Latest / Reformed Thinking / Singing the Truth: The Battle for Theological Worship

Transcript

Singing the Truth: The Battle for Theological Worship · Reformed Thinking

0:00
Welcome to Reform Thinking. We are, We are really glad you
0:03
were here with us today because today we are opening a dossier
0:08
that I think it's going to genuinely surprise you.
0:10
You know what usually think of the mission field in terms of
0:13
geography, right? We picture maps, we picture
0:15
borders, unreached people groups, maybe a jungle or a
0:18
desert somewhere. But today we are looking at the
0:21
mission field through a completely different lens.
0:24
We're looking at it as a battlefield.
0:26
Yeah, and we don't mean that metaphorically, not in the sense
0:28
of logistical struggles or visa issues at the border.
0:32
We mean it in the raw spiritual sense.
0:35
We are unpacking a text by Scott Callahan alongside some really
0:38
heavy hitting theological principles that frames missions
0:41
explicitly as spiritual warfare. The source material actually
0:44
cites Acts 1.8 and Proverbs 21.31 to set the stage right off
0:48
the bat. It's a striking image, but here
0:50
is the hook that really grabbed me when I was reading through
0:52
this. Callahan brings up a concept
0:54
that is frankly chilling for anyone involved in church
0:57
ministry. He talks about friendly fire.
0:59
Friendly fire. It's a military term, obviously.
1:02
It means taking casualties from your own side, being shot by
1:04
your own troops. Precisely, and in the context of
1:07
this deep dive, this isn't persecution from a hostile
1:11
government. It isn't resistance from a local
1:14
religion or cultural pushback. This is wounding that comes from
1:18
within the camp, and specifically the source material
1:21
identifies this friendly fire as coming from insufficient
1:24
attention to the worship of the gathered church.
1:26
We are talking about music. It is a massive claim.
1:29
We often treat music as the warm U act.
1:32
You know, the light entertainment before the heavy
1:34
lifting of the sermon. But the argument here is that if
1:37
we lack vigilant discernment in our music, specifically on the
1:40
mission field, we are actually inflicting casualties on the
1:43
very people we are trying to save.
1:45
So if the theology in our songs is weak or manipulative or flat
1:48
out heretical, we are sabotaging the mission ourselves.
1:51
Correct. We are handing the enemy
1:53
ammunition. So our goal today is to walk
1:56
through biblical missions, principles, priorities, and
1:59
practices, but with a laser focus on the soundtrack of those
2:03
missions. We have a lot to get through.
2:05
We need to unpack the regulative principle of worship, which is a
2:08
beast of a topic on its own, the ethics of songwriting, the very
2:12
real danger of emotional manipulation.
2:15
And then we are going to look at a fascinating case study of
2:19
music evangelism in France. This is going to be really good.
2:22
So let's start at the bedrock. If we are talking about Reformed
2:25
thinking, which is the banner we are flying under today, we have
2:28
to talk about where our view of worship actually comes from.
2:32
The text mentions that the reformers in the 16th century
2:34
didn't just tweak the Sunday service, they had to completely
2:37
rethink the very nature of worship.
2:39
They did. You really have to put yourself
2:41
in their shoes for a minute. They were inheriting a system
2:43
from the Roman Catholic Church that was incredibly heavy on
2:46
tradition. It was heavy on visual
2:48
spectacle, you know, statues, incense, elaborate vestments,
2:53
and it was heavy on human invention.
2:55
It was a performance. It was entirely a performance,
2:59
and the goal of the Reformation wasn't just to fix the doctrine
3:02
of salvation, getting justification by faith right, as
3:05
vital as that is. It was also to establish worship
3:08
that cohered with sola scriptura scripture alone.
3:12
They looked at the Mass and asked, does the Bible actually
3:14
tell us to do any of this? Which brings us to the two big
3:18
heavyweights in the theological ring.
3:20
This is a distinction that I think a lot of modern listeners
3:23
might not even realize exists, but it dictates absolutely
3:27
everything about your Sunday morning experience.
3:29
The normative principle versus the regulative principle help us
3:33
distinguish these two. This distinction is everything.
3:36
Let's start with the normative principle.
