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.
- 45 views
Actually, Todd, the only thing I was trying to prove is that music, apart from the lyrics, does indeed communicate. If that is true, it cannot be considered amoral - there is a message. The rest of the conversation flows from there, with acknowledged diversity of conclusion.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
Yes, but it communicates on an emotional, not a propositional, level.
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
But when there is no ‘diversity of conclusion’ - when a guy like myself agrees with you that music does convey a message, then what? I laid out some of my guidelines a few months ago that I’d really appreciate some interaction with.
I had this same discussion (again) a few days ago on FB - what is ‘rock music?’ If ‘rock music’ is wrong, then is bluegrass or jazz music acceptable? What about classical or alternative? Soul music? Negro Spirituals? Why or why is it not acceptable? Do the same principles apply? Where do those principles come from in the Scripture?
Those are the kinds of questions that have to be discussed. Telling people that ‘rock music shouldn’t be used in a corporate worship service because the Bible says so’ is not a strong enough answer for people like myself who didn’t understand why, especially if the argument keeps circling back to ‘it’s wrong’ or ‘it’s rock music’ - both of which are devoid of Scriptural support. ‘Rock music’ is a lousy taxonomy, for starters, because there’s no clear definition to categorize by, and there’s different kinds of ‘rock music’.
BTW, really have enjoyed this song lately. Would be curious if it falls into the ‘rock music’ category for those who think that “rock music” (WTMA*) in the church is wrong. Contemporary Christian? Yes. “Rock music” - I don’t think it fits there.
(*Whatever that means anymore)
"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
For me, the performance is important as well as the music itself. I often play in my home on my keyboard for my family in worship and singing time , songs that are so-called CCM. Examples include Paul Baloche songs (Offering, Open the Eyes of My Heart, etc), Darlene Zschech favorites (Potter’s Hand, etc). The key for me is I play them on my keyboard alone. That to me is appropriate. Something goes wrong, IMHO, if you amp up, plug in 3 electric guitars, have a major drum kit, get 10 people hipply dressed with a gallon of hair gel, various piercings displayed, then have all of the lights synched to the music, fog machines, etc. So, Jay, I agree with you that the question is what is CCM and when is it appropriate for use in church, and perhaps MORE IMPORTANTLY when is it NOT appropriate, if at all?
I’m not sure that conveying a message is the correct terminology for music. Music can certainly affect emotions, but I’m not sure conveying a message is correct. Call it semantics if you like, but I think these are two different things. Conveying a message implies that a musician can determine what message he wants to send and can send that specific message. This would also imply that the message would be the same for all the recipients. This is essentially what the “music is moral” folks try to tell everyone (i.e. music is sensual and makes you think and do sensual things).
In contrast affecting the emotions is vastly different in that it may affect some people differently. A polka song would make some giddy while it would make me want to puke! In both cases, our emotions are affected though in entirely different ways. Likewise, a soft “sensual” (for lack of a better term) song may make someone think of their spouse in a sexual manner, but simply have a relaxing affect on someone else. This is not a message but an affecting of the emotions. Is that wrong? If so, then the whether is wrong as well because cold weather makes me happy while my wife hates it! It affects both of our emotions but I don’t think very many would say the weather is moral.
This is where, I believe, many have gotten this argument wrong. Just because music can affect our emotions, it is assumed that it can be wrong. I listened to a message on music yesterday and the speaker went on a 15 minute tirade about how music affects our emotions. He then made the logical leap that certain styles of music were wrong because he believed they were sensual. If a certain style of music makes you think of things that may be a temptation to you….by all means, do not listen to it. However, it may not have the same affect on someone else. In my opinion, emotion does not equal message.
[Mark_Smith]Something goes wrong, IMHO, if you amp up, plug in 3 electric guitars, have a major drum kit, get 10 people hipply dressed with a gallon of hair gel, various piercings displayed, then have all of the lights synched to the music, fog machines, etc. So, Jay, I agree with you that the question is what is CCM and when is it appropriate for use in church, and perhaps MORE IMPORTANTLY when is it NOT appropriate, if at all?
