Cultural Conservatism, Styles and Accidental Meaning
A river in China features a warning sign for visitors. Thoughtfully, the authorities included this helpful English translation: “Take the child. Fall into water carefully.”
It is possible to intend one meaning and yet convey a very different one! In other words, a medium (vehicle of meaning) may “contain” meaning we do not realize is there. And use of that medium may also send a message we do not realize is being sent.
This phenomenon has important implications for the debate over cultural conservatism (“styles” or “forms” of music, dress, speech, etc.) and the sub-debate over the fitness of styles of music for worship. Many involved in the debate seem to reason that since they do not intend any meaning by the style they are using, and they are not aware of any meaning, therefore no meaning exists and none is being conveyed. Are they right?
The case of Corinth
Before we turn our attention to the implications of accidental cultural meaning, we should pause and consider another question: does the Bible teach that styles have meaning—intended or otherwise? It does, and 1 Corinthians 11 contains an example. In this passage, not only does a medium convey meaning, but the meaning conveyed is not what some of those involved intended.
I anticipate two objections. Objection one: “Wait. 1 Corinthians 11 is one of the most famously difficult passages in the NT. You’re going to make your case from there?” Objection two: “There is nothing about styles in 1 Corinthians 11.”
Styles
Taking the second objection first, whether there is anything about styles in the chapter depends on what we mean by “styles.” An artist always works with a medium. Whether it’s clay, stone, paint, words, physical movement, music or a combination of these, most artists believe they are using a medium to carry meaning to a recipient. Language works the same way. In a people group or geographical region, spoken and written word is a medium for communication. People share enough of the same understanding of words and phrases to use them and understand one another.
This is why the river sign in China is a fail for English speakers. Between the sign makers and native English speakers, there is too little shared understanding of the medium. (Interestingly, most would agree that one of the two parties understands the medium incorrectly. It isn’t simply a matter of preference.)
When it comes to “style,” we’re just talking about another medium. Fashion designers have long held that the style of their work conveys meaning (the Wikipedia entry on fashion is interesting on this point). This is the very definition of a medium. In Webster, it’s “a means of effecting or conveying something.” And who can deny that the police officer’s uniform, the clown’s getup, the judge’s robes, the sports-fan’s jersey, and the bride’s gown all convey very different meanings? The fact that styles are mediums of meaning surrounds us every day.
So, while the concept of styles does not appear specifically in 1 Corinthians 11, the category of mediums does, and style is in that category. To say it another way, style is a species of the genus medium. What is true of the genus is true of the species.
Difficulty
The second objection was this: Should we use such a difficult passage to make the point that in Scripture style has meaning? In this case, the difficulty turns out to be irrelevant. Regardless of how one interprets the most difficult parts of the passage, two things are clear:
- In Corinth, the presence or absence of a head covering meant something.
- Some of the Corinthians were conveying that meaning without realizing it.
These points hold, regardless of whether one understands the head covering to be hair or a veil or something else. The most germane part of the text follows:
But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man…. That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. (ESV, 1 Cor. 11:3-7, 10)
Whatever else may have been amiss in Corinth, it’s evident that their problems included misconduct with head coverings, that this misconduct conveyed inappropriate meaning (note the question in 11:13, “Is it proper…?”), and that they were not all aware of the meaning they were conveying (“but I want you to understand,” v.3).
For Paul, the solution to the problem was to make the Corinthians aware of the meaning their head covering, or lack of head covering, conveyed. The medium of the head covering meant something in Corinthian society. In that context, it apparently even meant something to “the angels” (v. 10).
Implications for the cultural conservatism debate
If a medium can contain meaning we’re unaware of and convey that meaning to others, what are the implications for the culture debate in general and music styles in particular?
We don’t have proof here that a blue grass twang conveys important differences in meaning from a pipe organ, that bluesy chord progressions convey important differences in meaning from classical chord progressions or that modern syncopated rhythms convey important differences in meaning from the simpler rhythms of high hymnody.
However, both daily experience and 1 Corinthians 11 reveal that meaning may exist where we think it doesn’t. Whether our convictions lead us toward traditional or more contemporary “styles,” the phenomenon of accidental meaning calls on us to think soberly about our stylistic choices. We really can “say things” through style that we don’t intend to say.
Aaron Blumer Bio
Aaron Blumer, SharperIron’s second publisher, is a Michigan native and graduate of Bob Jones University (Greenville, SC) and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He and his family live in a small town in western Wisconsin, not far from where he pastored Grace Baptist Church for thirteen years. He is employed in customer service for UnitedHealth Group and teaches high school rhetoric (and sometimes logic and government) at Baldwin Christian School.