3:37
This is the view held by the Lutheran tradition, the Anglican
3:40
tradition, and frankly, most modern evangelical churches
3:42
today. The normative principle
3:44
essentially says this. Whatever Scripture does not
3:46
explicitly prohibit is acceptable.
3:49
So it's very permissive view. Right.
3:51
It's like a parent telling a child you can do anything you
3:53
want as long as I haven't specifically said don't do that.
3:57
So if the Bible doesn't say thou shalt not use a smoke machine or
4:00
thou shalt not put on a puppet show, then under the normative
4:03
principle you are completely free to use your creativity.
4:08
So human innovation becomes a feature of worship.
4:11
If I think it helps and God didn't ban it in a verse
4:14
somewhere, I'm good to go. Correct.
4:16
That is the operating logic. Now contrast that with the
4:19
Reformed stance, what we see articulated in the Westminster
4:22
Confession. This is the regulative
4:24
principle. This teaches that worship
4:26
permits only what Scripture positively ordains.
4:30
We don't ask, is it forbidden? We ask is it commanded?
4:34
I mean, that feels much more restrictive to the modern ear.
4:36
I can hear people right now thinking, well, that sounds like
4:38
a straitjacket. Why is this distinction so vital
4:42
for the reformers? It comes down to trust.
4:44
The regulative principle stems from a firm trust in the
4:47
sufficiency of Scripture. If we believe the Bible is
4:50
sufficient for all matters of faith and life, then we must
4:53
believe it is sufficient to tell us how God wants to be
4:55
worshipped. We don't need to add to it.
4:58
When we rely on the normative principle, we are implicitly
5:01
saying that Scripture isn't quite enough, that we need to
5:04
add our tradition, our reason, or our cultural cool factor to
5:08
make worship really work. So under the regulative
5:11
principle, tradition and experience holds zero authority.
5:14
None. Scripture is the sole standard,
5:17
and this isn't just about being sticklers, rules or being the
5:19
fun police. It is fundamentally about
5:22
protecting the conscience of the worshipper.
5:24
If you introduce an element into worship that God hasn't
5:27
commanded, you are binding the conscience of the congregation
5:30
to a human invention. You are forcing them to
5:33
participate in something God never actually asked for.
5:36
That is a key insight. It's actually about freedom,
5:38
freedom from human imposition. Spot on.
5:41
It ensures that what we are doing actually pleases God
5:44
rather than just entertaining ourselves.
5:46
Now some might hear regulative principle and think, OK, that
5:49
sounds dry, that sounds like a lecture.
5:50
Maybe we just read the Bible and sit in silence.
5:53
But the source material points out that Scripture itself is
5:56
incredibly musical. It is totally inherent to the
5:59
text. You can't read the Bible without
6:02
hearing music. Just look at the Old Testament.
6:04
You have the song of the sea in Exodus 15.
6:06
This is right after the crossing of the Red Sea.
6:09
The very first response to salvation is singing.
6:12
And the Psalm of Moses in Deuteronomy 32.
6:14
Absolutely. And obviously the Psalms.
6:17
The longest single book in the Bible, is a songbook.
6:19
The Bible is a book that sings. God evidently loves music.
6:22
It's not just the Old Testament, right?
6:24
Sometimes we think the New Testament is just letters and
6:26
dense theology. Now the New Testament is full of
6:28
it too. Scholars widely consider
6:31
passages like Philippians 2.5 through 11, who being in very
6:34
nature God, and Colossians 1.15 through 20 to be christological
6:39
hymns used by the early church. They were literally singing
6:43
their theology. The connection between the Word
6:45
of God and music is organic. Psalm 149.1 explicitly urges us
6:50
to sing to Yahweh a new song. That is an interesting point
6:53
because sometimes people think this regulative principle means
6:56
we are just stuck in the past, but here is a command to sing a
7:00
new song. Precisely.
7:02
The command itself is participational.
7:04
It is an invitation to creativity, but creativity
7:08
within the bounds of what God has revealed.
7:11
So when we talk about being Reformed in our worship, we
7:13
aren't talking about silence. We are talking about a robust,
7:17
obedient, joyful noise that is rooted in what God has asked
7:21
for. Let's dig into that imperative
7:23
to sing, because the text you brought makes a really strong
7:26
case that singing isn't optional.
