Archives For Music

How “Inventors of Evil Things” (Rom. 1:30) Applies to Our Assessment of Certain Musical Styles

March 19, 2015

The apostle Paul concludes Romans 1 with a lengthy list that relates various sinful aspects of the evil lifestyles of humans who have depraved minds because of God’s judgment upon them:

Rom 1:28  And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

In the midst of the numerous specific vices that Paul names here, he writes that these people are “inventors of evil things” (Rom. 1:30). This statement has great importance for our understanding of how we are to assess certain musical styles, as can be seen by the following observations that are based upon it in various ways:

1. Paul says that these evil people invent evil things. Whatever things Paul has in mind here, therefore, cannot be said in any sense to be things that are created by God.

Scripture provides no evidence for saying that rock music was created by God, and it provides key teaching about human creative activity with things that were created by God that shows that no product of such human creative activity must necessarily be something that is fit for human use (see this post). Saying, therefore, that Romans 1:30 does not apply to rock music because rock music was created by God is an invalid argument against applying Romans 1:30 to our assessment of rock music.

2. Paul does not bother to specify at all what these evil things are that these evil people invent. Because he does not do so, we learn that there are humanly created evil aspects of these people’s lives that Paul had in mind that he did not believe he had to list out for his readers.Without his specifying what these evil inventions were, Paul expected his readers to know what these evil things were that these evil humans had invented.

Furthermore, his not specifying these evil aspects of the lives of these reprobate humans shows that this is another instance (cf. “and such like” [Gal. 5:21]) when Paul communicates to his readers that Scripture does not provide an exhaustive listing of human sinful activities. This very important observation shows that Scripture does not have to say explicitly that some human practice or invention is sinful for us to be able to say legitimately that it is unfit for human use.

The fact that Scripture does not say anything directly about rock music does not mean that we cannot say that we should reject it. Romans 1:30 and other passages provide believers with ample justification to reject rock music categorically.

3. When evil human beings who reject the knowledge of God and manifest in their lives many of the evils listed here specifically say that they have invented things to promote many of the very evils that are listed here, believers must heed what they say and not have anything to do with such evil things that these people have invented. Because many of the evil people who originated rock music and popularized it have testified directly of their evil intent in what they were doing, God-fearing Christians should reject rock music categorically as an evil invention of those who are “inventors of evil things.”

4. Careful Christians who reject rock music and all other styles of music derived from it based on the application of Romans 1:30 (and its surrounding context) to such testimonies do not have to be able to explain (with specific explanations about the music itself) why these styles are evil to know that they are evil. Scripture never places such a burden on believers, and it is sufficient to make such assessments based on the authority of the many statements by God that repeatedly tell believers not to fashion themselves according to the practices of the wicked (for example, Ps. 1:1; Rom. 12:1-2).

5. Because Paul gave this revelation about reprobate humans who are inventors of evil things in the same book that he gives his teaching about certain things that believers disagree upon (Rom. 14:1-15:3), we can be certain that Paul’s teaching about those questionable things does not apply to Christian use of any of the evil things invented by the evil people that he speaks of in Romans 1:30. Romans 14:1-15:13, therefore, does not justify Christian use of rock music and other styles based on rock music simply because believers disagree about the propriety of doing so.

Copyright © 2011-2025 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In CCM, Interpretation, Theology
 permalink

Fig Leaf Aprons and Christian Use of Rock Music

March 14, 2015

After God made Adam, He put him in the Garden of Eden “to dress and to keep it” (Gen. 2:15). Although Scripture does not provide any more information about these activities, we can be sure that Adam’s work involved the use of various tools to take care of the garden that God had planted (Gen. 2:8).1

Genesis 3 confirms this inference by informing us that Adam and Eve engaged in some skilled activity that involved their using an unspecified tool for fabricating for a specific purpose something that had never existed before:

Gen 3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

A close consideration of this revelation about their first actions after they had fallen shows that it has direct applicability to some key issues pertaining to the debate about the propriety of Christian use of rock music.

Who Made These Fig Leaf Aprons?

