An Examination of Sovereign Grace Ministries and Getty-Townend For Use in Fundamental Christian Churches (Part 3)
In before the fracas.
One comment, the author focuses on associations and secondary issues more than the primary issues. Not sure if they forgot that we sing songs that were written by Catholics, Presbyterians, Methodists and others from all walks of life. But I guess because they are old, they are okay.
...except the target is no longer Steve Green.
I am beginning to consider the implications of the applications of Doug and Ryan's article. I thought we had very conservative music in our church. I thought, "we have an an old fashioned hymnal so we were okay." Our hymnal is titled "Great Hymns of the Faith" published in 1968 by Brentwood Benson music publishing. John W Peterson is the editor. I just read this about him on Wikipedia, "He also had direct contact with popular Christian musicians of the day such as Bill Pearce and Dick Anthony." Further, he was inducted into the gospel music hall of fame in 1986. That is the same hall of fame that Elvis Presley and Amy Grant were inducted into. How concerned should I be about the associations that our hymnal has? I ask this partly because we have another solid Bible believing church about 12 miles away and one of the first things that I heard about them when I came here to pastor is that they were a lot like us except they did not have as high of music standards. We have visited there for special events like the missions conference and they actually have very similar music standards. After asking people what they meant about the difference in music standards I finally found out that they use a different hymnal than we do so their music standards must not be as high. I guess for some the standard is the hymnal we have in the pew. It's kind of sad how ridiculous the music wars can sometimes become. (Please do not misunderstand me, I am not suggesting that we have no standards- I prefer the traditional hymns. I just have not seen clearly defined and consistently applied standards in so much that I have read and heard from those waging the music wars.)
Not much to say really. Is anyone really surprised that by their conclusion (they won't use SGM or Getty hymns)?
I think this is just an article written to the dwindling group that still subscribes to this kind of thinking. I doubt it was written to actually convince anyone outside of their camp. It provides a list of talking points to music pastors so they can explain to their congregations why they won't use "In Christ Alone" and "Power of the Cross." That is why they can get away with non-serious sentences about Christians who "are carnally looking for any excuse to feed the sinful flesh with rock music."
We don't need to guess at the author's motivation. He clearly stated that the articles were an explanation as to why he would not use Getty/Townend music. Whether we agree with the author or not, worship (and the use of music in worship) is a serious issue. Just because we might disagree with someone does not mean his arguments or talking points were not serious. GregH, some people have disagreed with you -- did they simply dismiss you and your comments as "non-serious"? If they had, they probably wouldn't have engaged in further discussions with you.
In part 2 several comments were made to dismiss the author's claims about music and emotions by casting them as rehashed 1970s Christian arguments. However, claims that music (tune, not text) affects emotions negatively are much older than the 1970s and have been asserted by both religious and secular people. Consider the writings of Augustine or Plato, for example.
In part 3 comments have been made to dismiss the author's claims about associations. Whether we admit it or not, we all make decisions based on association. Some decide they don't want to be associated with "Baptists" or "fundamentalists" so they change the name of their church. Some don't want to be associated with certain education institutions or groups of churches, so they may distance themselves from them. If it's o.k. for someone to say (and give reasons why) they don't want to be associated with Doug Bachorik and his music philosophy, isn't it also o.k. for someone to say (and give reasons why) they don't want to be associated with Sovereign Grace and their philosophy of music?
We don't need to guess at the author's motivation. He clearly stated that the articles were an explanation as to why he would not use Getty/Townend music. Whether we agree with the author or not, worship (and the use of music in worship) is a serious issue. Just because we might disagree with someone does not mean his arguments or talking points were not serious. GregH, some people have disagreed with you -- did they simply dismiss you and your comments as "non-serious"? If they had, they probably wouldn't have engaged in further discussions with you.
In part 2 several comments were made to dismiss the author's claims about music and emotions by casting them as rehashed 1970s Christian arguments. However, claims that music (tune, not text) affects emotions negatively are much older than the 1970s and have been asserted by both religious and secular people. Consider the writings of Augustine or Plato, for example.
In part 3 comments have been made to dismiss the author's claims about associations. Whether we admit it or not, we all make decisions based on association. Some decide they don't want to be associated with "Baptists" or "fundamentalists" so they change the name of their church. Some don't want to be associated with certain education institutions or groups of churches, so they may distance themselves from them. If it's o.k. for someone to say (and give reasons why) they don't want to be associated with Doug Bachorik and his music philosophy, isn't it also o.k. for someone to say (and give reasons why) they don't want to be associated with Sovereign Grace and their philosophy of music?
I did not say that everyone I disagree with is non-serious. Nor did I say that everything in these articles is non-serious. I said some particular statements in these articles are non-serious.
Regarding your part 2 statement: When people refer to the rehashed 70's stuff, they are referring to particular arguments of the 70's related to 20th century music such as the discussion of dissonance, drums and 7th chords. Everyone knows that Plato talked about a lot of things related to music. (Some of it was wise and some of it was utter nonsense.)
I agree with your part 3 statement entirely. Let Doug Bachorik and anyone else separate from anyone they want. But if they post a public article on a blog, it is expected their ideas will be examined.
Separation implies a previous joining. Choosing not to associate with someone or something is not necessarily a separation especially if you were not ever joined with or to it.
Separation implies a previous joining. Choosing not to associate with someone or something is not necessarily a separation especially if you were not ever joined with or to it.
I don't quite understand why we need to nit pick at this level especially since I agreed with you. Separate or not associate, Doug should do whatever he thinks best.
The association argument can be valid, but it is the least compelling argument. In time associations diminish. As has been said, even our very conservative hymnbooks have negative associations. I have suggested that text, tune, arrangement, performance style are the primary criteria for evaluating the appropriateness of a hymn, spiritual song, or psalm. If the association of a song has been adjusted on account of the fact that some of these songs have been re-arranged, recorded, and re-identified with sound ministries such as the Pettit Evangelistic Team, Sound Forth, or Majesty Music, then the association is no longer simply SG or ST. Hopefully, now the song can be more objectively evaluated based on text, tune, arrangement, and performance style. Frankly, even very conservative and traditional hymns can be re-arranged and performed in an inappropriate style. Think of the various versions of Christmas carols we have heard in recent weeks. The same song can be arranged and performed in radically different ways. The words in Christ Alone are very strong. The arrangement and performance style done by the Pettit team is conservative and traditional. There is no element of the rock genre in their recording, arrangement, or performance style. One would have to have a prejudice in order to interpret it otherwise. Could that song be presented or arranged improperly? Yes! Should we avoid those inappropriate recordings? Yes! However, the same could be said of Amazing Grace. As much as possible there ought to be an effort to have objective criteria that is consistent.