7:28
It's not just for the musical people in the congregation.
7:31
You know, the people who actually hit the notes.
7:32
That is a critical correction to our modern mindset.
7:36
We tend to think of singing as a talent OR performance.
7:39
I'm not a singer, so I'll just mouth the words, but the Bible
7:41
doesn't give us that out. Look at Psalm 67.
7:44
This is a missionary Psalm. It starts by echoing the ironic
7:47
blessing from #6 God, be gracious to us and bless us.
7:51
And make his face shine upon us. Right, but then it kivets it
7:55
turns that blessing outward. Why does the psalmist want to be
7:58
blessed? That your way may be known on
8:01
the earth, Your salvation among all nations.
8:04
So the singing has a purpose entirely beyond just the person
8:07
singing. It it is for the nations.
8:08
It is evangelistic. The Psalm exhorts the nations to
8:11
sing. And when we move to the New
8:13
Testament, we see this horizontal dimension even more
8:15
clearly. Look at Colossians 3.16 and
8:19
Ephesians 5.18 and 19. Teaching and admonishing one
8:22
another with psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs.
8:26
Note that phrase one another. This is huge.
8:29
When you sing in church, you are not just singing vertically to
8:33
God, you are singing horizontally to the person in
8:35
the Pew next to you. It is a teaching tool.
8:37
It is an admonishing tool. I.
8:39
Think that changes how you stand in church?
8:41
If I realize that my singing is actually helping teach my
8:44
brother or sister the theology of the lyrics, I can't just
8:46
mumble through it. My voice matters to their faith.
8:49
You cannot check out and Paul frames.
8:52
This is the natural result of being filled with the Spirit.
8:55
In Ephesians the command is be filled with the Spirit and the
8:58
participles that follow. The evidence of that filling
9:01
include singing and making melody.
9:03
You cannot have a spirit filled church that is silent.
9:06
A quiet church is, in a sense, a spirit quenched church.
9:10
There's a grammatical point in James 5.13 that I found
9:13
fascinating in the notes. Yeah.
9:15
Is anyone cheerful? He is to sing praises.
9:18
Yes, and this is where looking at the Greek really helps us
9:21
out. It is a third person imperative.
9:23
What does that mean in plain English for us?
9:25
It means it is a command. It is not an adjusting like hey,
9:28
if you're feeling good, maybe of homotune if you want.
9:30
No. James creates a parallel
9:32
structure. He says, is anyone among you
9:34
suffering? Let him pray.
9:37
We would all agree that a suffering Christian should pray.
9:40
It's the necessary response. Right.
9:42
You don't tell a suffering person.
9:43
Maybe pray if you feel like it. Precisely.
9:46
And James uses the exact same grammatical force for the next
9:50
part. Is anyone cheerful?
9:52
Let him sing praises. Just as the suffering Christian
9:55
must pray, the cheerful Christian must sing.
9:58
It is a duty, a joyful duty, but a duty nonetheless.
10:01
It connects the emotion directly to the action.
10:04
It sanctifies the emotion, It channels the cheerfulness into
10:07
praise rather than just general vague happiness.
10:10
And we see the ultimate example of this duty in Matthew 26.30.
10:15
This stops me in my tracks every time I read the passion
10:17
narrative. It should.
10:18
It's a striking moment. And when they had sung A hymn,
10:21
they went out to the Mount of Olives.
10:22
This was right before the crucifixion.
10:24
Right before Gethsemane, right before the betrayal, right
10:26
before the arrest. Jesus knowing exactly what was
10:29
coming, the torture, the wrath of God, the separation sang.
10:33
Do we know what he's saying? Most likely the howl Psalm Psalm
10:35
113 to 118 which were traditional for the Passover
10:38
meal. Think about Psalm 118.
10:41
The stone that the builders rejected has become the
10:43
cornerstone. Or by bethestal sacrifice with
10:46
cords up to the horns of the altar.
10:48
He was essentially singing about his own death.
10:50
That gives me chills. If the Son of God found it
10:53
necessary to sing in that moment of ultimate crisis, how can we
10:57
treat singing as optional? How can we treat it as just a
11:00
warm up? It is a weapon of warfare.