God made the fig tree (or trees) that the leaves came from (Gen. 2:8-9), but the Spirit tells us that Adam and Eve took the fig leaves, sewed them together, and made aprons for themselves (Gen 3:7). Plainly, Scripture is saying that Adam and Eve, and not God, made these aprons.

Furthermore, the text does not say in any way that God directed them to make these aprons. In fact, we have no basis for holding that they had ever received any prior revelation concerning taking fig leaves and crafting aprons from them.

What Was Involved in Making These Aprons?

To make these aprons, Adam and Eve used their God-given creative abilities to invent an entirely new use of the leaves from the good fig tree that God made. In doing so, they in addition had either to invent or to put to a new use some kind of tool to sew them together and to do something similar about the thread or other material that they used to sew the fig leaves together.

What Was God’s Assessment of Their Making the Aprons?

After they had made the aprons (Gen. 3:7), Adam and Eve hid themselves from God (Gen. 3:8). God then dealt with them about their sinful eating of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen. 3:9-24).

After He had dealt with them about this sin, He made coats of skins and clothed Adam and Eve (Gen. 3:21). His doing so shows that He deemed the aprons that they had invented unfit for accomplishing the purpose for which they had made them.

Application to Issues Concerning the Propriety of Christian Use of Rock Music

The first recorded instance of human creative activity involved taking good preexisting materials that God had created and producing an entirely new entity that had never existed before. Even though everything that Adam and Eve used to make these fig leaf aprons was a good thing that God created, the resulting product was not fit for use for the purpose for which they made it.

The application of this revelation to issues concerning the propriety of Christian use of rock music becomes clear through an analysis of how many Christian proponents of the use of rock music argue for their position. As we consider their arguments, we must keep in mind vital points of correspondence between what they say and what we have discovered through our comparative examination of Genesis 3:7 and 3:21.

Some proponents of Christian use of rock music argue that instrumental rock music necessarily is inherently fit for human use because they hold that God created all music. Not only does the Bible provide no support for this view, but also it provides explicit revelation that points to fallen humans, and not God, as the originators of human musical styles (Gen. 4:21; see this post for an explanation of this key point).

In response to this biblical data, proponents of Christian use of rock music argue that all human musical styles are still good because God created as good all the elements of music that fallen humans have combined to form all the musical styles that they have originated. Because all the elements were created as good, they hold that all combinations of those elements must also necessarily be good and fit for human use.

Our analysis of Genesis 3:7 and 3:21, however, has shown that Scripture presents a key instance when human creative activity involving the combining of good things that God created did not result in a product that was suitable for the purpose for which it was made. Because Scripture provides us with this explicit evidence, we know that any argument that insists that every way of combining good musical elements that God has created necessarily must result in a musical style that is fit for human use is false.

Supporters of rock music, therefore, cannot legitimately argue that rock music necessarily is inherently fit for human use because it merely combines good musical elements that God created. No such necessity for the fitness of such a combination exists and making such an argument is refuted by the direct implications of Genesis 3:7 and 3:21.2

Conclusion

Biblical revelation about the unsuitability of the fig leaf aprons that Adam and Eve invented shows that Christians who use rock music cannot justify their doing so by arguing that rock music is necessarily a fit-for-human-use musical style because it was originated by combining good musical elements that God created. Proving that rock music is a musical style that is fit for human use requires more than asserting that it is merely a combination of good musical elements.

1 We are unable to know definitively where Adam got these tools and how he learned to use them. It is possible that he invented them.

2 This examination of Genesis 3:7 and 3:21 does not prove that rock music is unfit for human use. It only proves that an argument for the necessity of the fitness of rock music for human use based on its being a combination of good elements is invalid.

Copyright © 2011-2025 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In CCM, Interpretation, Theology
 permalink

How Genesis 4:21 Directly Applies to the CCM Debate

March 7, 2015

Whether or not all musical styles are inherently good and inherently fit for use in divine worship is a key point of dispute among believers concerning CCM. Because Genesis 4:21 is the earliest biblical revelation about humans playing musical instruments, examining its relevance to the CCM debate is vital.