One of the objections to SG or ST music is the fact that Fundamentalism has had in recent decades an anti-Calvinistic and anti-Lordship gospel. I am not advocating full-blown Calvinism or Hyper-Calvinism nor an excessive emphasis on Lordship that diminishes forensic justification. Nevertheless, the easy-believism and Arminianism and Keswick theology so prevalent in Fundamental circles leads some to dismiss the good texts in some of these songs and then look for other reasons to dismiss them. I know this first hand on account of the fact that I have spoken face-to-face with some well known men who have unfairly dismissed all of these songs simply because these men are terrible theologians, insanely anti-Calvinistic, and have bought into a dumbed-down gospel. I strongly disagree with SG Ministries on many theological issues; nevertheless, some of the texts in SG music have truly honored the gospel in ways that other traditional hymns have fallen short. As a pastor for 34 years I have learned that people don't always scratch where they are itching.
Now that the discussion has turned to the issue of associations I submit the following conundrum, which is not given in jest.
How is it proper or honorable for a ministry would utilize an image so closely associated with theft, murder, immorality, drunkenness and even the likes of Jonny Depp?
Is it fitting for something such as piracy to be utilized for a conservative ministry without critique simply because the founder wears an eye patch? Just calling him a 'good' pirate does not negate the definition and use both historically and in contemporary culture. There is not a dictionary around that includes any such definition.
I am unable to reconcile to ideas and proposals of association from the article writers with the application of Patch the Pirate in their circle of ministry.
Someone's forgetting about Ragnar Danneskjöld.
Which is given in jest. 
But at some point someone might start considering that dissidens is/was not entirely wrong.
Which is not given in jest.
Seth, might your apt questions also apply to ministries using rap/hip hop?
The receptivity of a critique is that it first runs through a grid of self reflection. A sermon on the biblical view of anger is lost if the pastor has a well known 'short fuse'. In argumentation credibility is diminished when the "logs" are not removed before the specks. Though truly first is the acknowledgment they exist.
So if you please, and if the question is apt...let the pirate precede the rapper.
The receptivity of a critique is that it first runs through a grid of self reflection. A sermon on the biblical view of anger is lost if the pastor has a well known 'short fuse'. In argumentation credibility is diminished when the "logs" are not removed before the specks. Though truly first is the acknowledgment they exist.
So if you please, and if the question is apt...let the pirate precede the rapper.
Great post Seth. Great great response to Brenda. We need a lot more of that.
One comment, the author focuses on associations and secondary issues more than the primary issues. Not sure if they forgot that we sing songs that were written by Catholics, Presbyterians, Methodists and others from all walks of life. But I guess because they are old, they are okay.
Hello, Dgszweda,
I am not sure what you mean by your statement above. If by 'primary issues' you mean musical sound and meaning, that is really much of what the article is dealing with. We have also tried to address the thorny issue of associations and the 'weaker brother' injunctions from I Corinthians, and then attempted to make appropriate applications from both areas of inquiry. It seems to us that we ought to do the one and not leave the other undone.
We certainly have not 'forgot that we sing songs that were written..." The issue of association is important, but ephemeral. Associations change over time, therefore our responses may change. For example, if I am not mistaken, many fundamental churches avoided the use of the songs of André Crouch when his life- and performance styles were believed to be at odds with the calling to a separated life. I am writing here about things a bit before my time. Even if some of his songs were deemed appropriate textually and musically (apart from his personal performing style), many churches felt the potential harm of using his songs was greater than the potential benefit. Today, there seems to be little to no negative impact, on an association level, with the use of Crouch's songs. (Please don't read this as an endorsement of Crouch - I only know one of his songs and don't find the words or the music particularly edifying).
I live and minister in a predominantly Roman Catholic country, amidst Baptist churches. The association of Catholicism is an ongoing question. I am currently working on a setting of the Ave Verum Corpus text, by William Byrd, with my college choir, but am doing so with much discussion with my students.
The issue you are addressing has little to do with the age of the creation of the song ("...but I guess because they are old..."). When dealing with associational issues, the question, it seems to me, is one of edification. If I am looking at a song for use in Christian worship that I find to be particularly appropriate and even excellent, in terms of text and musical communication, I must then assess whether or not there are 'environmental' issues that might hinder the effective use of the song. If there are, then I should be ready to set the song, or oeuvre, aside until such a time or situation that the edification emphasized in I Cor. 12-14 can be achieved with the use of said song or oeuvre. Such determinations can really only be made by individual local churches, and the moment when an association problem ends for a local body of Christ is a challenging one. Nevertheless, each church must forge ahead and deal with such things, in the spirit of love and unity that should mark a true body of Christ.
...except the target is no longer Steve Green.
The fundamental issues never change. Isn't it wonderful to know that we have a sure guide through the challenging and sometimes murky waters of musical discernment in the Word of God, with the aid of the Holy Spirit? The real question is whether or not we are willing to continue to wrestle with appropriate applications in our own times.
The only target in these authors' site is biblically grounded decisions about music. Whether or not they achieve it is another matter, but that is their goal.
I am beginning to consider the implications of the applications of Doug and Ryan's article. I thought we had very conservative music in our church. I thought, "we have an an old fashioned hymnal so we were okay." Our hymnal is titled "Great Hymns of the Faith" published in 1968 by Brentwood Benson music publishing. John W Peterson is the editor. I just read this about him on Wikipedia, "He also had direct contact with popular Christian musicians of the day such as Bill Pearce and Dick Anthony." Further, he was inducted into the gospel music hall of fame in 1986. That is the same hall of fame that Elvis Presley and Amy Grant were inducted into. How concerned should I be about the associations that our hymnal has? I ask this partly because we have another solid Bible believing church about 12 miles away and one of the first things that I heard about them when I came here to pastor is that they were a lot like us except they did not have as high of music standards. We have visited there for special events like the missions conference and they actually have very similar music standards. After asking people what they meant about the difference in music standards I finally found out that they use a different hymnal than we do so their music standards must not be as high. I guess for some the standard is the hymnal we have in the pew. It's kind of sad how ridiculous the music wars can sometimes become. (Please do not misunderstand me, I am not suggesting that we have no standards- I prefer the traditional hymns. I just have not seen clearly defined and consistently applied standards in so much that I have read and heard from those waging the music wars.)
Mr. Miller, I am afraid you may have missed one of the important presuppositions stated at the beginning of the entire article - that we believe that believers of every generation should be creating musical tools to express and reinforce their faith. Although I in no way suggest that we throw away the great music of the past, I am firmly committed to the ongoing creation of new music (and texts) for worship and edification. It is a major part of the training in the music program of Bob Jones Memorial Bible College (Philippines). Since Col. 3.16 makes clear that the singing of psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs is a part of the teaching ministry in a local church, people in each local church should be taking up the gauntlet, as it were, just as pastors and Sunday school teachers do.
