects, pointing it to our Lord and savior. 

For Shai, when he raps, it is an act of personal worship, even though it would not likely be fitting for a corporate worship of the risen lord. He couldn't lead us in his form of worship, because we lack the natural abilities to participate, not to mention, the logistical problem associated with a couple hundred people trying to rap in rhymed syncopation all at the same time. It would be utter nonsense. 

But if we go to observe Shai in performance, are we participating in idol worship. Certainly, many people engage in idol worship of rock stars and other genre of musicians. But I think Scott confuses correlation with causality.

Recently I learned about the tradition of lining out hymns. I found the aesthetics of it undesirable (not particularly beautiful), but very corporate and nevertheless the Westminster assembly accepted it as a legitimate option for worship among some congregations. This would seem to really unravel Scott's argument that worship must meet some objective form of beauty, of which rap does not qualify. 

Lastly, my wife is a painter. She considers painting her act of personal worship. But certainly the finished product is somewhat removed from her act of worship. The painting itself is inanimate and amoral.

If the subject of her painting were a natural landscape, and a crowd gathered to observe her in the act of artistic creation, is she somehow leading them in idol worship? They may differ in talent and may not be able to add to the experience in a corporate worship sense. But are they worshipping her, because she worships God in a way that is not inclusive of the observers. 

I just can't agree with Scott and the other panel members who held so firmly to the idea that rap is sinful, even when the words are edifying. I am also a bit surprised that Shai didn't distinguish between the act of rapping, and musical genre of hip hop. 

A reformed rapper friend of mine shared with me and my wife that rap was the act of spinning the lyrics in a particular fashion that is not expressly singing. The music that accompanies rap is usually in the form of hip hop. This is were I think Scott really showed his ignorance, when he discounted Shai's presentation of the gospel (a video link which Scott posted of Shai giving a rhymed a cappella presentation of the gospel) as not being rap. It clearly was, though without the accompanying hip hop. 

That being said, I would still object, at least silently, if I attended a church that enjoined the congregation to participate in worship that was in the form of rap and hip hop. Not because I dislike these forms of music, but because it is not how God created me to worship him. Similarly, if they asked me to participate in a form of corporate worship painting, I would feel the same.

Corporate worship services should not direct attention to anyone other than to our God.


----------