In my experience, however, Genesis 4:21 has not been considered thoroughly by most people on either side of the CCM debate. I have previously written several articles that treat various aspects of what Genesis 4:21 reveals, especially in relation to certain issues concerning CCM.1

This post brings out yet another facet of its teaching about music that applies to the CCM debate in a way that I have not previously discussed. To understand the application of this facet of Genesis 4:21 to the CCM debate, we have to examine it in relation to its surrounding context that includes many biblical references to divine creative activity and some other references to human creative activity.

References to God as the Creator of All Things in Genesis 1-11

Through at least 30 direct references to divine creative activity2 in Genesis 1-11,3 God indisputably asserts at the beginning of our canonical arrangement of Scripture that He is the Creator of all created things. It is worth noting also that all of these references speak of God’s creating things that man did not play any role in their creation (for example, light, the expanse, and the animals).

Furthermore, it is also noteworthy that only one of these 30 references speaks of God’s making something that humans could conceivably even have made or played a role in its making: “Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them” (Gen. 3:21). Based on this data, we know that the Spirit is purposely directing to our attention numerous statements about distinctively divine creative activity in these chapters.

References to Humans as the Makers of Certain Things in Genesis 1-11

Only after we have read 24 statements about what God has created do we encounter the first statement about something that man made:

Gen 3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

This earliest reference to human creative activity speaks of humans taking something that they did not make (the fig leaves) and fashioning something else out of it (aprons; for a fuller explanation of the vital importance of this text for issues concerning the CCM debate, see this post).

Genesis 4 provides the next information that we have about human creative activity (Gen. 4:17, 20, 21, 22). Among those statements is the earliest statement that we have about human musical activity:

Gen 4:21 And his brother’s name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ.

We must not fail to note that the first information that the Spirit gives to us about human musical activity directly concerns not their singing but their playing musical instruments. Moreover, the Spirit does not frame His presentation of this revelation in such a way as to highlight God’s working in these people to produce and do what they did.

Instead, the Spirit says to us that Jubal was “the father” of all those who were playing these instruments. By framing this statement in that way, the Spirit is clearly emphasizing that Jubal was either the inventor of these instruments or the one who pioneered playing them in some way or both.

Regardless of which way we understand this statement, it is clearly not presenting God as the One who created the style or styles in which Jubal and the others mentioned here played these instruments. Rather, and in sharp contrast to the surrounding profound emphasis on divine creation, the Spirit is highlighting that fallen humans created these musical styles.

Application to the CCM Debate

Christian supporters of the use of rock music and CCM rely heavily on an argument based on God as the Creator of all musical styles to support their views. They argue that God is the Creator of all musical styles, and therefore they are all inherently good and inherently fit for use in divine worship.4

Scripture, however, not only does not say anything about God as the One who created all musical styles but also it directly emphasizes the opposite by saying that fallen humans originated the musical styles that are in view in the earliest biblical revelation about humans playing musical instruments. For this reason, discussions of rock music and CCM that defend Christian use of these types of music by appealing to God’s creating them as inherently good and therefore necessarily fit for divine worship are seriously flawed because they do not account properly for how the Bible in Genesis 4:21 frames its first presentation of human musical activity.

Conclusion

When believers who hold to the propriety of Christian use of rock music and CCM seek to defend their views, they must not use an illegitimate argument from the supposed divine creation of these styles to justify their views. To defend their views properly, they must show from the Bible why they believe that these styles are fit for Christian use in spite of biblical evidence that shows that not even all the animals that God originally created as good were acceptable for offering to Him in worship even by the time of the Flood.

1 See these previous posts for more information.

2 Genesis 1:1, 6, 7, 9, 11, 14, 16, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 31; 2:2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 18, 19, 22; 3:3, 21; 5:1, 2; 6:6, 7; 7:4.

3 Genesis 1-11 is a natural place to limit our examination because these chapters naturally go together in providing us with information about early human history.

4 See my post Are All Musical Styles Inherently Moral? for a biblical treatment of evidence from Genesis that disproves the view that all musical styles are inherently moral.