Regarding associations, please see my posting regarding that issue. I do not suggest a 'witch hunt' through our hymnals, but I do believe that we need to be sensitive to the culture and climate in which we live and serve. The fact that dealing with association issues is often sticky and imprecise in no way releases us from having to wrestle with the issue.
Not much to say really. Is anyone really surprised that by their conclusion (they won't use SGM or Getty hymns)?
I think this is just an article written to the dwindling group that still subscribes to this kind of thinking. I doubt it was written to actually convince anyone outside of their camp. It provides a list of talking points to music pastors so they can explain to their congregations why they won't use "In Christ Alone" and "Power of the Cross." That is why they can get away with non-serious sentences about Christians who "are carnally looking for any excuse to feed the sinful flesh with rock music."
Mr. GregH,
I look forward to addressing a number of the issues you raised in your comments to part two of the article. I am sorry you doubt the seriousness which Pastor Weberg and I sought to bring to our critique. That doubt has, I think, allowed you to miss a few of the points and distinctions we tried to make. I hope to deal with with those in my response article next week. I trust that your perception of my seriousness, or lack thereof, will not continue to be a hindrance to you or any other reader.
As to the particular sentence you quote as an example, I am afraid I don't quite understand why you see it as non-serious. Perhaps you disagree with the idea that some Christians carnally look for an excuse to feed the flesh. I personally find it an ongoing challenge to not find ways to open the door to the flesh (That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; and be renewed in the spirit of your mind; and that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.). Perhaps it is just that you don't believe the old man can be 'fed' by music (that it is impossible for fallen man to create music that actually encourages his fallen-ness); yet, I Peter's command to be holy in every area of life certainly implies that it is possible to be unholy in every area of life, including music creation and consumption. Or, perhaps you merely do not agree with the idea that rock music is one type of music that might fit under that category of the previous sentence. It is hard to know, in this instance, what to address, if, by 'non-serious', you mean 'conclusions with which I disagree.'
As to the intended audience, might I reiterate that the article was originally written to answer questions both Weberg and I were frequently receiving, from people spanning the whole spectrum of sensibility with regard to music and worship. Our intention was to give a more thorough answer than five minutes after a morning service or music seminar would allow. The article then began to take on a life of its own, via email. Eventually, the good folks at Frontline Magazine asked if they might post it on Proclaim and Defend, in addition to my article on Music and Missions. I posted a link to the Music and Missions article on SharperIron, with information about the book from which it was excerpted (an obvious, shameless plug for my book, I admit!). Then, Don Johnson (editor of Proclaim and Defend) linked the Examination article in a forum here at SharperIron. I hope this will help you understand who the intended audience is - it was written for inquirers, with musicians in particular, in mind.
Is anyone really surprised that by their conclusion (they won't use SGM or Getty hymns)?
I am afraid you may have missed a couple important statements:
"For our respective ministries at this point in time, the authors have chosen to not include songs produced by SGM, although we recognize and appreciate some of the material produced."
"It is likely that when we believe the inclusion of GTM songs in our ministries will be a source of edification, without bringing danger to weaker brethren, we will use selected songs. This is the pattern the authors follow with all music choices from all music-publishing ministries."
DB
In part 2 several comments were made to dismiss the author's claims about music and emotions by casting them as rehashed 1970s Christian arguments. However, claims that music (tune, not text) affects emotions negatively are much older than the 1970s and have been asserted by both religious and secular people. Consider the writings of Augustine or Plato, for example.
Thanks, Brenda T, for making this statement. I hope to deal with these ideas further in my formal response to the comments on part 2.
Pastor Harding,
As should be obvious from my own posting regarding association, you and I find much agreement on the issue. And, for the sake of full disclosure, I have many personal friends and close acquaintances in the ministries you listed.
Regarding your second paragraph, I hope that Pastor Weberg and I have made clear that we appreciate much of the textual output of both SGM and GTM. Although we do address the New Calvinist movement in the article, and I personally am not a "full-blown" Calvinist, I can say in all sincerity that I am not an anti-Calvinist. We have no hidden agenda on that front, or any other, for that matter.
I hope, Mr. Johnson, that you will undertake to present a musical and associational examination of Ron Hamilton's music. There is no doubt that it would be helpful and a welcome addition to the conversation.
Not much to say really. Is anyone really surprised that by their conclusion (they won't use SGM or Getty hymns)?
I think this is just an article written to the dwindling group that still subscribes to this kind of thinking. I doubt it was written to actually convince anyone outside of their camp. It provides a list of talking points to music pastors so they can explain to their congregations why they won't use "In Christ Alone" and "Power of the Cross." That is why they can get away with non-serious sentences about Christians who "are carnally looking for any excuse to feed the sinful flesh with rock music."
Mr. GregH,
I look forward to addressing a number of the issues you raised in your comments to part two of the article. I am sorry you doubt the seriousness which Pastor Weberg and I sought to bring to our critique. That doubt has, I think, allowed you to miss a few of the points and distinctions we tried to make. I hope to deal with with those in my response article next week. I trust that your perception of my seriousness, or lack thereof, will not continue to be a hindrance to you or any other reader.
As to the particular sentence you quote as an example, I am afraid I don't quite understand why you see it as non-serious. Perhaps you disagree with the idea that some Christians carnally look for an excuse to feed the flesh. I personally find it an ongoing challenge to not find ways to open the door to the flesh (That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; and be renewed in the spirit of your mind; and that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.). Perhaps it is just that you don't believe the old man can be 'fed' by music (that it is impossible for fallen man to create music that actually encourages his fallen-ness); yet, I Peter's command to be holy in every area of life certainly implies that it is possible to be unholy in every area of life, including music creation and consumption. Or, perhaps you merely do not agree with the idea that rock music is one type of music that might fit under that category of the previous sentence. It is hard to know, in this instance, what to address, if, by 'non-serious', you mean 'conclusions with which I disagree.'
Here are two reasons why I used the descriptor non-serious about this phrase "are carnally looking for any excuse to feed the sinful flesh with rock music."
1) First, it sounds good and but is (pardon me because I know you hate this) something I have heard since the 70's but never proven. The reality is this Doug: you have not managed to make any connection between rock music and feeding the flesh. You say that as if we should just take it at face value that rock music feeds the flesh. We are past that; people are not going to accept such an unproven statement.
