Musing About Music
Reposted, with permission, from Theologically Driven.
WikiAnswers poses the question, “Why does music exist?” then self-replies: “Because it brings happiness to people all over the world.”
We must grant that WikiAnswers is scarcely an authoritative reference source, but it does offer a window on popular culture. It reflects that a common reason (and perhaps the most common reason) for the societal “doing” of music today is to forget the pain, grief, anxiety, dreariness, and simple ennui of life and enter an imaginary world where one can have the emotional experience of his choice—usually a happy one. Ironically, the historically central idea of “music” (fr. the Grk. μοῦσα, to muse, think, remember, or reflect) has been transformed in the last century into its own etymological opposite—an occasion, whether active or passive, for not “musing,” or, supplying the alpha privative, a venue foramusement. This is not to say that music as amusement or as a means of forgetting is always bad (see in principle Prov. 31:7), but it does reflect a total reversal of the Western tradition concerning the central purpose of music.
Of course, history only slightly improves on Wiki in terms of warrant. Still it is interesting to know that the perceived function of music from the classical period to the rise of populism was as an aid to musing and remembering, or perhaps better, as a means to creating the affective distance necessary to fostering reflection.
The theme of music as an abstract idea is rare in Scripture. The Greek term μοῦσα appears only once in the NT (Rev. 22:18). More common NT terms reflect instantiations of music: ᾄδω (oding), ὑμνεω (hymning) and ψάλλω (psalming). Hebrew is slightly more fruitful—the most common Hebrew word group for music, the שׁיר word group, includes in its scope not only “singing,” “playing,” and “songs” but also the more abstract idea of “song.” Most of what we know of the purpose for “song,” though, we learn from the songs: they provided a platform for mutual and reflective praise, joy, thanksgiving, lament, hope, victory, and the recollection of the works of God.
Music had a didactic purpose too (so Col. 3:16). This is interesting, because nearly all agree that propositional and prosaic forms of communication are more efficient and precise than non-propositional and poetic forms of communication—at least in the transmission of denotative meaning. So why music? Quite simply, because music adds a connotative and rhetorical dimension to communication that mere words cannot, or at least not efficiently. Among these,
- Music engages the whole person in spiritual discourse, slowing the flow of information to the mind, facilitating reflection, awakening chaste affections,* and encouraging appropriate motions of the will. In short, it allows the musician to muse.
- Music is also an effective mnemonic device. With its penchant for artistic cadence, repetition, rhyme, poetic devices, etc., music helps us visualize and remember the propositional content that attaches to it.
- Music balances immanence with transcendence. Music causes the individual musician to step back, consider abstractly his place in the universal metanarrative, and then resolve to fulfill his duty/destiny.
- Music creates a requisite sense of community. Music helps us see not only how we fit into transcendent realities, but also how we share experimental solidarity with others (whether fellow-Christians, fellow-countrymen, fellow-soldiers, etc.) in common worship, grief, joy, hope, recollection, affirmation, or action.
Assuming that these are the intended functions of music (and both secular and biblical song prior to the twentieth century seems to bear this out), it follows that we should analyze our songs to discover whether they do these things well. This means more than ascertaining that the denotative propositions that attach to music—the words—are good and true and worthwhile (though we certainly cannot neglect this); it means that we must also consider whether the music that attaches to the words does all that it ought to do. This is an ethical question that we cannot afford to leave unanswered. And so I force myself to answer questions like…
- In my selection of music am I more concerned about musing or about amusing? In other words, does the music cause me to remember/reflect or to forget/release?
- Do I make musical choices based on whether they will awaken my affections or stimulate my emotions?
- Is my music strictly about the here-and-now or, conversely, strictly about the wholly other? Or does it attempt to integrate the immanent with the transcendent?
- Does my music complement the lyrics and cause me to remember—both as I sing and afterwards?
- In my choice of music am I more concerned with personal expression or with expressing public and experimental solidarity with a community?
