top of page

Recently, I was presented with the question: “Do you think altar call music is emotionally manipulative?” It is a question that I had encountered seriously maybe once before, but this was the first time someone I knew personally brought up the question. It seemed worthy of thoughtful consideration and biblical study, so I am sharing a version of my response here in this blog.


Music at the end of the sermon became popular during the Second Great Awakening particularly with the ministry of Charles G. Finney, who was (notably) the first person to hire a full-time music director to accompany him in his itinerancy. This became the model in revivalism from Dwight Moody and his musical director, Ira Sankey, on to Billy Sunday and Homer Rodeheaver, right through to the Billy Graham “trio” with Cliff Barrows (chorister) and George Beverly Shea (soloist). Ira Sankey, in particular, is known for programming popular musical styles before evangelistic crusade meetings began so as to affect the emotions of the masses in a way that inspired them to (1) return night after night and (2) walk the aisle in response to the altar invitation.

 

There is a unique biblical narrative in 2 Kings 3 where Elisha the prophet is sought out for counsel on whether three kings should go to war and if they will succeed in their campaign. Notably, when Elisha responds, he says, “Get me a musician” (2 Ki 3:15). In 1 Samuel, we know that David played the harp, which drove away the tormenting evil spirit. There is a biblical theology of music that includes the relationship of music and the emotions. The New Testament makes it complicated to develop any kind of theology of music because there are no instruments mentioned––only singing. This, of course, is why certain denominations are opposed to instruments in worship. They seek to be “like the early church,” which means “no instruments.” Interestingly, the Greeks were opposed to music that affected the emotions (which I find fascinating. They wanted music to be ordered, logical, and intellectual, so no emotions in music allowed!)


There are two reasons why I think the first century Christ-followers did not use instruments: (1) persecution—Christians were wise to not blow trumpets, play flutes, and beat tambourines because they were being persecuted—and (2) practicality—their worship gatherings were unorganized and unestablished, they met in homes and caves, etc., so they mostly sang, and did so until the organ was introduced a thousand years later… When the organ was brought into worship, it created quite a stir because it was perceived to be an intrusion upon the pure worship of only voices. Now, some church music historians refer to the organ as the “king of all instruments” for congregational singing because the acoustic pipe organ stands alone in its ability to replicate the human vocal process of breathing in and out to produce polyphonic sound.

  

All of this is to say, resistance to altar call music is certainly understandable. Having grown up in the church and experienced many altar calls, I know firsthand that music can become manipulative in those moments; however, giving the benefit of the doubt, I believe this is usually done with the best interest of people’s spiritual lives in mind. The “ramped-up” music (which I enjoy as much as or more than most!) is an effort to sway people who are away from God toward God. To the degree that God works through our emotions, which are ultimately part of God’s good design in human creation, we can be influenced positively to make a decision for Christ. I would, however, go one step further, which I hope to be sufficiently beyond the manipulative capability of altar call music. Back to 2 Kings 3:15, there is a spiritual effect—not merely an emotional affect—in Spirit-filled music. In Pentecostal vernacular, we call this anointing.


Certainly, we know that music can negatively influence people and can, at times, sadly, be associated with very foolish or even tragic decisions. (Music with dark, obscene, or explicit lyrics can plant bad ideas into moldable minds.) In the same way, music can also influence people positively. Even better than good vibes is when the music is not merely “happy” but inspired by the Holy Spirit. Only then can there can be a great impact made by the music. For example, if I play the endearing musical motif from the “Beauty and the Beast” theme song during prayer time, this pretty sound may affect someone’s emotions, but this cannot compare to the impact of the Spirit of God on the whole person when an anointed musician (like David playing his harp or Elisha’s musician friend) begins to play.


There is a metaphysical dimension to sacred music which transcends mere emotion, and that is the invocation of Truth in worship that is conveyed through the song, itself. If Elisha called for a musician to get a prophetic word from Yahweh, and David played the harp to drive an evil spirit away from Saul, then there is at least some sort of biblical theological precedent for the Holy Spirit to work through music to influence the hearts of people. When the musician is submitted to the Spirit, this can be a beautiful moment absent of manipulation but full of a kind of persuasiveness by which the emotional “self” of a person in the room is opened and lends itself toward the Lord, often either preceded or followed by intellectual ascent, and ultimately resulting in the transformation of the person. The goal is not manipulation, though there is no doubt that this can and does happen, but the goal is that the music should be presented, in the same way as the sermon and prayers during the gathering, with humility and sincerity. (Much more could be said about emotionalism in preaching or praying or any other act in corporate worship, but I think my time has expired!)