2) Secondly, I find it very dubious that people anywhere come to church to get their fix on rock music. It makes no sense to me. You may have data to support that idea but I strongly doubt it. In an age where they can listen to professional music 24x7, why would they decide they are going to influence their church towards rock music so they can feed their flesh, especially when said music is likely to be performed very unprofessionally? I don't take that very seriously unless you have some data I am missing.
The only target in these authors' site is biblically grounded decisions about music. Whether or not they achieve it is another matter, but that is their goal.
Not true. The stated targets at the beginning of the article are SGM and GTM. Your purpose is to decided whether or not they should be used in church ministry or not. Your (rather predictable) conclusions are that they should not (or, in the case of GTM, not now...if ever).
A few thoughts about associations: I live and work in an overwhelmingly Catholic culture. This Christmas we sang "Silent Night". I told our folks it was written by a priest. I quote G.K. Chesterton...and tell them who he was. We sing "A Mighty Fortress Is Our God", and I make a point of telling folks it was written by Martin Luther (not Catholic, I know, but also not Baptist). I also teach about common grace, and the fact that sometimes people who are wrong on some things can get other things very right. And we should study our Bibles...alot...to be able to figure out what is wrong and what is right.
And you know what? Our folks get it. Even the new converts. It's not that hard a concept.
... It's kind of sad how ridiculous the music wars can sometimes become... (
I don't intend to engage the article or the comments although I have tried to follow them. I am not a musician (although I had Ron Hamilton for voice lessons many years ago believe it or not 
and much of the discussion was over my head. I know one of the authors personally and have great respect for Ryan. I do think this was a serious attempt on their part to articulate their convictions although it sounds so remote from local church ministry as I know it not the least in the area of associations. And in the end it will be local churches that decide for themselves as it should be.
As I was on my way to work today I was listening to Third Day's Agnus Dei, King of Glory, Show Me Your Glory, etc. I experienced such delight in what God has done in Christ and the so great salvation which made me God's child through no merit of my own. I have no reason to doubt that God was both honored and delighted as well. Some might think the drums, electric guitars, etc. were feeding my carnal flesh. I understand that way of thinking, have been there, and hope to be gracious toward those who believe and practice otherwise. I do not think they are wrong to hold to those standards for themselves. Neither do I think the arguments will convince many people not in certain orbits. These are not unassailable biblical arguments and have changed little since I heard them in the 70's.
Over 3 years ago I posted an article on SI "Weary of the Worship Wars." I am no longer weary because I am no longer at war, not for this.
"King of Glory"
Who is this King of Glory that pursues me with his love
And haunts me with each hearing of His softly spoken words
My conscience, a reminder of forgiveness that I need
Who is this King of Glory who offers it to me.
Who is this King of angels, O blessed Prince of Peace
Revealing things of Heaven and all its mysteries
My spirit's ever longing for His grace in which to stand
Who's this King of glory, Son of God and son of man.
His name is Jesus, precious Jesus
The Lord Almighty, the King of my heart
The King of glory
Who is this King of Glory with strength and majesty
And wisdom beyond measure, the gracious King of kings
the Lord of Earth and Heaven, the Creator of all things
Who is this King of Glory, He's everything to me
The Lord of Earth and Heaven, the Creator of all things
He is the King of glory, He's everything to me
Sorry it has taken a while to respond -- having some internet connectivity issues.
Using the term "also" implies "in addition to" not "going ahead of" so please, yes, by all means let the pirate precede the rapper. I truly did appreciate your questions and thought they were apt, but we wouldn't want to target only the pirate with our musical association examinations, would we?
Sorry it looked like I might have been trying to gloss over the pirate. I can see how you could haven taken it that way.
But this does not accomplish what he suggests, does it? The easy implication of the fact that questionable sources outside the movement (for lack of better) are always the targets of these sorts of papers/presentations and that questionable sources within the movement are always exempt is that those within the movement are not really questionable. If we are willing to swallow the camels within and for the sake of our movement, those without will surely seem like gnats to those who do not already agree with us, and, more importantly our children.
And by we/us/our, I only marginally mean me.
But this does not accomplish what he suggests, does it? The easy implication of the fact that questionable sources outside the movement (for lack of better) are always the targets of these sorts of papers/presentations and that questionable sources within the movement are always exempt is that those within the movement are not really questionable. If we are willing to swallow the camels within and for the sake of our movement, those without will surely seem like gnats to those who do not already agree with us, and, more importantly our children.
And by we/us/our, I only marginally mean me.
I feel for Patch. He probably picked the name "pirate" when people thought a bit differently about pirates. Today, when we know that pirates are still stealing dozens of ships around the world every year, it seems like he made a very bad choice. But sadly, all his branding has been done and changing the name is a big deal.
Doug, I hope you will listen to Seth and DavidO. You seem like a likeable guy. You will be even more likeable and more credible if you will be as consistent in your association principles with Patch that you apply to SG. And please don't try to cloud up the issue with asking for a musical examination of Hamilton's music. That looks bad--like you are trying to deflect the argument for one you can defend easier. The only thing Seth is asking for that you apply your association logic to Hamilton in the same way you would apply it to SG or Getty.
Brenda,
No need for sorrow, I didn't expect an instantaneous reply! No need either to explain the grammar, Mrs. Malecki drilled that into my mind many moons ago.
My question does not dismiss the evaluation of other ministries. My question is to a specific ministry association as it pertains to Part 3 of the series. Explanations to such are welcome.
My silence to Part 1&2 of the series was intentional. To reply with my paltry understanding of music theory, the circle of fifths and either's implication on ancient and modern hymnody would have brought no help to the conversation.
What might I have said regarding Ron Hamilton that would not be simply opinion?
I could have said that there are songs I like and those I don't. I could have said that I've yet to hear a congregation sing "Young David was a Shepherd" in the morning worship. I could have said that I personally think "Jonah" feels like a tune one would hear on a merry-go-round. I could have said that it is cumbersome to our congregation to use Praises 1 & 2 because of the page structure. I could have said it appears a disproportionately high number of songs in the majesty hymnal were written by Ron Hamilton.
To what end could I have added those thoughts, Are they not certain to appear foolish and petty? Of course! Not one of those opinions is germane to my question. Not one of those issues has stopped our fellowship from using music from and singing songs from Ron Hamilton and his ministry. Ron has written some beautiful music and blessed the church over the years.
Silence in the discussion regarding an evaluation of his music stems from finding no fault in his music. Silence regarding his ecclesiastical associations protects me from answering a matter before hearing it. (a matter too deep to allocate time in my schedule)
I asked only of what I see and don't understand. To reach beyond my question is to infer questions that I have not asked, and those to which I do not seek answers.
The receptivity of a critique is that it first runs through a grid of self reflection. A sermon on the biblical view of anger is lost if the pastor has a well known 'short fuse'. In argumentation credibility is diminished when the "logs" are not removed before the specks.