Mark,
Which is exactly why I asked about the previous songs. There are two guitars (possibly plugged into an amp - I’m not sure), a keyboard, and someone with instrument that I can’t put a name to (a Maraca?). There are no lights, no fog machines, no drums, and I don’t think that the musicians used a gallon of hair gel, so…if you could listen to it and give me your opinion, I’d appreciate it. That offer is extended to anyone that is “anti-CCM” (WTMA*).
Furthermore, you’re defeating your own argument. You can’t argue against CCM and still argue that Paul Baloche, Darlene Zschech, and others that you like are OK. If CCM as a whole is wrong, then it’s wholly wrong. Not just the whole parts with the exceptions that we carve out for our ‘approved’ people.
You keep arguing against something that I don’t do or espouse, by the way. I do not support or endorse using CCM to manipulate people into a emotional frenzy, but I do think that music can be used (should be used!) to prepare the hearts and attitudes of people for corporate worship. In that regard, I agree with Jonathan Edwards, who wrote:
For although to true religion there must indeed be something else besides affection; yet true religion consists so much in the affections, that there can be no true religion without them. He who has no religious affection, is in a state of spiritual death, and is wholly destitute of the powerful, quickening, saving influences of the Spirit of God upon his heart. As there is no true religion where there is nothing else but affection, so there is no true religion where there is no religious affection.
That wasn’t actually the quote I was looking for, but it conveys what I was after. If I can find the right quote, I’ll post it later. The point, friend, is that emotion and worship are inexorably linked, as a brief review of Mark 12:28-34 will demonstrate.
(* Whatever that means anymore)
"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
Aren’t we supposed to love God fully, with our whole being, including emotions? See Matthew 22:37 for example: love God with all thy heart (including emotions), and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
So why is stimulating the emotions to love and worship God, in and of itself, wrong in worship and singing?
I have a problem, actually, with the generic label “CCM”. Just because it is contemporary does not make it bad, per se. Can music in and of itself be bad? Sure, bad lyrics, bad theology, etc. What is often more inappropriate, in my mind, is how the music is used. Often CCM is played in a worldly way by people acting and living worldly lives…and often proudly!! And, the reason they think they can do it is because they are “artists”. I also don’t like the concert atmosphere often attached to playing CCM music. Are we at church worshiping God, or are we entertaining ourselves at a concert?
***Jay, for the record, I am not accusing you of anything. I have no idea how you do music. I am speaking generically about how CCM is often used as seen on youtube videos, websites of churches, and personal experience.
Jay, I listened to your youtube video of Sanctus Real. OK….nice song. Is this something you would use in a service at church? Or is it just listening music?
Hey Mark-
That’s a fair question. I don’t know if I’d personally use it in a corporate setting, but I do think that it’s a possibility that I could. The original version is much ‘rockier’ (here’s the YouTube link), but this version I don’t think is problematic for a congregation. I’d have to think about it some more.
Thanks for the feedback, Mark. I’m not trying to be antagonistic by ‘pushing’ that question on the table. I’m just trying to think a little more critically about this kind of stuff and get others to do the same.
"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,
How do you define “rockier?”
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
I don’t know enough about music to describe exactly how music affects and influences us, but I know it does. There is a reason why music makes a difference in how a movie affects our emotions more deeply than if it was without music. Can you imagine watching a movie without any background music in it?
In the discussion about music if people can’t agree on the basic, simple fact that music is moral and does impact us as humans then the discussion is a waste of time. Further the person making the amoral or little impact argument is either ignorant or willfully blind.
Case in point, a certain well known (at least in SI type circles) individual recently expressed frustration at fundamentalists and their sensitivities about music since, in his words, music has such little impact on our sanctification. Right!!! Go to a Madonna or Lady Gaga concert and get back to us about how little impact music had on the sanctification of the concert crowd.
Where exactly is the line that defines what music is Good, and what is Wrong? I think that is impossible to define. I don’t think the line is as black & white as many think it is. But I also don’t think it is as gray as many others would want us to think either.
As James S. Lowery stated above, “The problem with the “worship wars” is that they’ve hidden the real issue: We are in love with ourselves, and we blame the music.” Selfishness and pride knows no side nor group in how the line can often be defined or rationale employed regarding what music is used.
