A Response to Dr. Frank Garlock's Teaching About Praise
- Question: What is the appropriate response to a man who has declared himself judge over the praises of God's people?
- Question: What shall we say when he demands that our praises be silenced...and replaced with his own preferences?
The following piece was originally written at the request of our elders. They were grappling with a divisive video tape being passed around our congregation, but I was impressed by their integrity and their commitment to Scripture. Over the decades, I've come to a sober observation: when the topic turns to music, Evangelicals have historically been willing to overlook great injustices to God's Word and to God's people. I'm glad that in recent years the Church is facing the issue with an open Bible and an open heart; the results are delightful, though those results upset people like Frank Garlock. Read on...
Review and Response to "Pop Goes the Music: God's Principles of Music"
Teaching Video by Frank Garlock
110 Minutes, 2002 Majesty Music, Inc.
Phil Christensen, September 2002
Frank Garlock calls himself a Little David, squaring off with a "Goliath on Steroids." His Goliath? It's a western evangelical Church declaring God's praises to the sound of music style Garlock holds in contempt. Even after 35 years, they will not agree with him. He's now thrown down the gauntlet; we're either in or we're out. He's offering his opinions NOT for us to prayerfully explore as Bereans, but as the final word. The time for negotiating is over. This is Frank's war.
- "There are two kinds of music: music that honors God and music that honors the world. The music that honors the world is called pop music...God has a preference in music." - Frank Garlock
- "Why should the devil have all the good music?" - Martin Luther
- "Refuse foolish and ignorant speculations, knowing that they produce quarrels." - Saint Paul
I viewed "Pop Goes the Music" with interest but found nothing new. People like David Noebel, Bill Gothard, Bob Larson and Frank Garlock himself were riding the "evil beat" hobbyhorse in the mid 1960's. ("Christian rock music," to quote Gothard, "is fellowship with demons.") We've now had decades to debate and study these things; Evangelicals have weighed and dismissed such bizarre thinking long ago.
A trek across the internet, though, will tell us much: those who preach against the "evil beat" tend to be militant about other areas where God's Word is silent. It's also interesting that their denunciation of new songs is not unique to this generation; the spiritual ancestors of these people once declared the waltz a "vulgar and crude" version of the minuet. A few generations before, they accused three-four time signatures of mocking the Trinity, and found major seventh chords too sensual for use in church music. They called the pipe organ "the devil's little box of pipes."
This branch of Christianity may not be very lovable, but they are consistent.
THE BEAT GOES ON - REMEMBERING THE JESUS MOVEMENT
It's important to remember that this is not a new discussion. Some 30 years ago, the very "music experts" we're considering today fueled bitter divisions in Christian homes and churches. The hot topics back then were Gospel recordings like Love Song and Daniel Amos.
It's important to review what was at stake. The turbulent culture around us in the 1960's caused many young people to explore the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but they needed us to "speak their language." The cultural American Christianity of the 1950's was unattractive to them. Most of our churches simply couldn't adapt to the changes needed to be effective in a strange post-Eisenhower world. (By changes, I'm not suggesting that the fundamentals of the Faith were - or are - negotiable. I'm referring to the stiff, cold, self-conscious, tradition-bound church atmosphere of those days.)
In retrospect, our failure is forgivable, but like David seeking to cover his sin with Bathsheba, we did something truly wicked: We began to view our disinterest in reaching the next generation as a virtue. We called it being separate from the world and standing our ground. We said we were defending the holiness of God. We were protecting our children, and refusing to water down the Gospel. Truth told, we were just concocting religious-sounding excuses to support our cowardice, laziness and spiritual numbness.
Such thinking, I believe, was a major reason the Jesus Movement Revival of the 1970's bypassed most of our churches. With thankful exceptions, local churches largely ignored the amazing open door God had placed before us; we instead dismissed these new converts as "too worldly."