A word of caution -- A legitimate critique is legitimate even if something else is not legitimately critiqued. Credibility may be diminished, as well as receptivity, but that probably says more about the hearer than the critique. Remember, the problem with the log and the speck was not that the judgment was wrong, but that it was hypocritical; it wasn't that the speck wasn't there, but that a log was. So here, if Y's critique of X music is correct, it doesn't matter if Y hasn't also critiqued Z music. The critique itself should be debated, and that has what has happened until just recently in this thread.
So regardless of one's position, "You did it too" is not a valid response to valid criticism.
Larry,
I agree with you more or less, but I'd nuance what you say. I think it is legitimate to respond to valid criticism by pointing out a glaring point of omission. It is not valid to use that omission as a defense against or invalidation of the criticism itself. And I don't think that latter is what anyone here suggests.
Larry,
Why is it necessary to caution an agreement? I did not invalidate the legitimacy of Part 1,2 or 3's argument. If credibility "may be diminished," and if the the debate includes what impression is given from a visual appearance [Part 3..."Both groups tend to perform their music in a pop vocal style, with a more casual stage presence – often dressed in jeans and un-tucked shirts, with men (and sometimes ladies) wearing hats or caps (though the SGM team tends to look more sloppy on-stage, with many of their men sporting t-shirts and tousled hair). The overall effect is that worship is a “come-as-you-are” event] then why caution me for asking a specific question?
We are the point in the article where the authors are prosing specific actions to be taken based on a principle to be applied from their explanation of Scripture. I understand their explanation of scripture and the principle to be applied and this is a specific application for which I have not found an answer.
Again then Larry, why then when I ask for help am I cautioned?
These articles rely heavily on the association arguments and I would like to point out that Sovereign Grace and Getty Music are now heavily associated with conservative Bible-believing churches across the Country and the world and they are heavily associated with fundamental Bible-believing churches. Bob Jones University has used Sovereign Grace and Getty music in their recordings. Steve Pettit and and other fundamental Baptists have also use the music in their recordings. Two of the most recent hymnals produced by fundamentalists include hymns from the Getty and Sovereign Grace. So, this music is no longer just associated with Charismatic worship. It is an integral part of fundamentalist worship. Most fundamentalist colleges use these hymns as well. Most graduates from the fundamentalist colleges are singing these hymns.
There are always going to be people offended with any music you choose in a church.
- I was once told that our conservative music in our church is more like the Roman Catholic Church this person was saved from. They were offended by our association.
- A young lady sang a Bob Jones/Sound Forth Song a few years ago at a conference I was leading and I received a letter accusing me of allowing the music of the bars in the conference. I still can't figure that one out.
- I was once told we were wicked because our church sang the Christmas hymns.
- I could go on
The standard has to come from God's Word
Does the song exalt God?
Does the song enable the people of God to exalt God and teach and admonish Scripture to one another?
If a song can accomplish those purposes, it is going to accomplish God's purposes, not fleshly purposes.
Fundamental churches have been blessed to receive many of these new modern hymns. I remember introducing a church body to "Before The Throne of God Above" (SGM) for the first time. I remember the sense of being moved by truth that was so clear in the room. Some were even moved to tears. This is not charismatic worship, friends. This is freshness that can break the deadness that is in too many churches.
I appreciate the articles with one concern that these men realize there are many of us out there who hate the wickedness of our flesh as much as they say they do but still sing modern hymns.
Why is it necessary to caution an agreement?
I am not sure you agree or not.
You said, "I am unable to reconcile to ideas and proposals of association from the article writers with the application of Patch the Pirate in their circle of ministry. ... Let the pirate precede the rapper."
This sounds a lot like "Until you critique the pirate, I won't listen to the critique of the rapper."
So I was urging caution about to way to evaluate an argument. If you agree with me, then fine.
Larry,
Why did you feel it necessary to caution me in the first place? Was I not clear that I would like help with the pirate question? As yet no help has been offered, only caution and Socratic redirection. If a listener declares that they do not understand something and asks for help why not help them?
Debate points may be won by redirecting unwanted questions with answers to unasked questions. I am not trying to win a debate, just trying to seek help with my question.
Let the pirate precede the rapper or let the pirate stand alone. Either way have you no help with the pirate question?
Seth,
I wasn't assuming anything and I wasn't trying to redirect anything. You made a statement that sounded as if you were rejecting an argument (an answer to a question) because it didn't answer the question you wanted answered. It sounded like you were redirecting, implying that this article has no credibility because it didn't address pirates. If you weren't doing that, then fine (as I already said).
I have no desire to win debate points, or even to debate. (I don't believe I have said anything until now.) We settled this question long ago with what I believe are solid biblical principles. I have no desire to persuade others to agree with me here or to do what we do. Everyone needs to settle this for their own local body.
Perhaps someone will help you with the question about Ron Hamilton, though personally, I think pirates are pretty low on the list of concerns there.
Here are two reasons why I used the descriptor non-serious about this phrase "are carnally looking for any excuse to feed the sinful flesh with rock music."
1) First, it sounds good and but is (pardon me because I know you hate this) something I have heard since the 70's but never proven. The reality is this Doug: you have not managed to make any connection between rock music and feeding the flesh. You say that as if we should just take it at face value that rock music feeds the flesh. We are past that; people are not going to accept such an unproven statement.
Greg, thanks for your clarifications. A couple points - I had no intention, when writing this article, to explain my views on rock as a style or genre - please footnote #8 in the original. I will try to make clear in the promised follow-up article how I believe music functions and how I see the musical sound of rock music as largely incompatible with the sanctified life a believer is called to.
2) Secondly, I find it very dubious that people anywhere come to church to get their fix on rock music. It makes no sense to me. You may have data to support that idea but I strongly doubt it. In an age where they can listen to professional music 24x7, why would they decide they are going to influence their church towards rock music so they can feed their flesh, especially when said music is likely to be performed very unprofessionally? I don't take that very seriously unless you have some data I am missing.
I couldn't agree with you more here. I make no claim that people use church as a means of getting 'their fix on rock music.' What I mean is that when we, as born again people, enjoy and allow something in our lives that may actually be harmful or inappropriate, we find ways to justify it to ourselves. A personal example - my wife and I enjoyed watching Seinfeld for several months, some years back (when we still lived in the states). Although I am no expert on the art of television, I felt the shows were well-crafted and the humor creative and hilarious. I still do. Unfortunately, there were several other aspects to the show that we came to believe were unhealthy for us spiritually - the frequent making light of sin, the use of the Lord's name in vain, etc. We didn't stop watching immediately - I kept justifying our viewing because of the former qualities mentioned. However, we did come to a point where we let ourselves 'realize' the good qualities of the show did not negate the negative. In reality, we already knew that, but it took me longer to align my actions with the truth. If the musical sound of rock does what I suggested above, then it is probable that some believers would look for ways to justify their enjoyment of what is an admittedly attractive style. I am not sure if this makes the original sentence more 'serious', but this is some of my reasoning behind it.