The fact is, God never tells us why he created music, why he made man a musical being, nor why he demands music of us. It is likely that these reasons mirror the reasons why he created ethics, made us ethical beings, and demands ethics from us—to reflect his image! We all know that we should do ethics well and to that end we submit to an endless stream of books and articles that attempt to untangle the gray areas of ethics from the standpoint of both Scripture and natural law. We know that there is a right and a wrong way to do ethics, even when these prove elusive. We know further that public consensus on ethical matters is not wholly trustworthy, and at times is wholly untrustworthy: when waves of ethical novelty shake society, we scrutinize their underpinnings and offer superior alternatives.
But when it comes to aesthetics, discussion of the gray areas is increasingly thought to be off limits. The only aesthetic standard permitted, it seems, is that of contemporaneity. Popular taste and preference prevail, and public consensus can never be wrong. When waves of aesthetic upheaval shake society, we are expected to submit to them without censure or even reflection. I find this perplexing.
It is impossible to escape the fact that the function of music has changed radically in the last century—in ways that have never before been seen in the history of mankind. And the church is understandably having a hard time adjusting. While reflection and resistance have occurred at times in the Christian community, the Church as a whole seems to have reached an alarming watershed—a consensus decision that (1) there is no profit in philosophizing and theologizing about aesthetics, that (2) the threat of being aesthetically “of the world” does not exist, and that (3) the threat of not being aesthetically “in the world” is by far the greater crisis of the evangelical church.
We must be frank in admitting that some who have attempted to parse the paradox of Christ and culture in the aesthetic sphere have done so poorly. But this does not give us a pass, as ministers of the Word, from being proactive in parsing the paradox and thinking meta-musically. And even when we tire of shrill and uninformed voices on both sides of the debate, we surely must not become angry or dismissive toward those who persist in the exercise. We may not all come to common conclusions (like ethics, music can be quite abstract), but we cannot be so foolish and atheological to imagine that aesthetics have at long last been detached from ethics within the Christian worldview.
Notes
* Gerald McDermott (Seeing God: Jonathan Edwards and Spiritual Discernment p. 40) summarizes the difference between affections and emotions in the following chart. I would like to suggest that the chart extends beyond the affection/emotion dichotomy to include ministry as vocation/avocation and music as musing/amusement:
Affections | Emotions |
Long-lasting | Fleeting |
Deep | Superficial |
Consistent with beliefs | Sometimes overpowering |
Always result in action | Often fail to produce action |
Involve mind, will, feelings | Feelings (often) disconnected from the mind and will |
Mark Snoeberger Bio
Mark Snoeberger is Associate Professor of Systematic Theology at Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary and has served as Director of Library Services since 1997. He received his M.Div. and Th.M. from DBTS and earned a Ph.D. in systematic theology from Baptist Bible Seminary in Clarks Summit, PA. Prior to joining the DBTS staff, he served for three years as an assistant pastor.
Yes, music has inherent morality. By that it always creates a mood or an atmosphere. If you hear music you may say that sounds sad or happy. You may say that makes me joyful or melancholy. It sounds inspiring or soothing. Music is never neutral. True, two different people may hear the same music and it may affect them in different ways, but it is never inanimate. The point isn’t does it communicate the same way to everyone. The point is that everyone will feel or sense something when they hear music. Take a little child. Without us teaching or showing them anything about music, they can tell for themselves if the music sounds happy or sad.
Music also does not cause us to do things, but it an influencing agent. It doesn’t cause us to do things against our will, but it suggests directions we can go. Music played fast doesn’t force us to run fast, but it does point us in that direction. Dance music doesn’t force us to dance, but it does influence it.
I’m not even going to address the asinine questions above about paint in a restaurant or weather.
[mmartin]I’m not even going to address the asinine questions above about paint in a restaurant or weather.
Asinine? I think not. If anything that affects emotions is moral, then paint colors are moral.
[mmartin]I’m not even going to address the asinine questions above about paint in a restaurant or weather.