Copyright © 2011-2025 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In CCM, Exposition, Music, Theology
 permalink

How Genesis 7-8 Applies to the CCM Debate

March 2, 2015

Some supporters of CCM assert that because God made music, all instrumental musical styles, including rock music, are necessarily inherently acceptable for use in divine worship. An examination of certain statements in Genesis 7-8 points to why this argument is invalid.

Divine Instruction to Noah about Animals

In preparation for the Flood, God gave Noah specific instructions about the animals that he was to bring into the Ark:

Gen 6:19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.

 20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.

Among those animals, he was to bring specified numbers of clean animals and unclean animals:

Gen 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

 3 Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.

Scripture does not give us any further information about this distinction among the animals, but we can understand the following truths based on this revelation:

  1. The Lord expected Noah to know which animals were unclean and which ones were not and to act accordingly. Scripture does not tell us how Noah would know this information; it may be that God also specified this information to him at this time but chose not to record His doing so.
  2. Scripture does not reveal how or why this distinction among all the animals that God had created originated nor does it explain what this distinction signified concerning in what sense some of the animals were clean and others were unclean; we are simply told that this distinction existed.
  3. Scripture does not tell us whether this distinction had been in place prior to this time or it was established only at this time.

Furthermore, because later revelation shows that God had not yet given animals to humans as food (Gen. 9:3-4), we have no basis for saying that the distinction among the animals at this time had anything to do with human consumption of them as food.

Divine Worship by Noah Using Animals

After the Flood, Noah built an altar to the Lord and worshiped Him by offering burnt offerings on it:

Gen 8:20 And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.

Notice that Noah offered these offerings only from every clean animal and bird—he did not offer any of the unclean animals in his worship of God.

God accepted Noah’s worship that offered to Him only these clean animals and birds (Gen. 8:21) that he had taken on the Ark in obedience to divine directive (Gen. 7:2-3). God blessed Noah and his family after he had worshiped Him (Gen. 9:1ff.), including now giving all animals to them for food (Gen. 9:3).

Strikingly, God then made a covenant with Noah and his sons that Scripture explicitly specifies four times was a covenant that was also with every living creature that was with them in the Ark (Gen. 9:10, 12, 15, 16)—the covenant therefore was also with those unclean animals and birds that were not offered to God in worship to Him!

Discussion

As the Creator, God made everything (Gen. 1), including all living beings (Gen. 1:20-28). After God had made all things, He pronounced that all that He had made was good (Gen. 1:21, 25, 31).

Just prior to the Flood, however, we read that God directed Noah concerning his bringing into the Ark both animals that were clean and animals that were unclean (Gen. 7:2-3). Scripture does not explain how, when, and why some animals received this designation of being unclean and others did not.

After the Flood, we see Noah offering only the clean animals in worship to God, even though God had also made all the unclean ones as good animals when He created them. After Noah had worshiped God, we read that God gave all animals to Noah and his family for food, including those animals that were designated as unclean and not offered in worship to Him.

Based on this biblical data, we see that although every animal that God created was originally pronounced by Him as good, He declared just before the Flood that an unspecified number of them were unclean animals. These unclean animals were not acceptable for use in divine worship even though God created them and pronounced them good at the Creation.

Because, however, God entered into an everlasting covenant with these unclean animals after the Flood—just as He did with the clean ones—we know that their unacceptability for divine worship was not because these animals were of no lasting value to Him. Moreover, because God gave these animals to humans as food after the Flood, we know that their unacceptability for divine worship was not because they were somehow unfit for human consumption.

Application to the CCM Debate

Many supporters of CCM argue that instrumental rock music is both inherently moral music and acceptable for use in divine worship because God created all music. From our study above, however, we have seen that such an argument from Creation is not valid because some of the animals that God created as good at the Creation were for some unspecified reason unclean and unfit for use in divine worship just prior to the Flood.

Even if it were true, therefore, that all instrumental musical styles were inherently good at the Creation because God created all music, it would still not necessarily follow that they all are inherently acceptable today for use in divine worship. Supporters of CCM, therefore, cannot legitimately use an argument from Creation to support their view that using CCM in divine worship is necessarily legitimate because all instrumental musical styles are inherently acceptable to God.