________
Edited for formatting purposes only
Not true. The stated targets at the beginning of the article are SGM and GTM. Your purpose is to decided whether or not they should be used in church ministry or not. Your (rather predictable) conclusions are that they should not (or, in the case of GTM, not now...if ever).
Andrew, I am sorry that you cannot accept, at face value, my assertion. I can only say that our goal really is "biblically grounded decisions about music." As I have explained in another posting, we had no ulterior motives. We have been as forthright as we know how and I can say, in all honesty before the Lord, that we approached SGM/GTM only in the spirit of I Thess. 5.20-22.
Regarding my "(rather predictable) conclusions," I am at a loss to know why you would feel this way, since we, to my knowledge, have never met or had any kind of conversation about such matters, and you have not sat in on my Theology of Music classes here in Manila . Surely my conclusions are not predictable to you because you may have cause to disagree.
A few thoughts about associations: I live and work in an overwhelmingly Catholic culture. This Christmas we sang "Silent Night". I told our folks it was written by a priest. I quote G.K. Chesterton...and tell them who he was. We sing "A Mighty Fortress Is Our God", and I make a point of telling folks it was written by Martin Luther (not Catholic, I know, but also not Baptist). I also teach about common grace, and the fact that sometimes people who are wrong on some things can get other things very right. And we should study our Bibles...alot...to be able to figure out what is wrong and what is right.
And you know what? Our folks get it. Even the new converts. It's not that hard a concept.
I could not agree with you more on the previous paragraph. That is why Weberg and I tried to make very clear that dealing with associations must, ultimately, happen in a local church context. I applaud you and only wish that all fundamental pastors and missionaries were so careful in their discipleship.
______________________
Edited for formatting purposes only
Larry,
I agree with you more or less, but I'd nuance what you say. I think it is legitimate to respond to valid criticism by pointing out a glaring point of omission. It is not valid to use that omission as a defense against or invalidation of the criticism itself. And I don't think that latter is what anyone here suggests.
Friends, Weberg and I are not omitting or avoiding anything by not discussing Ron Hamilton/Patch the Pirate in the posted article. As I have tried to make clear, the article was written in response to numerous questions we have received in our respective ministries specifically about SGM/GTM. I don't believe either of us has received any such requests regarding RH. I have certainly considered such things for the ministries I am responsible for and have not come to the conclusion that associational issues in the use of Ron Hamilton's music hinders the edification of the saints with whom I fellowship and worship.
Please do not read that last paragraph as a blanket endorsement of all the music produced by Hamilton in general, or for all worship and ministry situations. I was not being disingenuous when I suggested that someone submit, in a written form, a similar examination of Ron Hamilton. Examination is healthy, or (hopefully) health producing.
Nor, from a theological standpoint, does the fact that these writers are Reformed pose any significant danger.
I must admit I literally laughed out loud when I read this quote from the article. Really? Martin Luther was reformed, and he wrote "A Mighty Fortress." What possible connection of a dangerous theology in hymn writing could there be with being reformed? Zero. I know the authors probably intended to cut off critics of the SGM music because it's authors are in some way reformed, but the statement belies a huge part of the argumentative problem throughout the article. If we're going to do the association dance, and some people are put off by those who are reformed, then at some point they're going to have to get rid of cherished hymns of the faith. If we want to keep all kinds of hymns that are GOOD TEXTS, why not treat every hymn and song on it's merits? I happen to be a fan of Indellible Grace, a group that tries to rewrite hymn tunes for old hymns. Probably less than 10% of their tunes will stand the test of time. I for one am willing to wait a hundred years or so to see the gold and let the dross be removed. This includes Third Day dross and Third Day gold (King of Glory, yes Steve I agree); Ron Hamilton dross ("I want to marry daddy when I grow up" Really??? 
and Ron Hamilton gold. It also frankly includes several SGM songs that just will not stand the test of time, and some that will. I wonder if we shouldn't just use the method of weeding out bad songs that has taken place for the thousands of years of the churches history. Bad songs eventually die. Good songs live. Nobody cares what the associations of St. Francis of Assisi were, or if he even were a truly converted Christian in the monasteries of the middle ages. What we know is the lyrics of "All Creatures of Our God and King" and that it's a wonderful historic hymn.
Oh and a sort of unrelated point about lyrics. Let's be not more snooty about lyrics and theology than God was in the Psalms. When I was in high school I went on the Bob Jones Academy mission trip to NYC. At night, one student was playing on his guitar and singing a sort of "edgy" song for BJU at the time. A senior teacher tried to correct the student on the error of his song in what we would hope would be the best avenue: the lyrics. The teacher asked the student if the lyrics weren't a little wishy washy and not theologically upstanding. The student replied "That's Psalm 40 (or whatever Psalm it was) almost word for word. Take your argument up with God." The teacher shut his mouth immediately and his face became red with embarrassment that he didn't know his Bible well enough to recognize a Psalm when he saw one. So I would say when picking the good and the bad and the ugly of song lyrics for your church, look at the range of emotion and content of the Psalms. You'll find a wide breadth of subject matter is fair game. Let's apply a similar standard to modern hymns.
My point is not that you should have expanded the scope of this article, but rather that "the movement" consider examining all the music they use (much of which seems to have been sort of "grandfathered in") with the same vigor they scrutinize stuff from the outside.
[also posted at the end of Part 2 postings]
Dear friends,
I had promised to write up a formal reply to some of the issues in the previous postings here, but as I have again looked over the many issues, I realized a couple things:
1. Many of the issues are addressed, at a ‘popular’ or ‘laymen’s’ level in NEW HEART, NEW SPIRIT, NEW SONG. I realize it is rather self-serving to promote my own book, but it was published to speak to some of the questions raised in the postings. Also, the Examination article was written with the information from the book as a part of its foundation and presuppositions.
2. Some of the issues raised are really too complicated to deal with adequately in NHNSNS, much less in a series of blog postings.
Therefore, I respectfully ask any readers who may disagree with all or some aspects of the Examination article to look at the book and so be sure of what was meant, as well as to get a fuller context for the article.
Having deferred the discussion in this no doubt aggravating way, I will take some space here to highlight what I perceived as the dominant themes or problems of the posted responses to Part 2.
