Pastor Bakss writes, “We simply must get to the point when we can talk about these issues in a calm way without assigning malicious motives to those with whom we do not agree.[1]
It is in this spirit that I write this critique. I agree with 80% of this book. It’s the other 20% that spoils most of any benefit for the conservative Bible-believer. The smallest leak can empty the largest reservoir.
In my critique, I do not assume to be anything other than a fellow servant of Christ, leaning in to be more like Him every day.
The Good
Tone
I appreciated Pastor Bakss’ tone throughout most of the book. His desire to be biblical is obvious in the sections dealing with worship in the Old Testament. His attempts to be practical are perhaps his strongest points, no doubt influenced by decades of pastoring. Frankly, I’m tired of condescending books or other media that just make fun of conservative viewpoints without really dealing with the root arguments. This is not one of those books.
Directness
He wastes no time immediately zeroing in on the key issues that define the debate and constantly circles back to his assertions on those points. I happen to disagree with many of his assertions, but wasn’t any doubt as to what he was saying. At least we are talking about the real issues. A few examples:
“Music styles are basically blank slates on which we impose our creative ideas of all kinds — good, neutral, and bad. No style is right or wrong per se. . . .”[2]
“The Bible is silent on the style of music God likes. The Bible doesn’t have an official soundtrack.”[3]
“Music is important to God and He mentions it over 500 times in the Bible. However, no notes or styles are mentioned in the Bible, which indicates God has no musical preference.”[4]
Examples of Alert Exegesis
People on all sides of issues of application like music have a tendency to fall short of accurate exegesis of Scripture. Those who are more conservative are tempted to make the Bible say more than it does, while those who are more liberal can easily succumb to making the Bible say less than it does.
He makes an excellent point about the common confusing of the words “body” and “flesh.” He goes to great lengths to show that it was a Gnostic teaching that the physical body was evil, and so led to heresy concerning Christ coming in the flesh. I appreciated this accurate exegesis, even though it damaged several conservative arguments many hold. More on that later.
Surprising Point of Agreement?
I mostly agreed with him that music itself, without words, does not carry morality in and of itself. This does represent a more recent understanding for me, (compared to my early ministry in the 90’s and 2000’s) and something I’ve been considering for the better part of a decade.
I do teach that music carries emotional influence which, when coupled with words, creates morality. I’ve made small adjustments to my terminology as I’ve taught and written on the topic over recent years to better reflect my thinking.[5] However, I do have to add that a good portion conservatives I’m around actually mean this when they speak of morality of music. They’ve just hung on to the terminology.
It Caused Me to Think
One other good point to mention is that reading this book has caused me to seriously examine my own music theology. Above all things, I want to be biblical. Our allegiance should be to Christ and His Word, not tradition for tradition’s sake. In a healthy way, I was forced to consider what I believe to be biblically defensible and experientially defensible. For that I am grateful.
The Bad
Fundamental misunderstanding of “spirit” and “truth”
The first major problem I have with the book is his handling of this well-known passage where Christ gives the Samaritan woman the keys to true worship. Bakss tries to draw a tension between the how we worship and the Who. This is the source of the worship wars.
“Because many ignore the main issue and focus on how we worship, it causes us to lose sight of Who we worship, which in turn creates the worship wars.”[6]
… as though spirit means mood, atmosphere, or feelings.
He says that when Jesus spoke of worshiping in spirit, He was speaking of the subjective side of worship[7]. Later, he says that spirit means we “dare not neglect the emotions (spirit) [emphasis mine][8]. Throughout the two or three pages he repeats this use of the term spirit to mean emotions, mood, atmosphere, etc., as opposed to the Truth, which is objective. He states:
“The important thing is that we keep the right balance [between spirit and truth].[9]
Bakss falls into a common error regarding the meaning of this passage. Jesus is not referring to “emotions” or a feeling when He speaks of worshiping in the spirit. He is contrasting the Samaritan woman’s dependency upon a physical location of worship. We worship in spirit, meaning we do not need confirmation from our physical 5 senses that worship is taking place.
Paul repeatedly tells us this in more detail. Philippians 3:3 tells us that we worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh. Like Bakss points out in other places, just because the word “flesh” is used doesn’t mean it means sinful part of us. Here it just means our physical body. That understanding strengthens the contrast. Paul is informing us that we do not need our emotions to validate that we are having a true worship experience!
