Is CCM Idolatry?

Is CCM Idolatry?

Jim Van Gelderen



The scene must have been awesome –Moses coming down from the mount with the dew of heaven on his brow. The awe of the presence of the Almighty surely filled his heart. If he was ever walking with God, would it have not been then? The prophet comes upon a scene of utter debauchery. Not only does he see a graven image, he sees dancing, sensual dancing at that. Righteous indignation wells within his breast. His nostrils flare as he takes the tablets and casts them down. Why such a response? Moses had just witness idolatry.

What was it about the golden calf incident that made it idolatry? Was it because the children of Israel were worshipping a heathen deity? At first glance one may think so, but a closer investigation reveals that in their thinking they were worshipping Jehovah God. Aaron said in Exodus 32:5, “Tomorrow is a feast to the Lord.” Some may ask, “What about the comment, ‘These be thy gods, O Israel, which have brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.’ Doesn’t this comment prove they were worshipping a heathen deity?” The answer is an emphatic “no!” The word for “gods” is Elohim. This is the same word translated “God.” In fact Nehemiah 9:18 recounting this incident says, “Yea, when they had made them a molten calf, and said, This is thy God that brought thee up out of Egypt…” Notice the singular demonstrative pronoun. This passage reveals that the people were calling the golden calf, “God.”

So what made the golden calf incident idolatry? The best commentary on this is found in I Cor. 10:7 “Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.” Note what Scripture Paul cites to prove they were idolaters. It was not a quotation that talks of the golden calf or a graven image. It is a text that talks about their sensuality in the context of “worship” of Jehovah God. “The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.” The commentator Bush calls this conduct “wanton.” Davis comments, “The nakedness of the people (v. 25) further substantiates the fact that the activity associated with the worship of the golden calf included sensuous fertility practices common to the people about Israel.” As Davis mentions, the word “naked” does make the sensuality aspect clear. A quick word study validates this claim even more. Also, remember that “Moses’ anger waxed hot” when “he saw the calf, and the dancing.” Given the context this “worship” dancing had to have been sensual. And it caused God’s man to burn with righteous indignation.

When you include sensuality in your “worship” you have stepped into idolatry. You have changed your concept of God to condone something the God of the Bible condemns. The golden calf incident included music. Not only was there “dancing,” but also there was music. Did not Moses say, “It is…the noise of them that sing do I hear”? Thus it follows, when you allow sensual music into your “worship” you have stepped into idolatry. You have changed your concept of God. You may call your god “Jehovah,” but if he winks at what God hates, he is false.

Years ago I was talking to some unsaved young men I was trying to reach with the gospel. Their music was blaring so I asked them, “Why do you like this stuff?” One young man quickly responded, “It’s great for picking up the girls.” He was honest about the sensual aspects of his music. When you use this kind of music to “worship,” you have stepped into idolatry.

Some will say, “Well I don’t think sensual thoughts when I listen to CCM. It doesn’t bother me that way.” The question I would then ask is this: “What would you tell a Ted Bundy, who said that he could look at soft-core pornography, and it would not even bother him?” If you’re thinking, your response would be something like this: “Well, he obviously has been desensitized to the pornography.” Exactly, and that is the problem with the response, “It doesn’t bother me that way.” That kind of person has so listened to that style of music that it doesn’t bother him anymore. I personally find it grossly offensive to hear sensual music in church. Some will say, “Well, that’s your problem.” If we could take a fourteen-year-old boy from Puritan New England, and put him on the average American beach during the summer, would he have a problem. Yes, he would. Is that his problem? Obviously not. He has never been exposed to that kind of sensual dress before. He has not become desensitized. He should be protected not mocked. I plead for the same kind of sane thinking for those who are bothered by the sensual beat of CCM. There have been times where I have been very uncomfortable with the sensuality of so-called Christian music in church services. The problem is not mine, but those who have brought the sensuality into the church. My contention is this. CCM has changed their “God” so he not only winks at sensual music, he desires it in “worship.” CCM’s “God” is not the Holy One of the sacred page. Some will say that such a thing has not happened to CCM. Over a decade ago I picked up a CCM newspaper produced by WORD. One of the articles was by John Fischer. The newspaper described Fischer this way: “John Fischer is probably the most well-known pioneer of what is now called ‘contemporary Christian music’ –pop music of various genres with pro-Christian and pro-moral lyrics.” Fischer gives a testimony of how contemporary Christian music began. His concept of God should leave you aching.

“For me, and in some ways for you too, contemporary Christian
music began in that car. It was a warm night, and I had been to
church enjoying by friends. I remember feeling particularly close
to God when I got in the car and started up the engine to drive
home. As I turned the key, the radio blared right where I had left
it, and the energy of Beatlemania filled the car.

“My first impression was embarrassment for God; He was certainly
not interested in listening to this. But as I reached to turn off the
radio, He had a surprise for me. The closest I can come to expressing
what happened in the next instant would be for you to imagine God
appearing next to me in the car as George Burns in the movie ‘Oh God!’

“‘Wait a minute, kid,’ He said dryly. ‘Leave it on. You know, I kind of
like this stuff.’ I watched in shock as He smiled at me through a
casual puff of cigar smoke and swayed His head ever so slightly with
the music…‘She loves you, yeah, yeah, yeah.’

“He leaned toward me so He could speak more carefully and still be
heard over the music. ‘Do you really think all I want to hear are the
funeral dirges they play for Me in church every Sunday? Really. Who
made the music in the first place? Who gave these guys the ability
to do what they do? Look kid, if four mop heads from Liverpool can
capture the world for their own glory and a good time, imagine what
you can do for My sake. Think about it.’ I drive home half crying, half
laughing, knowing my life and future would be greatly affected by that
moment in my Dad’s ’57 Ford.”

Folks, that is idolatry. It is blasphemy to use George Burns as a caricature of the Almighty. This picture of “God” is not the God of the Bible. If this is the beginning of CCM, maybe it should tell us something about its “God.”

Is CCM idolatry? If it changes its concept of God to include the sensual in “worship,” the answer is yes. If it changes the concept of God to that of a carnal lover the answer is yes. If it changes the concept of God to that of George Burns, the answer is yes. If it changes the concept of God to anything that is not biblical, the answer is yes.