Why? The new Christians looked, sounded and even smelled like the mysterious "world" against which our churches were "standing firm." Heartrending stories abound of how we rejected those young people, and the scars remain today. The anecdotes are always similar: a young seeker or new believer attends a church, but encounters coolness or open hostility.
It served to prove something fascinating: God can effectively run an entire revival without much help from His local churches. People were being saved in huge numbers, but much of this was happening outside traditional churches. The Jesus Movement's "Diaspora" - dispersed ones - found their homes among para-church groups. Campus Crusade, Navigators, YWAM and many smaller, independent groups discipled an entire spiritual generation into passionate, Biblically literate Christian leaders.
Young musicians (who were particularly out of place in local churches) were among the Diaspora, and parachurch organizations - YWAM in particular - soon found themselves redefining worship music. Within a decade, an official school for worship was operating in Kona, Hawaii. In the late 1970's, Christ for the Nations worship recordings provided exposure for dozens of now-highly-regarded worship leaders; their models spilled over into Hosanna Integrity, which began as a devotional newsletter.
Chuck Smith's original Calvary Chapel in Costa Mesa, California was virtually Ground Zero for the Jesus Movement. The Maranatha Praise Albums were born of this ministry in 1972, and the Vineyard Music Group emerged (painfully) from this group a decade later.
As the dust of the Jesus Movement settled, it was obvious that God had done something astounding: He had saved, equipped and released teachers and worship leaders for the purpose of reforming His church. These were men and women with deep purpose, a vision to see the Church emerge from the abysmal incompetence that had caused her to actually miss an entire revival.
Jesus Movement historians point out that remarkable numbers of these are currently in leadership in churches across America. (Had God not intervened, it's interesting to ask what kind of leaders the lax, ingrown evangelical churches of the 1960's might have produced on their own.)
It should be noted that Bob Larson changed his position about pop music styles during this time, and became a voice of reason; others continued providing hay and water for the same old hobbyhorse that helped produce the mess we've just pondered.
Is there less at stake today? I believe there is more. With that in mind, we turn to Frank Garlock's video.
DEFINING THE ISSUES
Garlock, with silver hair and reasoned tone, draws on skills probably honed during his professorship at Bob Jones University. One is tempted to shout "amen!" as he declares his allegiance to the absolute authority of God's Word and the holiness of God...
...but while we're yet nodding in agreement, our adrenaline still pumping, Garlock quickly adds the importance of choosing right music styles. The shift - amazingly - seems to pass unnoticed, and the crowd continues to nod. With the Bible silent on the subject of music styles, Garlock begins a strange exegesis of Paul's "unclear trumpet" passage in 1 Cor. 14, attempting to explain why music itself is good or bad by its very nature.
Remember: he's talking about music, not words. He's teaching that the sound itself does more than carry just the message; it IS the message. If you enjoy the sound you're hearing, you've probably accepted an evil message. Why? Because you - along with millions of other Christians - have been deceived and corrupted by "worldly music."
THAT GUITAR ARRANGEMENT IS HERE TO HURT ME?
Garlock puts all his theological eggs in one basket. It's a premise that would make Francis Schaeffer not just turn over in his grave, but spin: Garlock teaches plainly that music is moral, not amoral.
What's the difference? A knife is amoral; it's neither good, nor bad. Depending on who is holding it, a knife can accomplish good by freeing the bonds of a captive; it can also do evil by murdering the innocent. It's a tool.
But in Garlock's world, music isn't just a tool; music is an entity that is good or bad of itself. It is moral or immoral by its very nature, and cannot be neutral. The sound itself is here to either help you or to hurt you. There's no middle ground.
He attempts to support this truth by associating it with the character of God Himself. Garlock reasons that since (a) God is musical, and (b) God is moral, therefore (c) music is moral by nature. That's Frank's Theorum.