[mmartin]First off, there is probably no one here arguing that music does not impact or affect us. The real questions are how it affects us, and what the music itself communicates.On morality in music, we *are* very likely going to disagree. I would certainly agree that as we hear music, and it impacts and combines with our inner thoughts, desires, and affections, it will have a moral impact. That’s completely different from saying the music itself is moral, though in a practical sense that distinction makes no real difference, since our thoughts and reactions to the music will have moral character. Still, I don’t believe that sounds themselves have morality, although that belief doesn’t lead me to think that every type of music is equally usable.In the discussion about music if people can’t agree on the basic, simple fact that music is moral and does impact us as humans then the discussion is a waste of time. Further the person making the amoral or little impact argument is either ignorant or willfully blind.
I’m pretty sure that everyone here will also agree that in this situation, the music is impacting the crowd. However, it may only be confirming and amplifying evil thoughts and desires already present, rather than actually implanting them (I’m talking about the music here, not the words). I rather doubt that on a Madonna song you’ve never heard and don’t know the words to, that upon hearing an instrumental version of the song without any words or the visuals of the performance that you would be able to say with precision what the song is communicating. You might claim it’s “evil” just because you associate that sound with a certain culture, but in that case it would be the association that is telling you what is being communicated, not the music itself. If you claim the music *itself* communicates evil, you must be prepared to show how it does that.Case in point, a certain well known (at least in SI type circles) individual recently expressed frustration at fundamentalists and their sensitivities about music since, in his words, music has such little impact on our sanctification. Right!!! Go to a Madonna or Lady Gaga concert and get back to us about how little impact music had on the sanctification of the concert crowd.
In that case, since that line is not so grey, maybe you can tell us what defines good music vs. evil music. There are many of us who would like to know.Even though I disagree on music itself being moral, I certainly believe there are criteria we can use to evaluate music. However, those methods will be largely subjective, and if that is so, we have to leave room for a certain amount of disagreement. If one believes that music can be evaluated clearly and objectively, again, I submit that whoever makes that claim must be prepared to back it up, and show how it’s done.Where exactly is the line that defines what music is Good, and what is Wrong? I think that is impossible to define. I don’t think the line is as black & white as many think it is. But I also don’t think it is as gray as many others would want us to think either.
Dave Barnhart
[mmartin]I don’t know enough about music to describe exactly how music affects and influences us, but I know it does. There is a reason why music makes a difference in how a movie affects our emotions more deeply than if it was without music. Can you imagine watching a movie without any background music in it?
In the discussion about music if people can’t agree on the basic, simple fact that music is moral and does impact us as humans then the discussion is a waste of time. Further the person making the amoral or little impact argument is either ignorant or willfully blind.
Case in point, a certain well known (at least in SI type circles) individual recently expressed frustration at fundamentalists and their sensitivities about music since, in his words, music has such little impact on our sanctification. Right!!! Go to a Madonna or Lady Gaga concert and get back to us about how little impact music had on the sanctification of the concert crowd.
mmartin, there is a notable difference between emotion and morality. I don’t think anyone on this blog has argued that music can’t cause emotion. But you have arbitrarily determined what emotions music cause for all people. I would suggest that the morality of music is derived from our cognitive and cultural context. Your context is very different from mine.
And even if you were able to prove that music is inherently moral (which I dispute that you can), then how do you determine what music is acceptable and not? Do you have a grid? Is there a process for classifying it? I ask this seriously. I have never heard a reasonable, logically developed, biblically and philosophically consistent explanation.This conversation is also pointless if we can’t agree that there are differences between emotion and morality.
If listening to “In Christ Alone” by Keith and Kristyn Getty causes you to have impure thoughts and a desire to engage in fleshly lusts, then I suggest that you avoid that song and style (I use this as an example, not a definitive statement on your tastes). But when I listen to that song, I am pointed straight to Christ and his sacrifice. I am overcome by the depth of his sacrifice and I am overwhelmed by the glory of his grace.
May Christ Be Magnified - Philippians 1:20 Todd Bowditch
The question about what music is acceptable or not is separate from the question of its morality.
Whether there are lyrics or not, music Always creates a mood or atmosphere. It is communicative. About this the advertising world and entertainment world would agree and use it all the time. The music used in advertising and entertainment is not there by accident or is just to avoid silence.
My argument is not for or against anyone in this discussion nor about what kinds of music are acceptable or not. It is simply that it music is moral. I am not here to say that the line of what is 100% acceptable or not can be made. As I already said, I think that is impossible.
Discussion