If the example about paint and the weather is so asinine, please explain how it differs from music. I’m just using your same logic and applying it to other things that affect our emotions. The color of paint also “creates a mood or an atmosphere.” If you look at the color of a paint it looks “sad or happy. You may say that makes me joyful or melancholy.” It looks “inspiring or soothing.” “The point is that everyone will feel or sense something when they” look at the color of the paint. I can go through and use your quotes again and apply them to the weather. Are the color of paint and the weather both inherently moral?
[mmartin]Yes, music has inherent morality. By that it always creates a mood or an atmosphere. If you hear music you may say that sounds sad or happy. You may say that makes me joyful or melancholy. It sounds inspiring or soothing. Music is never neutral. True, two different people may hear the same music and it may affect them in different ways, but it is never inanimate. The point isn’t does it communicate the same way to everyone. The point is that everyone will feel or sense something when they hear music. Take a little child. Without us teaching or showing them anything about music, they can tell for themselves if the music sounds happy or sad.
Music also does not cause us to do things, but it an influencing agent. It doesn’t cause us to do things against our will, but it suggests directions we can go. Music played fast doesn’t force us to run fast, but it does point us in that direction. Dance music doesn’t force us to dance, but it does influence it.
I’m not even going to address the asinine questions above about paint in a restaurant or weather.
mmartin, I’m still struggling to connect your arguments with your conclusions. You have again made the de facto claim that music is inherently moral because it causes emotion. That assumption is what I and others have taken issue with.
The two main issues that I see are that 1) Emotions are not moral…they lead us to make moral decisions and 2) Emotional responses are not uniform across humanity or even across a single social group.
Firstly, emotions are not equivalent to morality. Look no further than the Psalms to see that music can and should cause a wide range of emotions…and these emotions are Scripturally demonstrated. Obviously emotions can be appropriate for some situations and inappropriate for others. But God gave us emotions so that our hearts would intertwine with the truths of our minds. A man could intellectually love his wife, but it doesn’t matter if he doesn’t love her emotionally. If I am worshipping God, my emotions can accentuate my worship. Music that piques my emotions can help me latch on to God and his majesty. Conversely, music can incline my heart to worship other things….that is the reason that we pair good lyrics with appropriate music.
But that is why we need to realize that emotional responses are not uniform. The bars of the Deutschlandlied inspires nationalist pride in Germany, hatred of oppression in Poland, and thoughts of worship in America. More specifically, some people have been conditioned by their culture and mores to believe that drums and guitars are evil. When they hear those instruments they are unable to grasp the truth of the lyrics. In that case, they should refrain from that type of worship music. But the vast majority of Christianity in America does not have that type of emotional response to modern worship music. The harmonies of the guitars plead with their hearts to accept the truths of God’s Word. This is not sinful…it is the reason that God established the power of music. Music draws us closer to himself. To many Christians, 19th Century folks songs cannot sway us toward God in the way that a modern worship song (like In Christ Alone, or How Great Is Our God) does. For myself, the bellow of the organ feels constricting and the rigid banality of old congregational songs sap my heart of its passion to embrace the truths of the lyrics (this is not to say that I cannot and do not worship God with some of these songs).
If I believed that music was inherently moral, shouldn’t I sing in the Middle Eastern style of Biblical times? Obviously Jesus would have had a strong understanding of the morality of the Psalms/songs that were sung in His day. I could find safety in his musical choices.
But that is ridiculous, for we do not limit ourselves to the stylings of Jesus’ day. We cannot consistently practice the inherent morality of particular music styles while simultaneously exalting a single style of music that is completely foreign to Christ and his cultural milieu. We have adapted our worship style (recently at that) to music that was appropriate for its purpose and context. Thus I am led to believe that we, as the church, have been entrusted with the stewardship of using music to edify and educate God’s people. The church has attempted to consistently fit the music of their worship to the needs of its people. It has always been a struggle in the church to adapt to the needs of its people. I pray to God that he will give us the wisdom to educate and lead his church in the way that will best enable their hearts to embrace Him…for He alone is worthy of our praise.
May Christ Be Magnified - Philippians 1:20 Todd Bowditch
Right now I’m thinking of the title of a book written by Glen Beck.