Conclusion

In the debate about the propriety of using CCM in divine worship, many supporters of CCM argue that rock music is inherently fit for use in divine worship because God created music and therefore all musical styles are necessarily acceptable for use in worshiping Him. A close examination of biblical revelation about divine worship in Genesis 8 has shown, however, that it is not true that everything that God created as good at the Creation is necessarily therefore still acceptable for use in worshiping Him. An argument from Creation, therefore, does not prove that God accepts the rock music that those who use CCM in divine worship offer to Him.

Copyright © 2011-2025 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In CCM, Interpretation, Music, Theology
 permalink

How James 4 Illumines Today’s Music Wars and How to End Them Properly

January 3, 2015

In some spirited online discussions that I have observed between evangelicals and fundamentalists concerning their differences about music that is acceptable for worship, evangelicals have often asserted that the fundamentalists are the root cause of the problems and disunity in worship that exist among Christians today. Of course, I categorically reject that assertion.

In support of my rejection of that assertion, I recently have seen that James 4 illumines key aspects of today’s music wars. The chapter also illumines how to end the music wars properly.

James 4:1-10

James first sets forth the reality of wars and fightings among God’s people and exposes the root cause of such problems—Christians who are seeking their own lustful pleasures and thereby creating strife and division (James 4:1-3).

Application: Concerning differences about music that should be used for Christian worship, believers who strive for the acceptability of music that appeals to fleshly lusts are the ones who are responsible for creating the music wars among God’s people.

James then challenges those believers who are causing strife— through seeking to satisfy their fleshly lusts— about their adulterously seeking friendship with the world (James 4:4-5).

Application: In the debates about what music is appropriate for Christian worship, believers who promote affinity to the world by setting forth as acceptable for worship music that the world has specifically created to promote fleshly lusts are the ones who are causing the strife and division among God’s people concerning worship music.

James further rebukes believers who cause strife for their arrogant lack of submission to God and their not resisting the devil. In effect, he counsels them that their seeking to fulfill their lusts by their friendship with the world is a manifestation of their proud resistance to God and failure to resist the devil (James 4:6-7).

Application: Concerning the disputes about worship music, believers who advocate as acceptable for worship music that the world created to appeal to fleshly lusts and that has strong ties to evil supernatural influences upon its creators and performers are the ones who are the root cause of today’s music wars.

James challenges believers who are causing wars and fightings among God’s people to humbly draw near to God and deal properly with their sins (James 4:7-10).

Application: Concerning the current battles about music that is acceptable for worship, believers who promote the use of music that was created by the world to feed fleshly lusts and that has strong ties to evil supernatural influences are the ones who must change if the music wars among God’s people today are to be resolved properly.

James 4:11-12

James next warns believers not to judge one another by speaking evil of one another (James 4:11-12). It is vital to note that the flow of thought in the chapter shows that James does not have in view speech that rightly assesses and confronts believers who through their lustful and adulterous friendship with the world are proudly resistant to God and failing to resist the devil.

Application: Those who advocate for the use of contemporary worship music often charge those who do not with judging them unjustly by what they say about the use of contemporary worship music. Such a charge is invalid because it is right to assess as wrong the use of music created by the world that feeds fleshly lusts and that is sourced in evil supernatural influences upon musicians.

James 4:13-17

James concludes the chapter by rebuking believers who arrogantly boast about what they are going to do in the future (James 4:13-16). He warns them that failure to do what one knows to be right is sinful (James 4:17).

Application: Some evangelical promoters of contemporary worship arrogantly speak assuredly of the future virtually complete triumph of contemporary worship among the people of God. Many of these people also profess that music choices are strictly about personal preferences and yet speak disdainfully of those who reject contemporary worship, which puts them in violation of what they know is right to do about how believers are to handle differences about things that they believe are disputable things.

