A Case for Traditional Music, Part 2
Image
Read Part 1.
How to Judge Worship Music
At this point someone will certainly raise the objection that judging music is terribly subjective. For example, some musicians have taken traditional hymn texts and reset them in a contemporary style. Who is qualified to say whether the older or the newer style better accords with the truths in these texts? If serious and devout people cannot agree on these issues, is that not an indication that these are merely matters of opinion? There are several answers here.
Sustained disagreement, even among sincere believers, is far from an adequate reason to declare a matter to be mere preference.
Surely we realize that in matters of doctrine and practice, Christians of tremendous intelligence and piety have unresolved differences. The fact that such disagreements have not been settled—and show little prospect of ever being settled before the return of our Lord—does not justify our concluding that there is no truth of the matter. While reasons may exist for thinking that music is a matter of preference, a lack of consensus alone is not one of those reasons.
Scripture itself calls us to make exactly these kinds of judgments, and our progress in them is a decisive mark of spiritual maturity.
Consider here two passages from Philippians. The first is Paul’s prayer for that church: “And this I pray, that your love may abound still more and more in knowledge and all discernment, that you may approve the things that are excellent, that you may be sincere and without offense till the day of Christ, being filled with the fruits of righteousness which are by Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God” (Phil. 1:9–11). Learning to love with discernment, giving our approval to that which truly is excellent, is sanctification. In an important sense, we make progress in Christianity, not merely when we believe the right things and do the right things (out of a sense of duty), but when we come to love what is truly worth loving.
Paul makes a similar point in a familiar passage: “Finally, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy—meditate on these things. The things which you learned and received and heard and saw in me, these do, and the God of peace will be with you” (Phil. 4:8–9). I am not going to make the claim that you might expect. I am not going to tell you why I think traditional music is honorable and pure and lovely and excellent, and then tell you these verses mean that I am right and you need to love what I love.
No, all I want to say here is that Philippians 4:8 means something. Whatever Paul is saying, he simply cannot be admonishing the Philippians to embrace the notion that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. He is not telling the Philippians to think on whatever things they think are beautiful or they think are lovely. His language explicitly rejects the supposition that value judgments are purely subjective: if there is anything worthy of praise, he says, think on it. Such a statement presumes that some things are indeed worthy of praise.
Again, I am not making an argument for what is lovely; I am only saying that these verses (among others) make clear that loving specific things rightly is an aspect of Christian discipleship. Christian duty is not exhausted in merely knowing God or obeying God, for delighting in God and His good gifts is a core component of discipleship and progress in maturity. This goal cannot be accomplished without making “subjective” judgments.
Those who argue for contemporary worship recognize distinctions in music that undercut their own claim that musical meaning is esoteric.
Even within contemporary music, there are genres and stylistic differences; everyone recognizes these differences and takes them into account when choosing songs and planning worship services. Indeed, much of the rejection of traditional worship music takes the form of critiquing what that music communicates: stiltedness, formalism, a distant God. It cannot work both ways: musical meaning cannot be waved off as a mere subjective interpretation on the one hand and then employed as an objection to traditional music on the other. Advocates of contemporary worship cannot claim that their music communicates the very same emotions as traditional hymnody while simultaneously disparaging what traditional hymnody communicates.
In defending traditional worship, I am compelled to defend one last claim.
The style of traditional worship best expresses the proper affectional responses to the truths of Scripture.
I have suggested some reasons that we cannot simply call this whole thing a matter of opinion. But if I am correct in my larger argument, I must give some account for why so many sincere Christians believe that contemporary music is not only an adequate but indeed a superior expression of Christian affections.
Pastor Mike Augsburger and I agree that no musical style is uniquely Christian in the sense that it has been produced and used only by Christians. But this does not mean that all musical styles that “the world” produces are therefore interchangeable and express the same range of emotions. Every human culture has characteristic virtues and vices when measured by Scripture. Paul recognizes this, for after quoting the proverb “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons,” he says, “This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith” (Titus 1:12–13). As cultures express themselves in the arts, we expect them to be displaying their virtues and vices.
In the panel discussion that Mike and I participated in at the 2015 Midwest Congress of Baptist Fundamentalists, Mike argued that American popular music has indisputably changed meaning. There was a day, he contended, in which rock (and related genres) intentionally and successfully communicated sexual liberation and aggression against authority. But now that our bank commercials employ the same music—and what is more staid than a bank?—how can we deny that this music has been emptied of its rebelliousness? From one perspective, Mike’s point is irrefutable: the people to whom we minister no longer see rock music (or other contemporary genres) as expressing sinful values.