[mmartin]Right now I’m thinking of the title of a book written by Glen Beck.
For those who (like myself), care very little for Glenn Beck or what he has to say, I wikied his recent writings. I’ll let you be the judge of mmartin’s intent.
The Real America: Messages from the Heart and Heartland. Simon and Schuster. 2003. ISBN 978-0-7434-9696-4. [74]
An Inconvenient Book: Real Solutions to the World’s Biggest Problems. Simon and Schuster. 2007. ISBN 978-1-4391-6857-8.
Glenn Beck’s Common Sense: The Case Against an Out-of-Control Government, Simon & Schuster 2009. ISBN 978-1-4391-6857-8.[75] [76]
Arguing with Idiots: How to Stop Small Minds and Big Government, Simon & Schuster 2009. ISBN 978-1-4165-9501-4.
May Christ Be Magnified - Philippians 1:20 Todd Bowditch
MMartin is clearly thinking of…”An Inconvenient Book”. Or maybe “Common Sense”, although I prefer Paine’s volume to his.
;)
"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
:-)!
Mmartin, since you are arguing with idiots (I despise Beck too but know enough about him to know that is what you are saying), my question to you is this:
Why are you an expert on music? What are your qualifications?
Former Iowa football coach Hayden Fry had the visitor locker room painted pink at Iowa’s Kinnick stadium because studies have shown that the color pink creates a calming effect on people instead of the aggression needed to play college football. Former coaching legend of Michigan Bo Schembechler hated it so much that he would bring wall paper to cover it up. http://collegefootball.about.com/od/traditions/a/trad-iowapink.htm
GregH, I never claimed to be an expert on music. I have no music expert qualifications. What are yours?
I don’t need to have “qualifications.” Its called common sense. It isn’t that hard.
mmartin, so it is perfectly fine to blast away at everyone that disagrees with you on this stuff even though you know nothing about it? Don’t get me wrong; it is par for the course as they say and I am hardly surprised because I know of several of you. Just proves a theory: those who know the least know it the loudest and most dogmatically. :)
Now that MMartin has:
- confirmed that he’s called everyone he disagrees with an “idiot” (indirectly, because to actually say it directly would get him a greeting from the friendly moderating team)
- said that he has no music training or qualifications
- and has said that this is all just ‘common sense’ (despite the fact that no one can follow his argument)
- and has resorted to ad hominem attacks and this kind of behavior on multiple other threads
Why don’t the rest of us just ignore him as a troublemaker / troll? I mean, it seems like to engage with him is to encourage his behavior.
*****
As charcoal to hot embers and wood to fire, so is a quarrelsome man for kindling strife. - Proverbs 26:21
It is an honor for a man to keep aloof from strife, but every fool will be quarreling. - Proverbs 20:3
As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him - Titus 3:10
"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
Trust me, you don’t know anything about me nor what “group” I may fall into. Nor I you for that matter. And, I really don’t care either.
All I’m saying is that music is moral because it affects people and communicates a mood or feeling. When I see music in a restaurant influencing my boy to dance, common sense says music influences people. Right!? When calm, soothing music is used to help a baby go to sleep who needs to have “qualifications” about music? Music is a medium that affects people deeply. It really isn’t that hard to understand, except for some …
Maybe if I just type slower. :-)!
BTW, you haven’t any statements about your, ahem, qualifications to refute what I’m saying, except to badger. Not that I care about it, just saying don’t stand on the sidelines.
All I’m saying is that music is moral because it affects people and communicates a mood or feeling.
Anyone want to start a list of things that aren’t moral that affect people and communicate moods and feelings? Colors, sounds, smells, words……
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
Well, mmartin, here is the thing. People that actually are qualified to talk about the issue know that it is not just simple common sense. Frankly, your insistence that it is just simple common sense is all the evidence I need to know that you really don’t even know the questions much less the answers.
My qualifications are not the issue here. I am not the one making sweeping dogmatic judgments about music and musicians.