Conclusion

If today’s music wars are to be ended properly, all believers must carefully and thoroughly examine themselves in light of how James 4 illumines these wars and fightings among God’s people concerning worship music. Through such an examination and a proper response to it, we can resolve these problems and the disunity among God’s people resulting from them.

Copyright © 2011-2025 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In CCM, Exposition, Music, Theology
 permalink

A Prophet, A Minstrel, and Resolving Today’s Worship Wars

December 20, 2014

To resolve today’s worship wars properly, all parties involved must profit fully from all divine revelation about music. To that end, this post examines a noteworthy passage about a prophet, a minstrel, and divine attentiveness to instrumental music.

Elisha’s Commitment to Separation from Those Who Had Compromised True Worship of the Lord

Second Kings begins by relating the miraculous end of Elijah’s prophetic ministry and the miraculous beginning of Elisha’s prophetic ministry (2 Kings 1-2). During the subsequent evil reign of king Jehoram over Israel (cf. 2 Kings 3:1-3), king Jehoram went with Jehoshaphat king of Judah and the king of Edom to inquire of the Lord through Elisha because Jehoshaphat knew that “the word of the Lord [was] with him [Elisha]” (2 Kings 3:7-12).

In this encounter with these three kings, Elisha initially rebuked Jehoram by protesting his seeking him out: “What have I to do with thee?” (2 Kings 3:13a). Elisha thereby made clear that he did not want to have contact with this evil king. He then instructed him to go instead and consult with the prophets of his parents (2 Kings 3:13b).

When Jehoram persisted (2 Kings 3:13c), Elisha testified to the all-important reality that he served in the presence of the living God (“As the Lord of hosts liveth, before whom I stand” [2 Kings 3:14a]). He then went so far as to say to Jehoram that he would not even have had anything to do with him had Jehoshaphat not been with him (2 Kings 3:14b).

These statements by Elisha attest to his commitment to separation from evil leaders who perpetuated horrifically compromised worship of the Lord (2 Kings 3:3). By divine design, we must therefore keep this reality in mind when we examine what Elisha did next in this encounter.

Elisha’s Request for a Minstrel to Play for Him and His Subsequent Prophesying

After he had rebuked Jehoram for seeking prophetic ministry from him, Elisha asked that a minstrel be brought to him (2 Kings 3:15a). When the minstrel played for him, “the hand of the Lord came upon him” (2 Kings 3:15b).

Elisha then prophesied what the Lord gave him to reveal on this occasion (2 Kings 3:16-19). The inspired writer of the book then records that what Elisha had prophesied took place the next morning (2 Kings 3:20).

Discussion

Why did Elisha request this musical ministry prior to his prophesying? Why did the Holy Spirit record this part of the encounter and what profit are we supposed to derive from it?

To understand the value of this revelation properly, we must first note that this passage does not say anything about the minstrel’s singing words to Elisha on this occasion. By divine design, this passage focuses our attention, therefore, on what resulted at this time from the playing of instrumental music.

Second, we must recognize that Elisha had no ability to bring about any divine response to the instrumental musical ministry that he requested and received. Because the Spirit has recorded that God did respond to that instrumental music, we learn that this passage is inspired revelation about divine attentiveness to and approbation of the instrumental music that Elisha received on this occasion!

Third, given Elisha’s intense commitment to separation from compromised worshipers of the Lord, the flow of thought in the passage points us to the truth of divine attention to and approbation of instrumental music ministered by a musician who is not a compromising worshiper of the Lord. By implication, we learn that both Elisha and God would have rejected instrumental music proffered by an ungodly instrumental musician (cf. Amos 5:23).

Conclusion

In a previous post, I treated a passage in Amos 5 that plainly teaches that God pays attention to the instrumental music that people use to worship Him. The account of Elisha, the minstrel’s playing, and God’s response to that playing similarly reveals divine attentiveness to instrumental music.

In discussions about issues concerning worship music, we must account properly for this vital biblical truth—God is not merely concerned with the words that are sung to Him; He also pays attention to the instrumental music that is used. In fact, through how the Spirit has chosen to inspire the revelation given to us in 2 Kings 3:15, we must accept the truth that He pays attention to and responds to instrumental music that is not accompanied by words!