This flies in the face of what Bakss tries to make the passage say. We need emotions AND truth, in a right balance, seems to be his thought. That sounds nice, but it isn’t at all what Jesus was saying to the Samaritan woman. I wish he would have been as exegetically alert here as he is when it suits his point.
. . . as though they are two extremes to be balanced.
Is it a balance between spirit and truth that we need anyway? No, it is 100% of both. Much like God’s holiness and love, it is not a “balance” between the two that is biblical. It is a full and accurate understanding of what both terms actually mean. I was disappointed in this common but erroneous treatment of this passage on worship.
Strange View of “Spirit-led” music
Bakss took time to redefine what psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs mean. I didn’t disagree with his more refined treatment of psalms and hymns, and I almost skipped over his thoughts on spiritual songs.
“Spiritual songs are songs sung to the Lord or about the Lord and often contain words of testimony. . . . Another thought on this type of song is that this may refer to a Spirit-led song. I am not suggesting this is in the same category as inspired Scripture, but rather that God may lead a person to compose a song. Paul makes mention of singing with the spirit (I Cor 14:15). The context of this passage deals with spiritual gifts indicating that to “sing with the spirit” is a Spirit-led song [emphasis mine].”[10]
Whoa! what is this independent Baptist talking about? Is he talking about prophetic songs, a la Sovereign Grace’s Bob Kauflin, a continuationist? Is he referring to songs somehow partially inspired by God, just not on the same level as Scripture? I don’t want to assign beliefs to Bakss that he does not hold, and in a different chapter he insists in a footnote that he is a cessationist on the topic of spiritual gifts. But I find this statement unclear at best and suspicious at worst. I wish he would explain why he favorably quotes Pentecostal worship leader Darlene Zschech,[11] Pentecostal author Amanda Ferguson published by Hillsong Church,[12] and Rick Warren. He considers them worthy of note but discounts others who actually share his theological positions but are more conservative on music.
Steve Miller, Revisited
I felt like I had read portions of this book before. As it turns out, significant portions were based nearly verbatim from Steve Miller’s 1993 book, “The Contemporary Christian Music Debate.” Some are footnoted, some are not[13]. Clearly Bakss’ thought process was influenced heavily by Steve Miller’s writing. As such, he repeats some of Miller’s errors, such as:
- Criticizing conservatives for relying on anecdotal evidence, then turning around and doing the same. The entire Chapter 23 consists of testimonies lauding Bakss’ viewpoint. I could present similar testimonies of people running to conservative churches, starving for a place that resists the pro-Christian pop movement. If he wants people like me to avoid anecdotal evidence, then he should as well.
- By implication, demanding the Scripture must actually name musical styles in order to know if any styles are inappropriate or wrong. No conservative I know claims the Bible mentions styles by name, even those who are far more conservative than me. No thinking Christian expects the Bible to name specific styles that weren’t even in existence!
- Paraphrasing the Bible to fit his predetermined interpretation, something he strongly accuses conservative Christian musicians of doing.
- Example: “Based on Paul’s advice to the Corinthians (I Cor. 9:19-23), he might have responded, Give me your target group and your intended function and we will decide.[14]” Would Bakss accept my paraphrasing with no exegesis?
He tries to draw some lines based on his own preferences. He doesn’t think rap, heavy metal, and other such styles should be used in a congregational setting (for now!). This illusion of drawing lines is already proving to be enough to cause some pastors to think, “See? He does draw lines. We can trust this book.” I call it an illusion because it is based on sand. If everything is relative, how can we truly draw any lines at all beyond personal preferences? Frankly, I’m not interested in his personal preferences. The bulk of the book takes the time to relegate everyone’s positions on music to personal preference anyway.
The sword cuts both ways.
Very early on, he tells us that it was misunderstanding, ignorance, and pride that kept him conservative on worship music. I greatly appreciate his candor in admitting this. These are things that easily beset any of us. May we grieve and confess our pride as God reveals it to us.
I must also point out, however, that this has the effect of painting anyone who is conservative on music as ignorant, proud, and simply misunderstanding of the issue. Wouldn’t it be fair to point out that there are some who refuse to consider a conservative viewpoint out of misunderstanding, ignorance, or pride? The sword can cut both ways.