(Note: for fun, try Frank's Theorum with any other two random attributes of God, and see how it works. Here's one to get you started: (a) God is kind, and (b) God is unchangeable. Therefore (c) kindness is unchangeable. Kids, you can try Frank's Theorum at home: Rice is white, and Ralph is white. Therefore, Ralph must be rice. Ask for help from your parents before you put Ralph in the rice cooker. But I digress.)
Frank's Theorum gives birth to Frank's Bottom Line: There are only two styles of music: (a) the style which is is moral and "acceptable to the Lord" and (b) the style which is immoral and "unacceptable to the Lord." It's a simple binary system. His personal mission statement is found in Eph. 5:10: "Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord." For those Christians who don't agree with what he's proven, he's clearly adopted the next verse in context: "And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them."
So the battle's on; we'll either accept what Garlock's "proven" or be "reproved." There's no middle ground, since his definition of unacceptable music is any style that smacks of "worldliness."
To avoid being reproved, we'll have to 1) agree with his premise about the morality of music, 2) accept his definition of "worldliness," and finally we'll 3) penitently adopt the styles of music he authorizes.
Agreeing with any of these three is a pretty tall order. If such narrow ideas were directed at areas of Christianity other than music, they would be considered absolutely cultic (Col. 2:23).
SHINE, JESUS, SHINE: WORLDLY AND BLASPHEMOUS
It's easy to get lost here, but hold on. It's important to keep in mind that we're not talking about non-christian pop music. (Secular radio fare isn't the subject of our discussion; Garlock simply dismisses this, en masse, as "musical pornography.") No, the troubling music of which Garlock speaks has lyrics that declare God's glory, but is accompanied by something he calls "worldly" music.
How can this be? In his view, lyrics - the message of a song - are rendered unholy if the music itself is "worldly."
Please don't rush over this; ponder Garlock's premise carefully: He teaches that entity of music, more powerful than even the Word of God, cancels out the message and then corrupts it.
In Garlock's theology, Scripture routinely returns to God void because people have accompanied it with worldly musical sounds. The grass withers, the flower fades, but the Word of God lasts...until I sing it while strumming my guitar in a "worldly" way. Garlock calls such music blasphemous and refers to it as "musical profanity!" He claims this takes the Lord's Name in vain, because holy words are defiled by evil music. Such songs use the Word of God - brace yourself - just as Satan did, in tempting Jesus.
That's right. According to Garlock, the music of Chris Tomlin, Steve Green, Michael W. Smith, 4 Him, Ron Kenoly - any Christian music with what he calls "a backbeat" - neutralizes the Scripture it attempts to celebrate or teach. It's morally aberrant, psychologically addictive, personally distructive and ultimately dishonoring to God. He's alerting us to the ultimate syncretism: the dangerous marriage of sin and Scripture.
HOW THEN SHALL WE SING?
Many will be confused at this point. How did music get so powerful? Why didn't anyone notice what was happening? Since we've been deceived for so long, how will we ever know the difference between "worldly" and "unworldly" music? Since our pastors and teachers and writers and musicians have all been deceived, who shall we trust? How can we learn what "unworldly music" sounds like?
Thankfully, we're in luck! It just so happens that discerning the difference between worldly and unworldly music is Frank Garlock's specialty! He's here to help us! Fortunately, we're invited to join him on a quest for "acceptable music."
And what a quest it is. Like a dramatic, grandfatherly tour-guide, he'll point out the terrors of the jungle and bid us to stay close to him, where it's safe. Soon, though, we'll see that his trail is one of circular logic. To make sure we arrive at the end he's promised, the journey is landscaped with Scriptures taken out of context, quotes from old cronies and the "science" of sound.
(As my tone lapses into sarcasm, I apologize. But what is the appropriate response to the staggering level of elitism, isolationism and divisiveness represented by this false teaching?)
At one point, he plays a gentle recording of "I Have Decided to Follow Jesus," which breaks into a crisp pop version of "I Have Decided to Live Like a Believer." Having made his point with a simple example, he smiles and says, "Do you see? The difference is in the style."