My contention in the panel discussion was, and remains, that this music no longer seems to communicate what it once did, not because the music has changed, but because we have. The antiestablishment won the day; the counterculture has become the prevailing culture. I do not think this is seriously contestable. From a broad historical perspective, we do not live in a uniquely depraved culture. But the common grace restraint of lawlessness is certainly less evident in our day. The sexual libertines are increasingly running out of boundaries to transgress. Only darkened minds deny obvious realities, yet denied they are.
To put it bluntly, while our culture may indeed have laudable features, reverence and honor and sobriety and self-control are not high among them. Self-indulgence and strife and disrespect are. Therefore, I see no reason to trust that the popular artistic expressions of our day are likely to express the virtues we want them to express. This has absolutely nothing to do with the origins of any musical genre; it has to do with where we are right now.
Regarding books, C. S. Lewis wrote, “Every age has its own outlook. It is specially good at seeing certain truths and specially liable to make certain mistakes. We all, therefore, need the books that will correct the characteristic mistakes of our own period. And that means the old books.” I have found that the same is true for church music. The music of Luther and Bach, the Genevan Psalter, and the American folk hymn tradition are not saying the same things as contemporary American popular music. The errors to which we are particularly liable are reflected in our contemporary hymnody. The prior ages had their errors, but they understood reverence and judgment and deliverance from judgment, the central themes of worship and the gospel. On this, they are the more trustworthy guides.
From Baptist Bulletin, May/June 2018, with permission. © Regular Baptist Press, all rights reserved.
Michael Riley 2018 Bio
Michael Riley is pastor of Calvary Baptist Church, Wakefield, MI. Before coming to Wakefield, he served at Central Baptist Theological Seminary of Minneapolis, Minnesota and International Baptist College of Chandler, Arizona. Pastor Riley received his undergraduate education in Bible from Bob Jones University, his Master of Divinity from Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, and his Ph.D. in apologetics from Westminster Theological Seminary in Glenside, PA.
- 159 views
Making an argument means first of all avoiding the slippery slope and guilt by association fallacies, Larry. Read it for yourself if you doubt me on this, but this isn’t an issue of me not understanding it, or simply not agreeing.
Slippery slope and guilt by associations are not necessarily fallacies, though they may be. The Bible uses both. You are hung up on fallacies and they just don’t work as you claim they do. It sounds like you often don’t have an actual argument. You just try to appeal to your understanding of some logical fallacy. In this case, I am not sure if you understand the argument or not. I have seen no evidence that you do, but then I don’t read most of your posts.
It seems often the case that “you didn’t make an argument” means “I don’t agree with it.” Mike made an argument. It is not an argument for the faint of heart, for those who want to give way to pious platitudes in place of substantive thought. It is an argument that requires an understanding of biblical exegesis and second premise applications. It is an argument that requires an understanding of culture. But it is an argument. And unbelievers have made essentially the same argument.
We realize you don’t agree with Mike. That’s fine. But let’s not pretend that no one has ever made a coherent argument.
It is the complete lack of Biblical evidence for his position combined with a reliance on the genetic fallacy that quite frankly ought to get his books removed altogether from BJU.
I am not sure who you are talking about here.
And along those lines, that’s why we need to love our brothers enough to gently confront them when they try to abuse Romans 14 with crackpot claims. For too many years, brothers and sisters in Christ have been hammered into abandoning freedoms Christ gave us this way.
What if your claims are the “crackpot claims”? Where is the biblical argument that music is a Romans 14 issue? You got a verse for that? Of course not. This is a very simplistic way of thinking that does not do justice to the issues at hand.
I would make an appeal for some graciousness and thoughtfulness.
[Larry Nelson]JNoël wrote:
I believe this is one reason why a pastor is wise to avoid introducing controversial music into the church if he knows there are members who would be offended. You don’t need to do that; there is plenty of God-honoring music that is without controversy, even if a “majority” would like to hear more pop-centric music in church.
“The smaller church by its nature gives immature, outspoken, opinionated, and broken members a significant degree of power over the whole body. Since everyone knows everyone else, when members of a family or small group express strong opposition to the direction set by the pastor and leaders, their misery can hold the whole congregation hostage. If they threaten to leave, the majority of people will urge the leaders to desist in their project. It is extremely difficult to get complete consensus about programs and direction in a group of 50–150 people, especially in today’s diverse, fragmented society, and yet smaller churches have an unwritten rule that for any new initiative to be implemented nearly everyone must be happy with it. Leaders of small churches must be brave enough to lead and to confront immature members, in spite of the unpleasantness involved.”
http://seniorpastorcentral.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Tim-Keller-Size-Dynamics.pdf
Did you post this because you disagree with my comment? Not sure where you’re coming from. I guess it’s good food for thought, even if it is pretty obvious. Tim Keller’s a smart guy; all he did was well state something any leader with an ounce of experience already knows.
Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)
First of all, slippery slope is often a fallacy, and guilt by assocation always is. When you’re attacking the person and not the argument, you have a false argument. It’s that simple. It’s not a popular position among those who like to make such arguments, but yet it is the truth.
Regarding not understanding my position on Garlock’s work, read the book if you don’t believe me, or for that matter, simply go through the Scriptures and try to place your finger on what passages actually would prohibit the use of certain meters, time signatures, rhythms, instruments, and the like. Reality is that you’ll sooner find a prescription for music with a beat and dancing during church services (Psalms 149-150) than you will find a proscription of modern music forms.
So unless I’m missing something big in the Scriptures, that leaves only one mode of argumentation; guilt by association and other genetic fallacies. That is exactly the point I brought up to the original post. The author argues against modern music because, and I quote,
while our culture may indeed have laudable features, reverence and honor and sobriety and self-control are not high among them. Self-indulgence and strife and disrespect are. Therefore, I see no reason to trust that the popular artistic expressions of our day are likely to express the virtues we want them to express.
That’s textbook guilt by association, Larry. And it’s a mode of argumentation we need to stop, because it’s basically throwing rhetorical bombs at the other side, and then we wonder why we’re fighting so much. It’s simply because genetic fallacies, and the insults that they contain, are so deeply ingrained in our culture.
And again, it’s also worth noting that Mike’s argument is historically and theologically uninformed. It’s theologically uninformed because the sin nature will influence all genre, not just the ones we dislike. It’s historically uninformed because history backs up the theory of the sin nature showing itself in gross public sins.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
I don’t find the conflation of meaning and morality helpful.
“Morality” is fundamentally linked to God’s Law and a reflection of ought. Its nexus is our relationship with God and/or others. “Meaning” speaks of communication, intention, and significance. I.e., a sort of conveyance of a message. It is transactional between two parties.
The question, then, is whether the medium can convey the complexity of meaning necessary to achieve a form of morality (affirming or negating God’s Law—which, don’t forget, was given to us in language with words).
Numbers and formula have meaning. Do they convey morality? Only when contextualized. The same with music.
I don’t find the conflation of meaning and morality helpful.
There was no conflation at all. I would suggest the actual point I made is helpful even if you don’t find it so. But I think this is why the conversation never really goes anywhere. People have their minds made up already. But even so, meaning is fundamental. If you don’t know what something means, you have no way of declaring is good or bad.
This is the only musical standard we need in Baptist churches! Haymen!!!???
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[TylerR]No thanks!This is the only musical standard we need in Baptist churches! Haymen!!!???
The “patriotic hymns” section is too small. We need a better range for the weeks leading up to our “4th o’ Joo-lai” Celebration. ;)
As I said, I don’t want to delve deeply here because I think the conversation is lacking some significant issues. But let me try to end my part here quickly.
Regarding not understanding my position on Garlock’s work, read the book if you don’t believe me, or for that matter, simply go through the Scriptures and try to place your finger on what passages actually would prohibit the use of certain meters, time signatures, rhythms, instruments, and the like.
I understand your position on Garlock’s work. It’s a bad work and I don’t need to read the book. i got it straight from Garlock years ago. But you didn’t say anything about Garlock in the previous post. If people are using Garlock’s arguments, they should stop.
I am not aware of any passages that prohibit certain meters, time signatures, rhythms, instruments, or the like. It wouldn’t occur to me to search for them. But that’s a straw man. If you think that is the issue, then I would suggest you might not know what the conversation is about. That is based on your flawed understanding of what you call “the first fundamental.”
So unless I’m missing something big in the Scriptures
Yes, I think that is the case, and I think you are also missing something big in culture.
That’s textbook guilt by association, Larry.
It seems you have completely missed Mike’s argument.
And again, it’s also worth noting that Mike’s argument is historically and theologically uninformed. It’s theologically uninformed because the sin nature will influence all genre, not just the ones we dislike. It’s historically uninformed because history backs up the theory of the sin nature showing itself in gross public sins.]
I think it is actually quite the opposite, though your last sentence is not clear.
Again, my only point was to ask one question about whether or not two forms of music were interchangeable. The answer was no for obvious reasons. The question is why those reasons aren’t actually part of the conversation.