Furthermore, the emphasis in the passage on Elisha’s separation from ungodly worshipers of the Lord directs us to scrutinize carefully the instrumental music that we use in divine worship and to reject instrumental music sourced in the evil activities of evil people, including people who profess to worship the Lord but compromise His worship. Attempts to resolve today’s worship wars that do not account for the truths revealed in 2 Kings 3, Amos 5, and other related passages will necessarily fail to resolve the issues involved properly.

Copyright © 2011-2025 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In CCM, Exposition, Music, Theology
 permalink

“Bendito sea el Señor” — un nuevo himno!

December 15, 2014

Recientemente, escribí un nuevo himno! Que Dios usarlo en gran medida para su Gloria.

Bendito sea el Señor

Bendito sea el Señor
porque Él es amor.
Inagotable es su amor
que en Cristo derramó.

Loado sea el Señor
que mora en la luz.
Incomparable es su amor
que mostró en la Cruz.

Honrado sea el Señor
porque Él es la verdad.
Siempre fiel es su gran amor
que nunca cambiará.

Bendito sera el Señor
quien nos envió la Luz.
Inalterable es su amor
que brota de la Cruz.

© 2014 Rajesh Gandhi. Derechos reservados.

You may use this song in a ministry context provided you do not change any of the words and you provide copyright information to anyone whom you distribute it to. Please contact me for any other use of the song.

Escuchar la melodía de este himno:

Copyright © 2011-2025 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In Music, Spanish
 permalink

A Helpful Critique of Contemporary Worship Music

December 13, 2014

I have found several of the articles that Jonathan Aigner has written to be helpful as I continue to study issues related to the debates about the use of contemporary worship music. His post Modernized hymns: Are you singing hymns, or just contemporary songs with old words? is particularly thought-provoking because of his valuable analysis of seven indicators of “singing contemporary songs with old words.”

Copyright © 2011-2025 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In CCM
 permalink

God Does Pay Attention to the Instrumental Music Used to Worship Him!

December 9, 2014

Every time that I read Amos 5, I am struck by what God says at the end of the passage concerning the instrumental music that His people offer to Him in their worship. Although I am still working on understanding the full significance of this passage for the debates about worship music in our day, I am convinced that it has great relevance to those issues.

Amos 5 and Divine Attentiveness to Instrumental Music

Because of the extreme offensiveness of His people’s religious hypocrisy, God made known that He intensely detested their ungodly worship. Tellingly, He said that He would not accept the things that they would offer Him:

Amos 5:21 I hate, I despise your feast days, and I will not smell in your solemn assemblies.

 22 Though ye offer me burnt offerings and your meat offerings, I will not accept them: neither will I regard the peace offerings of your fat beasts.

 23 Take thou away from me the noise of thy songs; for I will not hear the melody of thy viols.

 24 But let judgment run down as waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream.

Remarkably, God rebuked His people by saying that He hated the special occasions of divine worship that He Himself had ordained for them!

It is noteworthy that God specifies here that He commanded them to take away the noise of their songs from Him and made known that He would not listen to the instrumental music that they would offer up to Him in their hypocritical worship. By direct and necessary implication, verse 23 reveals that God listens intently to the instrumental music that His people use in their worshiping Him and any music that is part of divine worship must be music that is a delight to Him.

Conclusion

Contrary to the notions that some believers seem to have, this passage makes clear that believers cannot legitimately hold that God only cares about the words that are sung to Him and doesn’t pay attention to the instrumental music that is used to worship Him. God has made known plainly in Amos 5:23 (and in other passages) that He does pay attention to the instrumental music used to worship Him!

 

Copyright © 2011-2025 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In CCM, Exposition, Interpretation, Theology
 permalink

Guitar Music for “Ora a tu Dios”

November 29, 2014

This PDF provides the guitar music for the melody (in my number format) and first stanza of “Ora a tu Dios.” This song is played on the second string.

Copyright © 2011-2025 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

In Guitar Music, Spanish
 permalink