I'll admit that I didn't see it. Both were lovely, Christ-centered songs with powerful messages, but in Garlock's world, one was inherantly evil.
THIS SWORD CUTS BOTH WAYS
Living by the sword is dangerous.
At Garlock's Majesty Music, his flagship product is the Patch the Pirate kids CD's; these recordings feature his son-in-law, Ron Hamilton. Recently, a flurry of concern has arisen among hyper-conservatives about the worldliness of music in the Patch recordings! David Cloud's O Timothy Magazine took Majesty Music to task, concerned that Patch recordings had increased amounts of syncopation and was becoming very sensual. Don Jasmin's Fundamentalist Digest has done the same. The ongoing volley of emails, accusations, and hurt feelings are available at www.wayoflife.org; you can also read replies from readers, agreeing that Patch has become a problem.
"I have seen my small children start to dance around in a sensual way with some of the music," one woman wrote. "We will not let our children listen to these tapes anymore."
Like hungry sharks swimming together, these hyper-conservatives are even frightened of each other (Gal. 5:15). Scripture is silent about what kind of beat is "worldly," it's crystal clear that divisions and quarrels are a definite evidence of worldliness. (1 Cor. 3:3)
CLASSICAL, JAZZ AND NEW AGE FRIENDS
In Garlock's definition of "worldliness," it's apparently alright to choose pagans as your theological allies if an army of Bible teachers disagree with you. Since virtually no evangelical teachers share his polemic position, Garlock goes far-a-field for support. While teaching the spiritual nature of music, he freely quotes New Age authors and non-Christian choral directors and jazz musicians. They have "great insight on this matter," he explains (1 Cor. 2:13).
THE CULTURES CHANGE, BUT OUR MESSAGE STAYS THE SAME
In fairness, no one will argue that pop music is "of the world." In his quest for "non-worldly" music, though, Garlock nudges us toward classical music. This is a style that (last time I checked) came from the same world. Music that Christians once considered "worldly" is today considered ideal by the author's standards.
How did such music get an upgrade? Can I qualify? Probably not, if people like Garlock - instead of God - hold the stamp of approval.
Cultures do shift and vary greatly, and these temporal and regional variations have always been reflected in music styles. The entire framework of Missions Theology is based on the premise that to reach various cultures and subcultures (Acts 17:22, I Cor. 9:22), we must be creative and flexible in our methods and media; the eternal truth of God's Word, not religious artistic style, is the treasure we carry.
But such reality is conspicuously absent from Garlock's view of music. It's mind boggling to hear him esteem the musical diversity of far eastern and third-world countries, but tell us confidently that the many "pop music styles" of today's western culture are a direct affront to the character of God...even when they lyrically declare God's glory and truth.
No Scriptural reference hints that "worldliness" is about a sound or a style; the Bible teaches that worldliness is giving allegiance or being influenced by any ethical system that's in rebellion against God (Rm. 1:18).
Regardless of the source culture, history has shown us that music written and performed for the glory of God, with lyrics built on the rock of His Word and presented in excellence is our friend. It has always been. Such music, to quote Luther, is "a fair and glorious gift of God."
EVIL BEAT FOR THE BODY
No matter. Garlock holds the idea, as does Gothard, that the triune nature of music (rhythm, harmony and melody) corresponds to the triune nature of man (body, soul and spirit). In their economy, it follows that our baser nature is found in our bodies, and the baser qualities of music are found in rhythm. The highest and noblest part of music, melody, speaks to our spirits.
"Rhythm...feeds the self-seeking, self-centered and self-satisfying part of man," Garlock wrote in his 1992 book. Such a view is dualism, an idea influenced more by Gnosticism (evil resides in the physical) than Christianity (Mt. 15:18, 1 Tim. 4:4-5) or Judaism (1 Sam. 16:7, Ps. 150, 2 Sam. 6:14).