My first exposure to the fundamentalist view of music was massive doses fo Garlock’s books, sermons, and lectures. I embraced every detail whole heartedly and regurgitated his “proven facts” to my congregation and students, citing Dr. Garlock as my source. (Quite a leap for a guy like me who spent most of his adult life in the music business before I was saved.)
The summary: Bad music will make you sin! A theory that seems to still exist.
BTW, the definition of “bad” was broad including back beats, tri-tones (?), music with its roots in Africa, hand-held microphones, “scooping”, amplified instruments, and guitars (unless you didn’t have a piano, then a guitar was OK as long as you didn’t play it in a worldly manner.)
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
Larry, I’m glad we agree that there is no argument from Scripture, but if not from there, where else can the argument be made? From where do we get the premises of our syllogisms?
If not from Scripture, it must be the wisdom of men, no?
And that would be bad enough, but quite frankly, Mike simply santiizes the argument of Garlock by saying he doesn’t trust music from today’s culture because of the perceived faults of today’s culture. It’s superficially more socially acceptable than Garlock’s “devil’s beat” arguments, but in practice, it really means about the same thing; modern music, meaning the various forms of rock & roll, rap, and the like—those forms derived from jazz and blues, and transitively from black gospel—is not acceptable.
And if we think that our brothers and sisters of African descent don’t catch on to what this really means, dream on.
Once again, if there is indeed an argument from Scripture that would bound the range of acceptable music styles without contradicting the clear implications of Psalms 149 and 150, I’d be glad to hear it, but quite frankly, I’ve not yet seen it.
One other note; the historical analysis of the original article is quite frankly incoherent, as it asserts on one side that today’s culture is not uniquely sinful, but on the flip side, it argues that the common grace restraint of lawlessness is less evident. In other words, we’re not more sinful than ever, but we are.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Larry]But even so, meaning is fundamental. If you don’t know what something means, you have no way of declaring is good or bad.
Are you VanTilian? Do you believe everything is either evil or good?
Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)
Do you believe everything is either evil or good?
Is there a third option?
[Larry]Is there a third option?
Yes - neither. But I didn’t need to say that, of course; you already know there are those who believe there are things that have no morality - that’s how we interpret Paul’s meat. So, larger than the question “is music amoral” then becomes the question “is amorality scriptural?”
Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)
Yes - neither. But I didn’t need to say that, of course; you already know there are those who believe there are things that have no morality - that’s how we interpret Paul’s meat.
I think you need to explain what you mean by neither. Are you saying there are things about which God has no view? That’s the actual question we need to ask and answer. I think the answer to that is “No.” With God everything is either good or evil; acceptable or unacceptable.
In Paul, the issue wasn’t that meat had no morality. Paul (and other passages) clearly declare that the meat was good. It was acceptable to God. It was people’s consciences that were deficient. But that’s a far different thing than participating in idol worship with the use of that (good) meat.
I think you are shifting the categories a bit by conflating a thing with the use of a thing. And the fact that people believe something is irrelevant.
Furthermore, the assumption that music=meat is far too easily assumed and it actually needs to be argued. What if music isn’t meat at all in the terms of 1 Cor?
Again, I don’t have a lot of time for this and these discussions typically aren’t productive because of the overly simplistic approach. But I think this is missing an awful lot of questions.
I’m glad we agree that there is no argument from Scripture, but if not from there, where else can the argument be made? From where do we get the premises of our syllogisms?
Again you seem not to understand the conversation. The “no argument from Scripture” was in response to your specific questions. The idea that there is no argument from Scripture about the way we approach God or the way we speak to God and about God is not true. God does reveal something about how we approach God and how we talk about God and to God. He even shows us how it works in other cultures.
The premise of our syllogisms comes from Scripture. What does not come from Scripture is the 2nd premise (and that’s what you are focusing on). That requires an understanding of culture and an understanding of meaning.
Mike simply santiizes the argument of Garlock by saying he doesn’t trust music from today’s culture because of the perceived faults of today’s culture.
Again, I think you don’t understand Mike’s argument. Mike is a friend of mine and Mike and I don’t see directly eye to eye on this. But I think I understand his argument. And I think you don’t.
One other note; the historical analysis of the original article is quite frankly incoherent, as it asserts on one side that today’s culture is not uniquely sinful, but on the flip side, it argues that the common grace restraint of lawlessness is less evident. In other words, we’re not more sinful than ever, but we are.
Surely you are not arguing that today’s culture is uniquely sinful. And surely you are not arguing that humans aren’t growing worse and worse. Both of those are clear teachings of Scripture. So to say the historical argument is incoherent needs better support than what you offered here.
Discussion