The Pursuit of Excellence in Conservative Christian Music

May I suggest that any of you who have questions or comments about the content of Taigen Joos' article respond to him at Proclaim and Defend. So far there are no responses there and it seems evident that he does not read SI. P and D would probably like the attention as well as few of their articles seem to get commented on.

Actually, we don't solicit comments on P&D. Commenting is available, but please note the posted rules for commenting:

Comments – Proclaim & Defend (proclaimanddefend.org)

We aren't a discussion board like SI and often reject comments. Nothing personal, just want to keep any discussion focused.

I will say that I think this thread missed Taigen's point. And then it drifted hither and yon as these threads tend to do. We are planning a second post next week from Taigen that might help you get what he is saying.

In this particular thread, I want to have an extended discussion with you about your approach to the music questions.

My approach to music style questions would be very similar to how I’d approach a lot of other questions regarding “what should we do today in our setting?”

It is hierarchical, starting with the clearest, highest-certainty teaching, and working down to less certain/less clear teaching. (But as I get further down, it gets harder to put them in that order… things sort of flatten out on certainty/clarity.)

1. Do we have direct instruction on the ethical use of X in church, outside church, etc.? (Usually, this takes the form of imperatives in the epistles)
2. Do we have direct instruction in the form of principles specific to X in church, outside church, etc.? (This could be in epistles, in Acts, in the gospels. In narrative, this is more than a report that someone behaved in a particular way. There would need to be some evidence there that their behavior should be seen as exemplary—to qualify as ‘direct,’ as I mean it here.)
3. Do we have indirect instruction on similar topics or similar settings that we should reason from to make applications to X?
4. Do we have narrative examples of use/principles/nature of X in somewhat similar settings that are clearly exemplary in some way?
5. Do we have occurrences of X or something similar in narrative in ways that we might be able to reason something from?

This is a quick summary, so I’m sure it’s not complete, but I have found that there is usually plenty to work with without getting around to level 5. That is, most of the time, if there is anything useful at level 5, it just confirms what we already knew from 1 or 2, maybe some 3 or 4.

As a quick, concrete example, giving as a part of church gatherings would be, in many ways, parallel to music. So I would look first for direct teaching on how giving should work in NT churches.

Then I’d look for examples of how giving occurred, probably with exemplary intent, in Acts. I’d look for direct teaching on giving that is either broadly applicable to applicable to settings in many ways similar to the church.

There would be examples of giving in the OT in similar settings: the people of God giving together.

What I would not feel the need to do is comb the OT and look at every instance in narrative where some individual or group gave something in order to try to draw conclusions about what kinds of things should be given, in what manner, how often, etc. Most of these would have such low certainty as a basis for doctrine, they would not be very useful.

Now if I was writing a book on “All the Giving in the Bible,” I would catalogue those occurrences. I’d have to. My title would promise it, so… unavoidable. But I wouldn’t expect to draw teaching on NT church giving from how Abraham gave livestock to Abimelech as part of making a covenant with him (Gen 21.27).

I wouldn’t read Gen 21.27 and think, “Ah, perhaps giving should always be livestock. Perhaps giving livestock is better than giving money. Perhaps we should always make covenants when we give.”

The context gives no indication that these details have that kind of instructional purpose.

I might deduce something about the nature of giving in general, but there are so many better places for that kind of information.

Though every detail is there for a reason, it is not a given that the reason is to serve as a basis for doctrine on the nature of X or the practice of X in the NT church.

So, a lot of references to music in OT narrative would be somewhat similar.

I’ll anticipate an objection: What about 2 Tim 3:16 “for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction…”?

What 2 Tim 3:16 doesn’t specify is what size portion of Scripture can serve those purposes or how directly or indirectly a portion of Scripture would do those things. So we have to figure that out in various ways.

(Another close parallel that would be interesting to analyze is clothing styles. Probably this would work better than giving, since there is actually some ‘style’ information in the OT as well as the new… wish I’d thought of that earlier! 😀)

It is hierarchical, starting with the clearest, highest-certainty teaching, and working down to less certain/less clear teaching. (But as I get further down, it gets harder to put them in that order… things sort of flatten out on certainty/clarity.)

I like this. I'd also add, we need to understand how Jesus' life, teaching, and sacrifice fulfills / interprets what we learn about X in the OT (Matt. 5:17), especially as it relates to OT religious patterns, methods, and practices.

What I said was, "We don't get to fill in the blanks with our preferences or opinions and stamp God's imprimatur on them."

We all have preferences or opinions about worship music and worship styles, but it is only one side of the argument that attempts to claim God's imprimatur on a particular European musical style for the worldwide church for all time.

Along the same lines, do you regard as equally faulty those who would make certain kinds of music that are especially of one particular people group in America mandatory for acceptance by all believers everywhere?

I will say that I think this thread missed Taigen's point. And then it drifted hither and yon as these threads tend to do. We are planning a second post next week from Taigen that might help you get what he is saying.

I hear this from time to time, and I always wonder, how did I miss the point? What was the point, then?

Was this not his point, or integral to it?

There are a lot of assumptions in this piece about what’s good and bad in musical styles and developments. One of the biggest—and Joos is hardly alone on this point—is that the church-centeredness of cultural influence in the west before the Enlightenment = superior musical style.

So what I took him to be saying is that we're missing the boat on excellence because excellence is serious music of the pre-Enlightenment era.

Which I think is plausible, but not obvious.

The idea of excellence requires some way of measuring quality, some kind of standard. So when it comes to style, what would be the standard?

Modern music is not different from older music in this respect: there is a lot of it that was and is lazy and easy. People are having fun with it (as they did centuries ago). Then there is a much smaller group that is highly skilled and capable of composing and performing at a level that most people are not. Then you have the whole range in between.

Is any of that "excellence"? Well, we could agree that highly skilled is excellent in some respects, for some purposes. Like an Olympic runner is excellent. But if I run from a burning building and survive, was my running excellent? Arguable, I lived so it was. That was it's only purpose.

So people may have fun with music excellently. Because it's for fun.

In church, what are our purposes for music? I think they correlate only somewhat loosely with ideas of excellence in academia or professional performance--because the purposes are different.

Was this not his point, or integral to it?

There are a lot of assumptions in this piece about what’s good and bad in musical styles and developments. One of the biggest—and Joos is hardly alone on this point—is that the church-centeredness of cultural influence in the west before the Enlightenment = superior musical style.

So what I took him to be saying is that we're missing the boat on excellence because excellence is serious music of the pre-Enlightenment era.

It is "The Pursuit of Excellence in Conservative Christian Music"

The piece is not saying Conservative Christian Music is best so much as it is advocating the pursuit of excellence in that style of music.

Yes, I know, we can argue if Conservative Christian Music is best (hey, a new CCM!!) and I think it is. This is what we usually argue about here.

But that is not Taigen's point