- 20 views
Jay,
Maybe eventually we’ll reach the point where we both understand what the other is trying to say! :-)
I should have said that the issue of music goes beyond (rather than outside) of the Romans 14 sphere. That is, there may be circumstances involving music where we could reasonably apply the admonitions of Romans 14 (like the example I cited previously); however, the music issue to me covers a much broader swath than the Romans 14 considerations.
Regarding this, it is natural that we view Rom. 14 differently on this issue. From your perspective (if I understand you correctly), believing that music is amoral in and of itself, then the only considerations are how the music is perceived by the hearer. Assuming that music is amoral, Romans 14 would be the main area of application to any disagreements over the issue.
Because I’m assuming something different (based upon evidence I see as compelling), Romans 14 is not the main issue of consideration. Only when we’re dealing with things having no intrinsic moral significance do we then apply principles of the weaker brother/stronger brother in the sphere of music. Make sense?
“What criteria do you use, then, to prove the things that are (to borrow from Romans 12) ‘good, acceptable, and perfect?’ It seems like, as someone else noted, the position is ‘have my cake’ (or music that I like) and ‘eat it too’ (reject what music I personally see as bad).”
Let me first say that the criteria does not (intentionally at least) involve “what I like”. Some of the songs from the album you pointed to I could find “appealing”. The point is not what “appeals to me” because Jeremiah 17:9; the question is what pleases God (I don’t say that to imply you don’t want to please God, but simply to underscore the distinction between what might appeal to me and what I judge to be acceptable to the Lord).
I hoped that the description I gave above along with the example might help you to understand the kind of “criteria” I use to “prove the things that are ‘good, acceptable, and perfect.’” I’m not sure how to explain it significantly better.
The authority is God’s Word; the entirety of it. Again, it’s deploying the commands, principles, and patterns found in Scripture to determine what is holy and what is not. I cannot determine this apart from God’s Word and the enlightenment of His Spirit. So, in the example cited above, I applied the command to be “sober” and “temperate” to types of music which by observation I find tends to produce “bad fruit”; behavior which God commands us to put away from us.
Practically speaking, when music is heard, you “test” it. Does this style or sound (apart from the lyrics) tend to appeal to fleshly, carnal desires; either in myself or as a pattern in others around me? When people listen or perform this style of music, do their actions and behavior tend towards Godly or ungodly character traits?
There are many other considerations which may come into view. For instance:
By observation, do those that sing/play a certain style of music tend to be focused on performance (drawing attention to themselves)? If so, this would at least prohibit its use as “worship” music; Scripture is clear that music is to be directed to God and for His glory (and secondarily minister to other Christians). Therefore, drawing attention and admiration towards one’s self seek’s personal glory, rather than God’s glory.
Now admittedly, such analysis often requires an element of wisdom and discernment. One may discern incorrectly in either direction. However, because Christians may disagree over some areas of discernment, does this mean that the underlying issue is or is not present? Does it mean that it cannot be determined? Of course not. If things requiring discernment could not be discerned, then what’s the point of having discernment?
So then does Romans 14 require that we simply leave all areas of practical discernment over which there might be disagreement for each person to be “persuaded in their own mind”? No - at the very least two brothers ought to be able to discuss and wrestle over the issue with sincerity of hearts and come away challenged and “sharpened” (This is not to say that we must confront everyone immediately on every little issue and cause strife; it is to say that when an appropriate teaching or discussion opportunity arises, we should not shy away from it). These things are worth discussing because of the moral implications of the issues involved (a disregard for the issue could lead to sin/stumbling). I would apply Scriptures such as II TIm. 4:2 and Rom. 15:14 to these types of issues.
When I was stationed in Alabama, I attended a church that primarily used a conservative gospel style of music. While with them, I grew to understand the subtleties of the music, and it became a serious form of worship for me while I was with my brothers and sisters in the south. Now, I live out West. I haven’t listened to southern gospel for quite some time. When I do hear it, the music sounds corny, trite, brash, and un-serious (no offense to my southern brethren). I would not choose it to play after a morning reading. In other words, the meaning of that genre has shifted for me as my culture has changed.
However, some things remained consistent for me throughout the transition. I was always able to pick up on happy, sad, angry, aggressive, or soothing strains in southern gospel. I would still know when it is appropriate to shout that “hey-men” with the short one-hand southern wave thing. Those musical cues seem to be universal.