[Jay]Now that MMartin has:
- confirmed that he’s called everyone he disagrees with an “idiot” (indirectly, because to actually say it directly would get him a greeting from the friendly moderating team)
- said that he has no music training or qualifications
- and has said that this is all just ‘common sense’ (despite the fact that no one can follow his argument)
- and has resorted to ad hominem attacks and this kind of behavior on multiple other threads
Why don’t the rest of us just ignore him as a troublemaker / troll? I mean, it seems like to engage with him is to encourage his behavior.
*****
As charcoal to hot embers and wood to fire, so is a quarrelsome man for kindling strife. - Proverbs 26:21
It is an honor for a man to keep aloof from strife, but every fool will be quarreling. - Proverbs 20:3
As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him - Titus 3:10
* Yes, it is true that I have no formal music training or qualifications. Didn’t know either myself, you, or anyone else in this conversation needed “qualifications” to comment about this subject.
* Not sure what you mean by “no one can follow my arguments.” The main point I’ve been saying is simply that music is moral because it communicates. I am not the first person in the world to say such a thing. How is this too hard to follow?
* Yes, common sense is in effect as I have illustrated repeatedly.
[GregH]Well, mmartin, here is the thing. People that actually are qualified to talk about the issue know that it is not just simple common sense. Frankly, your insistence that it is just simple common sense is all the evidence I need to know that you really don’t even know the questions much less the answers.
My qualifications are not the issue here. I am not the one making sweeping dogmatic judgments about music and musicians.
Then you aren’t reading my comments. The finer points of music, i.e. the academic study of the psychology how exactly music can influence us to be happy I am not qualified to speak about. But that also isn’t the point of view I’m coming from. As I said earlier, when I see my son walk into a store normally but then starts dancing when he hears the rock music, common sense says music is moral and does influence us. I also refer also to my illustration about calm, soothing music to help an infant go to sleep. These are not music doctorate level observations.
You said, “People that actually are qualified to talk about the issue … . ” How are you then “qualified” to be in this conversation and other people are not?
Let me be clear. Anyone is qualified to be in this discussion. Anyone…
But it takes a whole new level of qualification to be qualified to make the dogmatic judgments you are known for. You and a few others are making those judgments and the bar is higher for you. If you guys want to be taken seriously when you make the statements you do, there should be a bit of evidence that you know what you are talking about. You had better be experts not just on the theology and philosophy of music but the technical side of music too.
You keep asking about my qualifications. I am not going to talk here about them. If they are important to you, you will find them easily enough.
Again, you aren’t reading my comments. I have made statements and have backed them up with examples and illustrations. I have provided evidence repeatedly to back up my points about music. In other words I have done exactly as you have requested.
If you are asking me to be an expert on the theology, philosophy, and technical side of music, then when exactly are you going to ask the same of everyone else in this conversation? Very, very few people are that kind of an expert.
You ask me about my qualifications but then dodge my questions about yours.
I asked quite a simple question of you and you turned around and started calling all of us idiots. Is that the answer with illustrations you were referring to?
No one disagrees that music affects our emotions, so I’ll ask again….how is music any different than anything else that affects our emotions? Why is music moral but weather and paint aren’t?
maybe because MUSIC is used to worship God while the weather and colors aren’t.
Though, I do know of several churches that have an artist paint a painting on the platform during the music and preaching.
music without lyrics is moral given that music performed in worship (not just filler in between songs, or segments of the service, etc) almost always has words (I’m talking about congregational singing here)? Sure there can be solos on violin or piano etc, but that really isn’t the issue. The issue is praise bands right? They are used with music with lyrics.
I opened the new mailer that came from the main Christian bookstore in town and guess who was featured on the cover? Big Daddy Weave….I admit I chuckled.
[Mark_Smith]maybe because MUSIC is used to worship God while the weather and colors aren’t.
Though, I do know of several churches that have an artist paint a painting on the platform during the music and preaching.
Worship is not confined to what we do inside a building. “The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament sheweth his handiwork” (Ps. 19:1).
Real deep.
How about you address the “what music to use in worship at church” issue.
[Mark_Smith]Real deep.