1. Reductionist understanding of music as a medium or mode of communication
2. Misunderstanding about the need to analyze musical sound
3. An idea that association is a complete non-issue
4. A misperception that the authors are against anything new or different
Without wishing to start a whole new discussion, which I would not have time to participate in, due to the start of classes at my college next week, I will risk making a few comments about each of the above. Defense of some of the comments can be found in NHNSNS; for some I hope to find further defense in the research I will be doing as part of my PhD work.
1. In the Scriptures, musical sound is frequently represented as communicating emotions or even facts. By communication I mean an activity in which at least one of the following happens:
- information, sense, or emotions are portrayed, imparted, or conveyed via a medium
- information, sense, or emotions are perceived in the medium used
- engendering of emotion or thought via a medium occurs
- a medium causes or is involved in any voluntary or involuntary physical/neurological response
At present I am working on a book that fleshes out a New Testament musicology on the nature of music, especially with regard to communication. In that work I hope to give as complete and nuanced a picture as I can of the topic. In the mean time, I can give the reader a summarization of how musical sound and an audience (as opposed to a performer) interact:
- musical sound (all aspects/elements of music, the performing space/acoustic, and anything else outside of the receiver/listener) exists in time;
- a receiver/listener experiences musical sound in a variety of ways, or through many ‘filters’, simultaneously;
- some of the ‘filters’ are idiosyncratic (how the listener feels at the moment, his personal taste, his past experience with the particular piece or style, etc.);
- some of the ‘filters’ are shared by a large part of a listener’s community, society, or culture (educational background, dominant music types in the society, age, gender, etc.);
- some of the ‘filters’ are common to all people at all times and in all places (being a human, made in the image of God, fallen, having a physical body, etc.) Please see a brief discussion and report on research regarding a ‘universal’ emotion responses to music here.
All of these ‘filters’ are functioning when a person hears music, although they do not all necessarily function in the same way or to the same degree. Which leads me to drop in here some food for thought, from some correspondence with a colleague (I do this at the risk of alienating some readers – please feel free to skip the next section if you are not interested in a more academic discussion!):
Here is a summary of what I am seeing right now:
Romans 15.9 - singing is contextually synonymous with glorifying, confessing, giving thanks, rejoicing praising, lauding, and trusting, all of which include the idea of communication
I Corinthians 13.1 - a simile in which non-communicative sound is compared to non-communicative speech, which would imply that there is communicative musical sound
I Corinthians 14.7-8, 15, 26 - musical sound functions similarly to speech sound; communication is possible; communication can be impededI Cor. 15.52, I Thess. 4.16, Heb. 12.19, Matt. 6.2, Matt. 24.31, Rev. 8.2, 6-8, 10, 12-13, 9.1, 13-14 (9.14 implies the musical sound acted as a release or a more direct form of communication) - musical sound used as a signal (iconic use of specific musical sounds)
Ephesians 5.19, Colossians 3.16 - conveyance of text; implication of an enhancement of communication because of the inclusion of musical sound
Hebrews 2.12, James 5.13, Acts 16.23 - similar to Eph. 5.19 and Col. 3.16 - conveyance of texts expressing praise to the Lord, enhanced by musical sound
Matt. 9.23 - musical sound expressing sorrow ('noise' - an implication as to the type of musical sound produced)
Matt. 11.17 (Luke 7.32) - implication of different musical sounds evoking specific emotional and physical responses
Luke 15.25 - implication that the musical sound was enough to indicate the nature of an activity
Rev. 5.9, 15.2-3 - 'saying' with singing, implying that communication took place via the combined media of text and musical sound
None of this is very profound. I have been digging into the implications of the I Corinthian passages (see the rough draft chapters), and have spent much time also with a startling example of musical communication in Exodus 32. There, we have a scenario in which musical sound has radically changed (note Joshua's lack of recognition of the sound, although he had certainly been a part of Hebrew music-making before this moment - Red Sea, song of Moses, etc.), in response to a radical change of theology (from Yahweh to the golden calf), which is further complicated by the fact that the Hebrews seemed to re-imagine Yahweh in the image of the golden calf (note Aaron's statement about a feast to the LORD), rather than fully turn from Yahweh. It appears that the lyrics sung around the calf, with musical sound and singing style quite different from how the Hebrews sang in praise of Yahweh before this event, were actually similar to what they had sung previously. Hâlelyâhh (hallelujah) has changed in its meaning, and the music at the very least reflects that change. It may be, due to the implications of Col. 3.16, that the musical change helped impart the theological shift.
Further theological questions come to mind: within the broad spectrum of Christianity, how could groups representing extremely different theological landscapes sing common texts (both biblical and hymnic) and yet reinforce their own meaning of those texts? Perhaps the distinctive musical settings are a part of the conveyance of theological meaning. Coming at these ideas from the opposite end, are there any implications stemming from the fact that in many cultures significant segments of disparate religious groups seem to be drawn towards a religious gravitational center based on an experiential, mystical, or Charismatic theology of worship, the expression of which shares very similar musical styles?
How does this happen? What are the affects of combining differing modes of communication? In an effort to get a handle on this I spent some time in the writings of Lakoff and Johnson and began to imagine text creating image schemata (or drawing upon pre-existing, mind-embedded schemata), while musical sound was simultaneously do the same thing. What happens when these two (at least two, probably many more!) schemata are interacting in the human mind? How would the reception of one or both media be impacted by such an interplay, of which the listener or performer is likely unaware? Does the mind receive the text and its musical setting as two separate entities? Not likely, from the New Testament implications, as well as personal experience and observation. If there is cross-modal impact, is the impact equal between to the two media? If not, which medium has the stronger influence on the partner medium, and is thus less influenced by that partner?
Admittedly, I am no expert in Lakoff and Johnson's ideas, but I have found them to be unsatisfactory in trying to disentangle the issues above. Nearly all of the articles I have read that apply their ideas of image schemata to music seem to be descriptive or speculative. Is it possible to empirically establish specific schemata to specific music sounds? Perhaps, but I have yet to see research that does this convincingly. However, L and J's inclusion of neurological and physiological research point the way to one avenue of exploration: comparing neuro-physiological response to text only, music only, and text-music combinations could help. Comparing the same from participants from two or three radically different musical-cultural backgrounds could help establish how much of the interaction is culturally situated.
It would seem that to better understand the impact of multi-modal communication would give insight into the theological questions above. It might also help in exploring connections between seemingly disparate world-views or theologies (if two completely unconnected cultures share similar musical expressions/styles might that indicate similarity of worldview, although the sung texts might express great differences?). What about the producer? Are the interactions between modes in the mind of a receiver (audience) the same as in the mind of the performer?
