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.
- 49 views
[mmartin]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.
I used to work for a fast food restaurant in high school. The owner painted the place orange because he was told it would cause people to be happy and they would eat more. Is color moral since it affects our emotions?
Earlier, I noted that weather creates different emotions in different people. I like the cold and my wife hates it. Cold makes me happy and it makes her depressed. Is weather moral?
Something is not moral just because it can affect our emotions.
I used to work for a fast food restaurant in high school. The owner painted the place orange because he was told it would cause people to be happy and they would eat more. Is color moral since it affects our emotions?
Earlier, I noted that weather creates different emotions in different people. I like the cold and my wife hates it. Cold makes me happy and it makes her depressed. Is weather moral?
Something is not moral just because it can affect our emotions.
–––––––
This is getting silly & going nowhere. Is this part of the conversation on SI moral or amoral? Its gotta be moral because it is affecting my emotions-it is making me chuckle.
mmartin, you keep repeating yourself…and I don’t think that anyone misunderstands you. The issue is not whether music affects emotions; the issue is how do you make the leap from emotions to morality?
I apologize if I did not see your statements, but how do you go from saying that a collections of sounds affects mood to saying that a collection of sounds has inherent morality?
I just don’t see how music can have an inherent moral quality if people have different responses to the same music. Shouldn’t inherent morality also be consistently apparent?
Several of us have outlined theological/philosophical/logical reasons why we disagree with your assertion that music is moral. You haven’t really addressed any of these and have not provided any sustained development of your thoughts. Please develop this connection a little bit if you want the conversation to progress.
May Christ Be Magnified - Philippians 1:20 Todd Bowditch
When you say music, do you mean with or with out lyrics?
[Mark_Smith]When you say music, do you mean with or with out lyrics?
Mark, I am specifically referring to music without lyrics.
At this point in the conversation, I think we have agreed that lyrics can be moral. The contention is over whether music (without lyrics) has inherent morality.
May Christ Be Magnified - Philippians 1:20 Todd Bowditch
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
Discussion