Another example is found in this statement:
“I have learned the only way to seek to resolve the tensions, traumas and tragedies resulting from the worship wars is not by relying on and accepting the passing whims of psychology or the dogmatic assertions of the musically elite…”[15]
Isn’t that a statement that assumes a lot? I could just as easily flip it the other way: “We should learn the only way to seek to resolve the tensions resulting from the worship wars is not by relying on and accepting the passing whims of the lastest Christian pop best-seller or the mocking statements of mega-church worship leaders.”
There are numerous small statements with which I take issue[16], and other “assumptions[17]” that seem to undergird his writing with which I disagree.
“The amount of time we spend focusing on worship music styles is a strong indicator that many have little understanding of the heart of worship.”[18]
Really? Is this true? We spend a lot of time on worship styles because we’re ignorant? Or could it be that our hearts’ desire is to honor God with the best possible sacrifices of praise? Numerous examples of this type of assumption are throughout the book.
I disagree with his starting point of worship description.
“All you have to do is drop in on a rock concert or go to a sporting event at a nearby stadium to see amazing worship. People are “going for it”: lifting their hands, shouting like crazy, staking their claim, standing in awe, declaring their allegiance. Interestingly, these venues are filled with the same forms of worship mentioned in the pages of God’s Word the same expressions of worship that God desires and deserves.
“The worship was phenomenal, demonstrating the God-given capacity for adoration that is rooted in the soul of every person. This clip was an amazing picture of worship. All elements of worship were present – singing, lifting up of hands, clapping, shouting, bowing down, crying and standing in awe. These are all the expressions of worship we are called to give to the Living God.”[19]
Pastor Bakss is in the midst of describing a Michael Jackson concert. I understand his point is to show us that worship is much more all-encompassing that we think it is. It is important to note that the only qualification he gives is that this worship is directed to the wrong subject (MJ) and not to God. We should strongly disagree with this.
He makes no mention of the lewdness, uncleanness, and other sinful behavior that goes along with worshiping a rock star. He makes no mention of the sexual dancing and other movements that Jackson, his backup dancers, and virtually every other major rock star uses to manipulate the crowds. Beginning with Elvis “the Pelvis,” sexual movements have gone hand-in-hand with rock music and their crowds. Simply replacing the object of worship with God
The character and nature of the person being worshipped has a tremendous bearing on the manner in which the worshipers act!
I watched the video clip he talks about. It was actually quite tame compared to what happened at many Michael Jackson concerts. HOW did the prophets of Baal worship? They certainly gave their all. Their all included cutting themselves while working themselves into a frenzy. Is that how the God of heaven desires to be worshipped? Of course not.
We do NOT agree on the interpretation of worship. He has assumed that what happens in rock concerts are GOOD EXAMPLES OF WORSHIP, just ascribed to the wrong god. What I must point out is that the “god” being worshipped will influence the “HOW” of being worshipped. Whereas Brother Bakss is putting the emphasis on “taking the focus off of …our preferences” and is trying to direct us to be “united” we MUST understand much more about what he believes is appropriate in worship.
The Painful
Creationist Ken Ham’s ministry has identified “Arguments Christians Shouldn’t Use” in defending the biblical account of creation. “Some arguments are wrong, even if what they are arguing for is ultimately right.”[20] The reason we shouldn’t use those arguments is that when an evolutionist defeats a bad argument, it appears as though they are in the right!
Over the years in my travels in independent Baptist churches, I’ve compiled a list of poor arguments for a conservative position on music. This list includes the following:
- Syncopation is evil.
- The rock beat makes you weaker because it goes against your heartbeat.
- Rhythm is evil.
- The beat comes from Africa.
- Any movement of the body is sexual.
- The physical body is inherently sinful.
- Rock music kills plants.
- We should only listen to CHRISTIAN music.
- Music makes you do something/sin/hate your mother.
While some people think I’ve made these arguments because other conservatives have, I’ve worked very hard not to. I’ve even gone to lengths to illustrate syncopation is not evil by utilizing the same demonstration Bakss mentions in his book (The Hallelujah Chorus)!
So then what is so “PAINFUL” about the book?