May God give us more musicians who are filled and empowered by the Holy Spirit so that when we, like Elisha, need a word from the Lord, an anointed musician can play an instrument in a way that creates an atmosphere where the Spirit of God can move among the people of God and speak a word to the people!

 
 
 

1 John 2:16 tells us of the three categories of sin in the world: 1) the desires of the flesh, 2) the desires of the eyes, and 3) the pride of life.


John didn't have to come up with these on his own. Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, John must have pulled out his scroll of the Torah and found the story of the very beginning when the serpent came to Eve in the Garden of Eden and tempted her with fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.


“So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food [the lust/desires of the flesh], and that it was a delight to the eyes [the lust/desires of the eyes], and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise [the pride of life], she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate“ (Gen. 3:6, ESV).


ree

The serpent is crafty, but he's not creative. He keeps using the same old worn-out tricks on people all over the world, and we so easily fall for them. Our eyes play tricks on us to make sin look good. Our flesh plays tricks by making sin feel good. And our pride plays tricks on us, making us think we know what is good for us.


[And for what it's worth: for those who insist that Eve was the reason for the fall, notice that Adam was with her and made no apparent effort to stop her. He was at least as guilty as she was, if not more guilty for watching it happen.]


Sin will always look good, feel good, and seem good, but sin is simply no good.
 
 
 

I read a comment on YouTube earlier today from a guy who was supporting the Southern Baptist Convention's vote to further restrict women in ministry leadership. He vaguely referred to the “clear words of Scripture“ for his biblical support. It just “got me to thinking.“ This may let you know a little bit about how my mind works – or wanders, as the case may be.


I stumbled, quite literally, across some “clear words of Scripture“ while looking for something else. I don't think these are the “clear words of Scripture“ my brother was referring to, but here they are, nonetheless. Paul says in Philippians 4:3, "Help these women since they have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel.“ Seems pretty “clear“ to me that Paul was quite comfortable with a casual mention of women CONTENDING – “synēthlēsan moi“ (συνήθλησάν μοι) meaning “laboring WITH me“ or “SHARING in the struggle.“ These ladies were ministry partners.


The problem here is the way we read Scripture. If we read the Bible like a science textbook, then we will treat Scripture like a series of steps to be followed. This is what my good brother must have meant when he referred to the “clear words of Scripture“ because this is the general appeal of conservative or especially fundamentalist Baptists who tend to read the Bible “prescriptively“ like a science textbook telling you step-by-step how to perform an experiment and come up with a consistent result.


To keep this short, suffice it to say that the Bible must also be read with historical and cultural context taken into account. This leads us to read the Bible “descriptively“ so that not everything that guides our theology or doctrine is taken from Paul's inspired assertions but also from the Gospels, the book of Acts, and Paul's lived experience as an apostle–such as can be seen here in Philippians 4. The interpretive method that looks for the “clear words of Scripture“ would just as soon ignore these “clear words of Scripture“ because they don't check the “prescriptive“ hermeneutical box but the “descriptive“ hermeneutical box. This is a stale way of reading Scripture, but it is the common approach used to denounce women in ministry leadership.


If we are not careful, we will talk ourselves out of the very story that we have been brought into. Mary, the mother of Jesus, carried the Gospel in her womb and delivered Jesus into the world. Women were the first to tell the good news that Jesus had overcome the world when he had risen from the dead. We don't even know how many women were included as followers of Jesus. When all of the male disciples except John had abandoned Jesus for fear of their lives, the women were the ones to stay and take care of Jesus' body. Paul is VERY clear in Romans 16 that women were among his partners in ministry.


What more can be said...? Well, one more thing: as evangelist Katie Campbell once said, “If a woman can help bring sin into the world, then a woman can help take it out!“

 
 
 
bottom of page