11:03
It is a means of grace. That really puts it in
11:05
perspective. We sing because he sang.
11:10
OK, so we have established that we must sing the next logical
11:13
question, and this is where the rubber meets the road for you
11:15
listing is what do we sing? This brings us to the section on
11:19
discernment and lyrics and authorship.
11:22
And honestly, this is where things can get a little heated
11:24
in chirp circles. It is a battlefield, remember we
11:27
have to navigate the friendly fire. 1 historic approach to
11:31
ensuring safety is the Psalms only position.
11:33
Exclusive Psalmody. Right.
11:35
The logic is totally sound. If you want to be 100% sure you
11:38
were singing God's truth, sing the songs God wrote.
11:41
You can't improve on the Holy Spirit's lyrics.
11:43
But the text argues there is a counterpoint to that.
11:46
Yes. The counterpoint is that singing
11:48
only Psalms might actually contradict the Psalms
11:51
themselves. As we mentioned, Psalm 149 calls
11:54
for a new song. If we never write new songs, are
11:58
we fully obeying that command? Also, the Psalms, while
12:02
prophetic, do not explicitly name Jesus of Nazareth, the
12:05
cross or the empty tomb in the historical sense.
12:07
We need songs that celebrate the fulfilled work of Christ.
12:10
But the risk of new songs is obvious.
12:12
The risk is error. When you step outside of
12:15
inspired scripture, you step into fallible human composition.
12:19
The text warns that popular songs often drift into
12:22
ambiguity. You get these songs with vague
12:25
emotional language where the singer can construct their own
12:27
meaning. It's the Jesus is my boyfriend
12:30
genre. It is songs that could be sung
12:32
to a significant other just as easily as to God.
12:34
I want to touch you. I want to feel you.
12:36
You are my everything. If you change one word, it's a
12:38
Top 40 love song. And why is that dangerous?
12:40
Some people might say, well, it feels intimate.
12:42
It leads to idolatry. The text references Exodus 32,
12:46
the golden calf. The Israelites wanted a
12:49
tangible, visible, felt God. Misdirected religious fervor is
12:54
incredibly dangerous. When we sexualize or romanticize
12:58
our relationship with God in a way Scripture doesn't, we are
13:00
creating a God in our own image. So the standard has to be
13:04
scripture. Lyrics must be judged by the
13:06
Bible, and they shouldn't be limited to just happy, clappy
13:09
emotions. The Psalms Plumb the depths of
13:11
theology in the full range of human emotion.
13:14
Lament, anger, joy, fear, confusion.
13:17
Our new song should do the same. We need songs that teach
13:20
doctrine. We need songs that handle real
13:22
suffering. No, here's a tough one.
13:24
The theology of the songwriter. We live in an era where we know
13:27
everything about everyone. What do we do when a song is
13:30
theologically sound? The lyrics are actually good,
13:33
but the person or the church that wrote it teaches heresy.
13:37
This is the difficult question and the source presents 2
13:39
approaches. 1 is to evaluate only the lyrics.
13:42
If the words are true, it doesn't matter who wrote them.
13:44
Truth is truth. If a donkey can speak truth to
13:47
Balaam, a heretic can write a true line.
13:49
But the text recommends a different stance.
13:51
It does. It recommends rejecting
13:54
unfaithful songs and this is key warning the flock.
13:58
The argument is that you cannot fully separate the art from the
14:01
artist in this context. Using songs from heterodoc
14:04
sources can communicate tacit approval of that ministry.
14:07
It's an endorsement. If we sing their songs, we are
14:10
telling our people these guys are OK.
14:14
Correct. And there is a very practical
14:16
modern reason for this too. Money.
14:18
Follow the money. Financial reality of the music
14:21
industry. We live in the streaming age.
14:23
Every time you play that song on Spotify, every time you report
14:26
it on your CCLI license for Sunday morning, money flows
14:29
directly to that artist or that church.
14:31
So if that artist or church is spreading false doctrine, say a
14:35
prosperity gospel that is hurting people in the developing
14:38
world, then by playing their music we are financially funding
14:42
the spread of that error. That is a sobering thought.
14:45
We are literally funding the friendly fire.