It is painful to read Bakss systematically dismantle bad arguments that are traditionally used by conservatives. His dealing with the author of the website www.av1611.com (I have no idea who that is; I’ll look it up after I write the review) throughout the book completely lays bare the poor argumentation used. He effectively neuters the “demon-beat theory” used by Bill Gothard (just like Steve Miller did in 1993). He points out flaws in David Cloud’s (Way of Life) logic, and pursues him for elevating of his preferences higher than they should be (among a host of other topics).
Particularly painful was his focus on the book co-authored by Frank Garlock and Kurt Woetzel, Music in the Balance. While I’ve never met Kurt Woetzel, I am extremely close with the Garlocks and Hamiltons. Dr. Frank Garlock is one of the most brilliant men I’ve ever known. But what is even more impacting is that he is one of the most godly men I’ve ever known, with a heart for God, the Word, and the mission field. He is sacrificial, and the true definition of a servant.
He’s also been one of the most vilified by pro-Christian pop adherents for decades because he was the lone opponent of Christian rock music in the 1960’s with arguments that were based more on Scripture than culture shock.
Bakss’ assails Garlock after pausing for a moment to laud his character and mental acuity. He claims that Garlock’s template that the melody appeals to the spirit, the harmony to the soul, and the rhythm to the body is unbiblical and is metaphysical in nature. Because it is nowhere found in Scripture, it is to be discarded with extreme prejudice.
He immediately must acknowledge, however, that Scripture does seem to indicate that melody is prescribed. It would seem to me to follow (logically, not explicitly, I grant) that rhythm appeals to the body. Isn’t that kind of obvious? All that’s left is the harmony. I guess I don’t see that as much of a stretch.
Other places, however, Bakss’ assessment hits harder. This is particularly true in his attacking of John Diamond’s place in the Garlock/Woetzel book. I believe I know why conservatives began using psychological and scientific arguments; it was a reaction to more liberal Christians demanding psychological and scientific evidence back in the 70’s and 80’s! People wouldn’t trust a simple application of Scripture.
The inclusion of behavioral kinesiology and other similar approaches should have been abandoned long ago.
The one argument he never addresses?
If music style has emotional influence, and becomes a moral entity once words are added, how do we draw lines as to what is moral and what is immoral? He tries to skirt around this several times by saying that we shouldn’t be allowing sensuality into our worship music. But if styles don’t say something consistent who is to say that it is sensual?
Conclusion
This book has a lot of Bible references. This book has a lot of good thoughts. This book is written by a man with a pastor’s heart and years of faithful service to the Lord.
But I’m saddened because I believe this book will open up the floodgates for overreaction.
One church after I had finished a message on music, the pastor got up and editorialized on what I had said. He took a much more extreme position than I did, but he made it seem like I had preached all kinds of things I had not said! What could I do? I left feeling sad, misrepresented, and a little frustrated.
Those are the same emotions I experienced after completing this book. Bakss does destroy some arguments that should not be made. And he does a thorough job.
Here is the cold, hard truth: this book has the potential to be a “death blow” to conservative music philosophy as taught in most independent Baptist churches and schools. I feel this way because most teaching on this topic utilizes bad arguments.
Bad arguments do not survive this book. Bakss sweeps them all away. The time has come to drop any of the side issues (molehills), bad arguments (misrepresentations).
[1] Kindle location 219.
[2] page 59.
[3] page 47.
[4] page 38.
[5] This is best represented by my approach to musical style as attitude. Attitude affects the overall communication of what one is saying. I’ve avoided saying a particular style is moral or immoral of itself as I think it isn’t precisely accurate.
[6] page 19.
[7] page 21.
[8] page 22.
[9] page 22.
[10] page 30.
[11] page 42.
[12] page 40.
[13] such as page 100-101.
[14] page 147.
[15] Kindle Location 204.
[16] His inclusion of a chart (pages 111-113) of the largest churches in America in 1969 and how they either transitioned to more contemporary style of worship or faded makes me uncomfortable. Perhaps because it smacks of using numbers to authenticate, a la Rick Warren?
[17] such as the idea that Paul used a secular poet of his time so that justifies our use of whatever style we choose
[18] Kindle Location 263.
[19] Kindle locations 305-307.
[20] https://answersingenesis.org/creationism/arguments-to-avoid/arguments-christians-shouldnt-use/, accessed 12/30/2015.