How about you address the “what music to use in worship at church” issue.
Is that a joke to you? I’m serious. How is it any different. They both affect emotions.
[Mark_Smith]Real deep.
How about you address the “what music to use in worship at church” issue.
Happy to. Music is an incredibly powerful tool that can be used to edify the church. We are told in Ephesians 5:19, “Speaking to yourselves in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord.” There are two aspects of this verse. One is that we are singing and making melody to the Lord….no light thing. The other is that we are speaking to ourselves (or teaching) through the songs. Colossians 3:16 is even more clear about this aspect when it says, “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.” So the songs are used to teach us and bring glory to God.
The music is incredibly valuable in the teaching aspect in particular. Different instruments used at different times can be incredibly effective at accentuating the words of a song in teaching them to different people. Some of the newer songs utilize the drums and guitars particularly well to build up a song to a verse that they want to stress. I think of How Great is Our God by Chris Tomlin. It starts out with a simple guitar playing in the background and singing softly. It talks about His splendor and majesty in the beginning in a slow manner which stresses His majesty and glory. It then begins to build by adding more instruments and using the drums still in a slow thoughtful manner. You are thinking about God being the Lion and the Lamb, He stands from age to age, and holds time in His hands. By the time you get to the chorus, you want to scream “How Great Is our God!!” The song simply wouldn’t be the same if it were sung on an organ. The instrumentation and varying tempo are used to accentuate the words and teach the church.
However, there are some songs that lend themselves to a simple accompaniment by just a piano. I think in particular of this version by the Getty’s of In Christ Alone. Note how they use the piano in more than just a generic manner (simply playing straight through with no variations in tempo, etc.). When she says “There in the ground His body lay”, it is played slower and more thoughtful to draw your thoughts to the seriousness of His death. But as He bursts forth from the grave, they change the key and up the tempo. They use the instrument to help teach the different aspects of the song.
I’ll be the first to admit though that this just doesn’t work for some people and that is ok. There are many older people that simply can’t worship God in a service if a drum set is on stage….it is too distracting to them. This is why we have different churches utilizing different styles and that is great (though we need to be gracious with those that have other tastes since something different may be more effective at teaching them)! I actually like to have an organ playing in a very serious and bold manner on some older hymns, but this simply doesn’t work for some. Instruments and music are used in the church to bring out the words of the music so that it can teach the church the principles in Scripture, thereby edifying the church. This in turn results in praise to God (the other aspect of Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16).
I’m not sure if I answered your question or not. I have a feeling we will still see differently on this, but that is ok.
mmartin, here is what everyone agrees on:
* music affects emotions
* music can be used in both good and both ways to affect emotions
* music can be used inappropriately (in ways that do not match the situation)
That being said, your assertion that because music affects emotions it must be moral is simply indefensible. All you have to do is prove you wrong is bring up examples like colors which are proven to affect emotions too. You can dismiss that all you want but if the ability to affect emotions makes something a moral issue and colors affect emotions, then colors are a moral issue.
I went back to the top of this thread and reread it. A question I thought of is why must a song, even one sung in church, cause me to have deep affections that reinforce theology and cause me to spring to ministerial action (see the chart from Gerald McDermott). Why can’t a song be a simple praise song that causes me to rejoice happily in God, in His love and salvation? No deep thinking, just enjoyment similar to when my children gladly greet me at the door in the evening with a giddy “Daddy” and they hug me.
[Mark_Smith]I went back to the top of this thread and reread it. A question I thought of is why must a song, even one sung in church, cause me to have deep affections that reinforce theology and cause me to spring to ministerial action (see the chart from Gerald McDermott). Why can’t a song be a simple praise song that causes me to rejoice happily in God, in His love and salvation? No deep thinking, just enjoyment similar to when my children gladly greet me at the door in the evening with a giddy “Daddy” and they hug me.
My opinion (whatever that is worth) is that we can and should do this to a certain extent. We certainly see this in the Psalms where it is just simply praising God for who He is and what He has done. However, this is based on recognizing who He is (theology?).
Discussion