14:47
We are buying the bullets that are being used to wound the
14:50
church elsewhere. That hits hard, yeah.
14:51
It stops being just a preference about a melody and starts being
14:54
a question of stewardship. It is, and the responsibility
14:57
falls heavily on missionaries. The text argues that
15:00
missionaries shouldn't just import the popular Western hits,
15:03
especially the questionable ones.
15:05
They should cultivate local, faithful songwriting.
15:09
Fighting with a text calls the universal asset of theological
15:12
liberalism. Precisely.
15:14
If we just export our theological confusion to the
15:17
mission field, we are doing them a terrible disservice.
15:20
We need to help them grow their own roots, writing songs in
15:23
their own language about baptism, creation, election
15:26
doctrines that often get skipped in the Top 40 Christian hits
15:30
because they aren't radio friendly Speaking of.
15:32
Editing and fixing things. Let's talk about the ethical
15:35
minds of copyright, because I think a lot of pastors and
15:38
worship leaders have done this with the best intentions.
15:40
They see a song, they like the tune, but there is one line that
15:44
bugs them, so they just change it.
15:45
They project the fixed lyrics on the screen.
15:47
And legally, that is a problem. Lyrics are intellectual
15:50
property. You cannot just change them
15:52
without permission. It's a violation of copyright
15:54
law. But beyond the legalities, there
15:56
are serious theological implications.
15:58
The text gives a a famous example regarding the song in
16:01
Christ alone. This is a modern classic, yes.
16:05
This is a classic case study. An American hymnal committee
16:08
wanted to include the song, which is written by Keith Getty
16:11
and Stewart Town End. But the committee had an issue
16:13
with one specific line. Till on that cross, as Jesus
16:18
died, the wrath of God was satisfied.
16:21
That is a crucial line. It speaks to penal
16:23
substitutionary atonement, the idea that Jesus took the
16:27
punishment we deserved. It does.
16:28
The committee wanted to change it to the love of God was
16:32
magnified. Now, on the surface, that sounds
16:34
nice. God's love was magnified on the
16:36
cross. Nobody denies that.
16:38
True, but by removing the satisfaction of wrath, you are
16:41
removing the doctrine of propitiation.
16:44
You are changing the mechanism of how we are saved.
16:46
You are softening the cross. You're saying God showed us love
16:49
rather than God saved us from judgement?
16:51
And the author said no. The copyright holders refused.
16:54
They said no, that line is the point of the song, and so the
16:57
song was excluded from that hymnal.
16:59
That was an act of integrity on the part of the authors.
17:01
They cared more about the theology than the royalty
17:03
checks. There was another example that
17:05
kind of backfired in the other direction, right with the old
17:08
hymn. And can it be?
17:09
This is a fascinating one because it shows how trying to
17:11
be more theological can actually make you heretical if you aren't
17:14
careful. A denomination wanted to support
17:17
the doctrine of limited atonement, the idea that Christ
17:20
died specifically for the elect. Which is a standard Reformed
17:24
doctrine. It is the original line by
17:26
Charles Wesley is bled for Adam's helpless race.
17:31
Wesley was an Armenian, so he believed Christ died for
17:33
everyone. The denomination tried to change
17:36
it to Bled for all his chosen race.
17:38
Trying to make it more reformed. Trying to but look at the result
17:42
first. It is lyrically awkward chosen
17:45
race, but theologically saying blood for all his chosen race
17:49
creates a mess. How so?
17:51
Well, usually race implies the human race.
17:53
So if you say all his chosen race, you could be implying that
17:56
the entire human race is chosen. You accidentally stumble into
17:59
universalism that everyone is saved.
18:01
Or you imply that there is a specific ethnic race that is
18:04
chosen, which is even worse. So in trying to fix it, they
18:07
broke it. They created total confusion.
18:10
The take away here is that editing is an ethical minefield.