Of course, behind all these questions are implications from empirical research into music and emotions, semiotics, philosophies of aesthetics, reception theory, linguistics, etc. At the very heart of it must be some kind of over-arching concept of human-music interaction. I have been hammering away at such a model for some time - a model that reflects the various 'filters' that impact human reception, calibrated to show the differing strengths of the filters; I am also trying to represent every aspect of musical sound - the music as it is - calibrate for the importance of each aspect on the innate, integral, or bioacoustic 'meaning' of a musical entity.
2. If musical sound is a mode of communication, then it is possible and important to not only try to understand what any particular piece of music is communicating (apart from the text), but how such communication happens. Thus, we have to delve into the ‘nuts and bolts’ of notes (horizontal and vertical), time and rhythm, timbre, form, performance, etc., in the same way a person might explore auto mechanics to find out how his car works (or why it doesn’t!). If we are not willing to do this, the conversation may be forever trapped in an “It doesn’t make me feel that way!” subjectivity, where the only musical compass is the individual.
3. Notably, musical and historical examples were sometimes cited inaccurately, with little or no context, in criticism of our inclusion of association as a criterion for determining whether or not a body of music should be used in fundamental Christian churches. For several bloggers, the very idea that a problematic association might preclude the use anything was foolish, ignorant, or unenlightened. To mention how a church in the past might have avoided the use of the piano or organ (or cello, for that matter), as if nothing could be more ridiculous, without actually looking into the context of the culture at the time (one of the ‘filters’ mentioned above), makes one wonder if the critic takes the doctrine of the weaker brother into consideration at all in any area of life. For Weberg and me to comment on and consider in our examination a contemporary association issue does not imply that we do not recognize that such considerations change with time and circumstance.
4. Neither Pastor Weberg nor I are in any way Hutterites or reactionaries when it comes to music or ministry.
All readers of the Examination article and responses have my sincerest wish and pray for a blessed new year of growing love for and service to our precious Saviour.
2. If musical sound is a mode of communication, then it is possible and important to not only try to understand what any particular piece of music is communicating (apart from the text), but how such communication happens. Thus, we have to delve into the ‘nuts and bolts’ of notes (horizontal and vertical), time and rhythm, timbre, form, performance, etc., in the same way a person might explore auto mechanics to find out how his car works (or why it doesn’t!). If we are not willing to do this, the conversation may be forever trapped in an “It doesn’t make me feel that way!” subjectivity, where the only musical compass is the individual.
With respect, I think this is the central problem. Is music art or science? Kinda both, but, it effects people's emotions in ways that aren't comparable to mechanics at all. One man's musical meat is another man's poison, so to come at how music effects the emotions scientifically only works if everyone's emotions and tastes are the same. Physics works as a science because the laws are always the same no matter where in the universe, and that's great, but music isn't like that. The technocrats of music like yourself may not be able to see clearly the layman's perspective on this precisely because you think in technical terms of measures, beats and the harmful effects of dotted eighth note delays. Subjectivity of standards is more difficult than the cut and dry standards you put forward. But subjectivity doesn't mean anything goes, but it may mean what goes for this person may not go for that.
I came across an article titled:
Music, the Senses and Emotion by Paul Helm
in which he responds to an article by Iain Murray.
In 1 of the sections he speaks to the issue of emotion in worship and writes:
Emotion is a good word, though sometimes its use [is] narrowed to refer exclusively to what is violent and disruptive. Sometimes it is utterly appropriate to be scared, or joyous, or exultant. And there are also calm emotions, as David Hume reminded us. It is possible to be calmly impassioned. If our response in worship is emotional in such good senses, then it will contain two elements: correct beliefs, which are what give our emotions their intellectual content; and our desires, which produce feelings of attraction or aversion regarding what we believe. So the callings out of the crowd at Pentecost, or of the Philippian gaoler, are laden with emotion. Or affection.
With respect, I think this is the central problem. Is music art or science? Kinda both, but, it effects people's emotions in ways that aren't comparable to mechanics at all. One man's musical meat is another man's poison, so to come at how music effects the emotions scientifically only works if everyone's emotions and tastes are the same. Physics works as a science because the laws are always the same no matter where in the universe, and that's great, but music isn't like that. The technocrats of music like yourself may not be able to see clearly the layman's perspective on this precisely because you think in technical terms of measures, beats and the harmful effects of dotted eighth note delays. Subjectivity of standards is more difficult than the cut and dry standards you put forward. But subjectivity doesn't mean anything goes, but it may mean what goes for this person may not go for that.
Shaynus,
Art or science - yes, I agree, music is both. I tried to make that clear in my very brief statement about music and communication:
- musical sound (all aspects/elements of music, the performing space/acoustic, and anything else outside of the receiver/listener) exists in time;
- a receiver/listener experiences musical sound in a variety of ways, or through many ‘filters’, simultaneously;
- some of the ‘filters’ are idiosyncratic (how the listener feels at the moment, his personal taste, his past experience with the particular piece or style, etc.);
- some of the ‘filters’ are shared by a large part of a listener’s community, society, or culture (educational background, dominant music types in the society, age, gender, etc.);
- some of the ‘filters’ are common to all people at all times and in all places (being a human, made in the image of God, fallen, having a physical body, etc.) Please see a brief discussion and report on research regarding a ‘universal’ emotion responses to music here.
- All of these ‘filters’ are functioning when a person hears music, although they do not all necessarily function in the same way or to the same degree.
I am sorry that you did not pick up on that. Experiencing music is one thing, analyzing it is another. I strive to do both, although I know I do both imperfectly.
It is vital that we recognize the beauty, complexity, and power of music - it is a glorious gift from the Lord. Unfortunately, it is also another gift fallen man has used in corrupted ways, as he has done with every other gift of God. We must be willing to wrestle with both the 'art' and 'science' of music, guided by a sound theology, and let the conclusions leads us where they may, whether we would have chosen the same arrival point or not. In this way we may be able to have civil, Christian conversations, without resorting to name-calling. We have the ability and responsibility to create, select, enjoy and use music for our benefit and God's glory. We have the ability to do the opposite. May He give us the grace and wisdom to do the former in our respective families and churches.
You have my sincerest wishes for a blessed new year in Christ,
Doug
Yeah I pretty much agree. I'm questioning your and others' ability to perceive how the filters actually work in someone else, especially in a group of people with whom you have very little in common.
Doug,
Could you analyze the following lyrics and song (to the tune of Auld Lang Syne) should I sing it in church under your rubric?
When on the day the great I Am
The faithful and the true
The Lamb who was for sinners slain
Is making all things new.
Behold our God shall live with us
And be our steadfast light
And we shall ere his people be
All glory be to Christ!
All glory be to Christ our king!
All glory be to Christ!
His rule and reign will ever sing,
All glory be to Christ!