A BLACK AND WHITE ISSUE: RACISM
Even if a great deal of "beat hate," didn't come from the deep South - it would be fair to ask how much of this discussion is fueled by racism. Even fledgling music historians know that the "backbeat" of which Garlock speaks was first expressed in Black Gospel music. These singers and musicians were Saints, singing of their hope in God among the very people that once - on American soil, with the blessing of the American Church - bought and sold them like cattle. If Garlock is looking for bad guys, he's much more likely to find them among the christianized slave traders than in the persecuted singers!
(For the record, the main musical instrument of people from the Ivory Coast of Africa, where we hunted slaves, was a "banya," a fretted instrument with gut strings over a resonator. The "banya" became our "banjo." Someone may make a case that banjoes should be kept out of worship...many will agree!)
Christians who continue to decry the evil beat would (hopefully) distance themselves from racism (Gal. 3:28), but the connection will never go away. Steve Lawhead's Rock Reconsidered (IVP) develops this at length, doing a good job of separating myth from history.
SOME GOOD THINGS
Though Frank Garlock holds a fringe, really cultic position, he's clearly a brother in Christ, a fine scholar and good communicator. He has an admirable passion for his subject, and many of his thoughts are refreshing and useful. I enjoyed his ideas about the "music of the spheres;" he explains that each planet is double the distance of the last from the sun, just as each higher octave is double the vibrations of the last.
It's a shame, though, to waste a gifted mind dividing the Body of Christ over divisive and doubtful debates (Tit. 3:9).
BALANCED PERSPECTIVES ABOUND
I'm encouraged that better authorities on the area of Christian music do not share Garlock's stark call for fear and isolation. The changes of the past 30 years have not happened in a corner; thousands of scholars have had a chance to study and ponder this matter in depth.
Teachers like Dr. John Frame (Contemporary Worship Music: A Biblical Defense), a reformed theologian, hold a profoundly different position from Garlock's. Leaders like Frame speak excitedly - with one voice - about opportunity and mission. A biblical and effective body of thought has been developed by Saints the caliber of Dr. Robert Webber, Dr. Donn McMinn, Dr. Ron Allen, Elmer Towns, Sally Morganthaller and Dr. Chuck Fromm. Hundreds of books by respected teachers, writers and musicians from all branches of the Church combine into a single message: They challenge artists to creatively glorify God with their best offerings (1 Chr. 21:24). They view the lost world in which we live as a mission field, a field that requires a language of praise appropriate to its native tongue (Rm. 14:11)! They call us to shepherd and build up Christ's Church in and for the process (Ps. 78:72).
Pastor Rick Warren of Saddleback Church summarizes the thoughts of many evangelical Christians when he says, "there is no such thing as Christian music, only Christian lyrics." Luther stood the same ground, asking rhetorically, "Why should the devil have all the good music?"
Many will remember Francis Schaeffer's noble challenge to Christian artists: marry your true message to good quality art and touch the world with it. This is not "worldliness," but cooperating with the Lord's creativity (Eph. 2:10) - this gives God glory, and draws people to Him (Jn. 12:32, Ps. 42:3).
Such principles transcend taking "Patch the Pirate" tapes away from toddlers because it causes them to dance. We have a higher call than micromanaging the impact points of a bass drum or the strum patterns of a guitar to ferret out evil.
WORDS OR MUSIC? WHICH IS GREATER?
But, for the sake of discussion, let's suppose for a moment that the music in our fingertips DOES, as Garlock claims, have the authority and power to cancel and corrupt Scripture. Why, then, would God carefully preserve the lyrics of David's psalms, but allow his moral music (1 Sam. 16:18) to be lost? If only we had the original music, we could put an end to the dangerous rhythms that have defiled those psalms over the centuries!