18:13
Instead of trying to patch up songs that don't fit your
18:15
theology, the better path is to compose new, faithful songs that
18:20
say exactly what scripture says. Don't put new wine into old
18:23
wineskins. It seems like we are circling
18:26
back to this idea of authenticity versus
18:28
manipulation, and that leads US directly into the section on
18:32
emotional manipulation. The source material analyzes the
18:35
praise and worship formula that is so prevalent today, and I
18:39
mean it is everywhere. And it describes it almost like
18:41
a science. The source breaks down the
18:43
mechanics. You have a sequence, 20 to 40
18:45
minutes of continuous music. It starts with the praise
18:48
section. Upbeat major keys, lively
18:50
rhythms get the blood pumping. Then it transitions to the
18:53
worship section. Slower tempos, minor keys,
18:57
intimate lyrics. I think almost everyone
18:59
listening has been in a service like that.
19:00
It feels very standard. But why is it called
19:02
manipulation? It is the Physiology of it, the
19:05
text points out, that there are planned shifts in volume and
19:08
tempo designed to create psychological surprise.
19:11
A sudden drop in volume, a swell of the symbol.
19:15
This triggers a physical reaction, Chills, goosebumps, a
19:19
release of dopamine. I have felt that you're in a
19:21
concert, the music swells, the lights change, you get that
19:24
tingle down your spine and you often think, wow, the spirit is
19:27
really moving. That is the danger.
19:29
We mistake biological reactions for the presence of the Holy
19:32
Spirit. If I get chills at a secular
19:34
concert, say seeing Coldplay or Taylor Swift, because the music
19:38
swelled at the right moment, that's just biology.
19:40
That's my nervous system responding to acoustic stimuli.
19:43
If I get the same chills in church and assume that means God
19:46
is affirming me, I'm thoroughly confused.
19:48
The text uses strong language. Here it talks about stagecraft,
19:51
lighting, fog machines, temperature control.
19:54
It calls it an incantation. That is a heavy word that sounds
19:57
like witchcraft. An incantation to conjure the
20:00
Spirit. It suggests a paganization of
20:03
music. We are acting like prophets of
20:05
bell, trying to use techniques, loud noises, emotional stirring
20:10
to force a spiritual event. We are trying to twist God's arm
20:14
to show up. And the tragedy is what what
20:15
happens when the music stops? The experience ends.
20:19
If the emotional high was the main event, then the preaching
20:21
of the word feels like a let down.
20:23
It is sidelined. OK, the fun part is over, now we
20:26
have to listen to a lecture. The text warns missionaries
20:29
specifically do not copy the western mega church model.
20:33
It is stage crafted stimulation, not personal worship.
20:36
It's friendly fire. Again, we are wounding people by
20:39
teaching them to rely on an emotional high rather than the
20:42
truth of God's Word. When the tragedy hits on Monday
20:44
morning, the fog machine isn't there.
20:46
The lighting isn't there. If all you have is a feeling,
20:48
you have nothing. You have starved their souls
20:50
while tickling their senses. However, we don't want to throw
20:53
the baby out with the bathwater. We aren't saying art is bad.
20:56
We aren't saying music should be boring or poorly played.
20:59
In fact, the next section argues for an offensive strategy.
21:02
We need excellent art in evangelism.
21:05
This section shifts to Paul T Plues insights.
21:07
He starts with Psalm 19. The heavens declare the glory of
21:11
God. God is the original artist He
21:14
created. Color, sound, texture.
21:16
And he demands excellence. Look at Bisalo and Oholiab in
21:20
Exodus 31. This is a great text.
21:22
God filled them with the Spirit. For what purpose?
21:24
To preach to prophecy? No.
21:27
To create art, To work in gold, silver and wood for the
21:30
Tabernacle. They were empowered to create
21:33
excellent beauty. So mediocrity is not a spiritual
21:36
virtue. Being bad at music doesn't make
21:38
you more holy. Mediocrity is a lie about God.
21:41
We do not serve a mediocre God. If our music is sloppy, if our
21:44
art is lazy, we are misrepresenting the one we
21:46
serve. We are telling the world our God
21:48
isn't worth the effort. And practically, music acts as a
21:51
bridge. It crosses borders.
21:53
The text mentions missionaries in Italy and Madrid joining
21:56
community choirs. These aren't necessarily
21:58
Christian choirs, but by being excellent musicians, they built
22:01
relationships. They earned a hearing.
22:03
It opens the door. It does.