In conclusion, I believe music carries meaning. Some meanings seem to be universal. Some appear to be cultural. When presenting music, I want to exalt Christ while being sensitive to the culture I am in. When hearing music, I want to attempt to understand the musical cues the presenter is attempting to communicate. Hopefully, I can be gracious both ways.
While traveling this past weekend, I was listening to BBN (Bible Broadcasting Network), a supposedly reliable source for conservative Christian music, and heard “Heaven Came Down and Glory Filled My Soul” arranged for and played on what I think was a calliope. I’m still recovering and my wife is still shuddering.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
Ron - Wow. I’ve heard some bad renditions of hymns, but that gets a category by itself. I almost want to hear it so I can categorize it on a list of worst renditions ever.
Karl S-
I finally found where I laid out some of my underlying principles on music. Here’s the link to the thread, and here’s the criteria. I’m not sure that it will change anything, but it might help you understand my position a little better:
My argument is basically this:
- The ultimate goal is to fulfill passages to love the Lord with all the heart, soul, mind and strength (Deut 6, 11:1, Matthew 22:37, Luke 10:37). Music is a means to that end.
- The words and lyrics do communicate. They must communicate Biblical principles (Eph. 5:19, Col. 3:16).
- The Bible is not clear on what that must sound like - it references different instruments (cymbals, stringed instruments, etc). It tells us to sing ‘a new song’ (Ps. 40:3). It tells us to sing ‘psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs’ (Ephesians 5:19, Col. 3:16). It does not say things like choirs and orchestras are the only acceptable form of music tune making. It does reference such things as choirs and orchestras.
- The Bible tells us not to love the world. It is entirely possible to not love the world or the world’s styles and still make musical “tunes” (not the lyrics). There is no Biblical precedent (that I see) that the ‘new song’ (of Psalm 40:3) is the ‘conservative’ form of music, the ‘modern’ form of music, or any other particular style of music.
- Arguments for a music’s style based on the culture that it “came from” or “sound like” are specious because the associations with those sounds can and do change. The sound or style can also mean two totally different things to different believers (what is a great and edifying song for me might be horribly offensive to Mark_Smith - because I don’t have the background and associations that Mark does). That’s the point of Romans 14:1-13.
- Proper music will communicate clearly a message. Our responsibility is to ensure that it communicates the gospel, Biblical truth or praise to God. Proper music can and will be governed by Scripture alone, because languages and cultures vary widely from age to age and throughout the centuries.
- Most of the principles espoused by ‘conservative’ musicians cannot be practically applied to a culture that does not sing or speak English.
Is that helpful?
I should note that I strongly disagree with your statement that I believe music is amoral. I also strongly disagree with the idea that music is amoral because man, who is fundamentally altered by sin and the sin nature, can not and does not create anything that is pleasing to God by Himself. All our deeds are evil in His sight.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
[Jay]I should note that I strongly disagree with your statement that I believe music is amoral. I also strongly disagree with the idea that music is amoral because man, who is fundamentally altered by sin and the sin nature, can not and does not create anything that is pleasing to God by Himself. All our deeds are evil in His sight.
One of the things that adds to the confusion over where people land on the music issue is the shortage of clarifications on what any one particular person means when they use the word “music.” There are many aspects to be concerned with. For example:
- Lyrics
- Vocalization style/manner
- Melody (if present) and construction of supporting sounds. If the words are removed, what does it look like on paper (or what would it sound like if played back in MIDI format)?
- Rhythms
- Instrument choices
- Instrumentation style/manner
- Who wrote and/or used/popularized all of the above
So when a person says “I disapprove of CCM” are they saying they disapprove of it as a movement? The writing? The instruments they use in performance? The association with its writers? The vocalization style of its commonly heard performers? The lyrics? The rhythms?
Writers in the CCM industry have certainly done one thing to help move things forward - they have been producing works that are far more rich in doctrine than the 7-11 songs so frequently ridiculed. So the lyrical argument gets significantly marginalized (this is a good thing) leaving the far more complicated issue, that of “what it sounds like.”
But as far as the morality (good, bad or neutral) of music is concerned, are we talking about single notes, full constructions of works, the instruments used, how they are played, the vocalization techniques, the lyrics, or a combination of one or more? Does the inherent morality of music question include its source?
V/r
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)
[JNoël]Does the inherent morality of music question include its source?
Is truth still truth if an evil person speaks it?
[jcoleman]Is truth still truth if an evil person speaks it?
My comment regarding the source wasn’t meant to be of any particular significance in my post. My point is that of encouraging specificity in communication when discussing such a complex issue as music.
V/r
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)
Discussion