Such thinking would clearly be foolish, because Scripture makes no promises about the music of David - or that of anyone else. (Have you listened to traditional mid-eastern folk music? It sounds like snake charming music...something Salome might use for belly dancing!)
However, God does pledge all sorts of protection upon the truth of His Word. It will never return void (Is. 55:11). It's alive and sharper than any two-edged sword (Hb. 4:11). The grass withers, the flower fades, my guitar parts will be lost - like David's - but God's Word is what lasts forever (Is. 40:8).
Jesus' truth is what will set people free (Jn. 8:32) - with far more potency behind it than my fleeting musical arrangement. A musician's accompaniment lingers only for a brief season to help carry the message to a particular generation. That's why it's called "contemporary," or "with the times."
A CONCLUSION AND A WARNING
"Pop Goes the Music" is engineered to control, silence or at least impede the praises of as many contemporary worship leaders as possible (2 Sam. 6:20 & 22). It will fuel hundreds of heartbreaking little worship wars among God's people (Tit. 3:10).
Garlock is not naive; a man of his years knows that accusing worship leaders of handling Scripture in a satanic way is inflammatory (Mk. 3:29-30). Saying they are "taking God's name in vain" will stir emotions (Rm. 14:19).
Garlock describes his work - his mission - as a battle; he claims he's facing "Goliath on steroids!" He's clearly rallying people to a holy war, and surely his dire warnings will panic and mobilize certain people. They will fight vigorously to quench the fires of renewal in churches where great and effective works are occurring. At the least, "Pop Goes the Music" will further divide the Body of Christ (Col. 3:14), and in particular, the youngest worship leaders are most likely to be discouraged and intimidated (Lk. 17:2).
I'm neither comfortable waving off Garlock's mission as a conflict of opinions, nor can I agree with him that he's battling a Philistine giant. It seems more likely that he's - unwittingly - squaring off directly against the Son of David Who is asking, "Frank, Frank, why are you persecuting Me?"
WHAT IS APPROPRIATE?
So, what shall we sing next Sunday morning? With no inherently evil sounds to avoid or holy sounds to pursue, we are left - as with so many other areas of our faith - to prayerfully make the best possible decisions based on the principles of God's Word.
I recognize that the terrific worship we experienced last Sunday would have been wholly inappropriate and ineffective here 25 years ago. It would be equally irrelevant 25 years from now. "Appropriate" is time-related.
Further, our wonderful time in the "Throne Zone" probably wouldn't have worked as well in Romania or Zimbabwe. "Appropriate" is region-related.
Had we sought to lead worship at a Gen-X college ministry, our graying hair and acoustic ideas would have fallen flat. Similarly, at a retirement village we might have not been appreciated, either. "Appropriate" is age-related.
We might have been considered shallow and too-brief among expressive Pentecostals. Based on what I've heard from Garlock, I'm sure we would have been considered worldly and fleshly in many independent Baptist churches. "Appropriate" is experience-related, and probably a dozen more things, too.
But for us, last week, worship was just right! We weren't everywhere else, we were simply here, and I believe the Lord was pleased and very much present. Our worship was appropriate - it was the "Cedar Hills EFC Praise Sound."
It's my conviction that appropriate praise and worship music will be unique for every local church. Each fellowship will have lead worshipers who are gifted in the musical expression of their adoration of Christ. When this musical expression is biblically sound, culturally tasteful and presented with humility and excellence, it will attract others to join them.
Such a definition is a big door, a door - granted - through which mistakes can slip. But it opens a space in our worship for the passion of David, the deference of Paul, the excellence of Luke and the encouragement of Barnabas. Most important, I believe it leaves a great deal of room for the Presence of Jesus, the Great Worshiper (Hb. 2:12). It was He Who lifted His hands before the Father in an act of sacrificial love that not only redeems us, but ultimately transforms us into His image.
Blessings,
Pastor Phil Christensen
Fall 2002 (re-editted 2005)