22:05
You can host concerts with familiar local songs or national
22:08
anthems to draw a crowd. You meet people on the ground of
22:12
common grace, the appreciation of beauty, and then you share
22:15
the gospel. You earn the right to speak by
22:17
showing you value. What they value Beauty.
22:20
That brings us to a specific real world example.
22:23
I love this story about ministry in France.
22:26
Philippe Viguer. It perfectly encapsulates
22:29
everything we've been talking about excellence, theology and
22:32
strategy. This is a great case study
22:34
because France is a tough field. It is arguably the most secular
22:37
country in Europe. It is very private.
22:39
You don't just walk up to people and talk about Jesus easily.
22:42
Religion is seen as a private, almost taboo subject.
22:45
And then COVID hit. The lockdowns.
22:47
The church was forced online. Viggier, a pastor started
22:50
recording family worship with his children.
22:52
Just a dad and his kids singing. Which sounds very humble, very
22:55
small. It was, but it resonated.
22:58
It felt authentic in a time of fear and isolation.
23:01
It grew into a YouTube channel and eventually they decided to
23:04
produce a professionally produced album, but noticed the
23:07
goal. He wanted an album parents would
23:10
enjoy as much as the kids. He referenced Fanny Crosby's
23:13
Blessed Assurance, which actually started as a children's
23:16
hymn. He wanted that level of timeless
23:19
quality and. The content wasn't fluff.
23:20
No, they addressed real questions.
23:23
Papa, what is a soul? There was a song about bullying
23:27
based on Isaiah 41.13. These were songs that touched
23:30
real life but gave biblical answers.
23:32
But here's the strategic insight that I think is brilliant.
23:35
They didn't just leave it on Spotify.
23:36
Physical versus digital. VGA realized that streaming is
23:39
impersonal and fleeting. You listen, you forget, you
23:42
swipe to the next thing. He produced physical C DS with
23:45
QR codes. ACD in the twenty 20s.
23:48
Why? Because a CD is an object.
23:50
It sits on a coffee table. It stays in the home.
23:53
It's a gift you can hand to someone.
23:54
And it worked. It entered homes where the
23:56
gospel couldn't. There is this beautiful story of
23:59
an unchurched girl who listened to the album.
24:02
She memorized the songs, she eventually made a profession of
24:05
faith, and now she sits in the front row of the church singing
24:08
her heart out. That is the practical
24:10
application of friendly fire turned into holy fire.
24:14
Instead of wounding the Church with bad theology, they
24:17
penetrated the secular world with a good theology wrapped in
24:19
excellent art. Music allowed a degree of gospel
24:22
work in days that usually takes years.
24:25
It bypassed the intellectual defenses and went straight to
24:27
the heart, but it carried the truth with it.
24:30
It is evidence of the weight of the new song when it is done
24:33
right. So what does does this all mean
24:35
for us? We've covered a lot of ground
24:37
today, from the 16th century reformers to modern day France,
24:41
from the grammar of James to the copyright laws of the US.
24:44
We have. I think the synthesis is clear.
24:46
We are in a battle. Mishus is warfare.
24:49
Worship is warfare. We must avoid the friendly fire
24:51
of manipulative, heretical or lazy worship.
24:54
We have to be discerning. We have to be brave enough to
24:57
say no to popular songs that teach error.
24:59
But at the same time, we must embrace the robust nature of
25:03
excellent, biblically grounded art.
25:06
Precisely, it goes back to John 4.23 and 24.
25:10
In spirit and in truth. Trinitarian worship rooted in
25:14
the Word, not one or the other, Both head and heart, passion and
25:18
precision. As we close, I want to leave
25:20
you, the listener, with a thought.
25:22
We often worry about what books we are reading or what sermons
25:25
we are listening to. But consider this if your
25:28
theology creates your music, but your music also shapes your
25:32
theology, what doctrines are being written into your heart or
25:34
your children's hearts by the playlist you have on repeat
25:36
right now? That is the big question.
25:38
Are those songs shaping you into a reformer grounded in the
25:42
sufficiency of scripture, or are they shaping you into a consumer
25:45
chasing the next emotional high? Something to think about next
25:48
time you press play. Thanks for joining us on this
25:50
deep dive into reformed thinking.
25:51
It has been a pleasure. See you next time.