An Examination of Sovereign Grace Ministries and Getty-Townend For Use in Fundamental Christian Churches (Part 2)

When I saw this series and book being touted, I was interested. The first article hints at a rational, balanced approach to this topic that we are finally starting to see from the conservative side of the debate. But after reading this, I feel hoodwinked. This is not serious stuff. It is just a regurgitation of the errors that have been taught for decades.

Those who believe like the authors can sound credible while they talk about general principles. However, they fall apart and look silly when they get specific. And while the wheels stayed on the wagon in that first article, the wagon has now exploded.

For those who are not familiar with the technical side of music, don’t be fooled by the fact that the authors appear to understand music theory. While some of their observations are fairly accurate about styles, their applications are indefensible and not serious.

Here are the things I strongly question:

1) I have no idea why SGM and Gettys are linked together here in the first place. Their styles are vastly different. I wonder why the conservatives always do hit jobs on the two of them together. Do they not understand the musical differences?

2) This quote from the section on beat anticipation:

Because there seems to be a strong, if subconscious, expectation for a melodic phrase to cadence or finish on a strong beat the body tends to ‘fill the gap’ with suggestive movements when it does not.

This is not serious. What movements and why are those movements suggestive? I have listened to and performed with beat anticipations my entire life and have no clue what the authors are talking about.

3) The discussion of harmony. The authors mention the non-traditional endings. SG songs tend to end on IV and even V chords. I am not a fan either; I think it is cliche and a modern little fad.

They mention the SG use of harmony elsewhere in the songs as seeming to convey a sense of static motion – moving, but not moving anywhere. I actually agree with that. Their harmony is non-traditional (not a problem in itself) and not always as functional as it could be (in my opinion).

So, I am with the authors in that I agree that SG harmony could be better written. But while not great, SG harmony is still better than a large percentage of beloved gospel songs. And what does it have to do with a discussion of what is appropriate in worship? The authors seem to imply that these harmony decisions are moral in nature. Not hardly…

4) Under the use of repetition section, the authors mention excessive use of 7th chords and unresolved dissonance as examples of things that weaken sound. I would love to see a defense for that.

Using 7th chords strengthens functional harmony rather than weakens it. This kind of rhetoric from the authors is a holdout from the 1970’s when conservatives were attacking jazz in its use of extended harmony. The idea that people in the 2012 are still preaching against excessive 7th chords is just bewildering.

The same goes for dissonance, though I cannot really know what the authors consider dissonance or unresolved dissonance. I see very little dissonance in SGM music anyway unless you consider suspensions. I think that it could use some more dissonance actually.

5) Under the performance style section, there is the predicted and tired references to breathy, inappropriately intimate, even sensual vocalizations. Sorry, but I am not buying it. It is possible to express yourself in music in a non-classical way without it being about sex. I don’t deny that many pop performers are selling sex. But the conservative obsession with making all these musical elements about sex makes me want to suggest they throw away their Sigmund Freud books. Sex is the last thing in SGM performers minds when they sing. It is the last thing in the mind of most secular performers that use all these musical elements that are supposedly about sex. I have talked about this with many professional musicians and they look at me like I have two heads when I bring this up.

When you use the authors’ kind of logic to attack this music, you end up with their conclusions, and I obviously disagree with them too.

Frankly, I am not going to listen to SG music very much if at all. It is not my cup of tea. But they deserve to be defended from attacks like this.

[Comment: Edited for corrections at the request of the author (Jim P)]

I wonder if that makes it easier to see the forest for the trees. This approach really surprised me as it seemed to reduce the whole conversation to a question a musical grammar and what chords are “secular” and which are “worldly.” I haven’t heard that argument in over twenty years.

As more of a “word” person, I am not a fan of SGM music for mainly lyrical reasons—the writing often seems overwrought, complicated, and not well-married to the melodies such as they are. My husband and I joke (in private under our breath, of course) that singing SGM songs is like opening a systematic theology text and singing directly from that. While hymns must be rich in doctrine and truth, they must also translate that truth into beautiful phrasing—for all the emphasis on musical rhythm and melody, we seem to have forgotten that spoken language has it’s own rhythm and melody. Writing peotry is not simply a matter of rhyming the last words of phrases.

And I agree with GregH: SGM and Gettys are very different entities when it comes to congregational hymnody. Certainly there is a subcultural overlap and perhaps even some collaboration, but they represent distinct styles and musical expressions.

The source of sin is from within. Sin cannot be “caught” from “unique syncopation”, an “expectation for a melodic phrase to cadence”, “melodic anticipation”, “heavy use of consecutive 7th chords”, or even (I know this is hard to believe) “excessive unresolved dissonance”.

James 1:14 (ESV) — But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire.

I found the whole article to be reminiscent of the flawed approach from the 1970’s that is still, unfortunately, pervasive in many churches. The first part, did hint at a more balanced approach, but the second part of this series clearly shows that it is the same old arguments that are neither valid nor defendable. I won’t go into all the details because I think GregH has clearly outlined them, and I think he is well versed to converse on this topic anyway, but I am disturbed by the groupings. This is a classic approach taken too music. Lets just group everyone together, and attack the whole lot of them. Instead of really looking at a true application. To group all of SGM together (let along Getty or anyone else) is pretty naive. SGM is a conglomerate of lots of artists, singing all types of songs, both musically and textually. There are some songs that are superior musically to anything out of a current hymnals, and some songs that have a significantly better message both theologically and doctrinally than some of the junk that is in our current hymnals. At the same time there is some significantly weak stuff that comes out of SGM both musically and textually. I find this concept of just grouping everyone together and blasting the lot out of them to be just misguided and naive, and we really need to get past this point, because at the end of the day it is no longer defensible.

Scott Aniol, who will soon be finishing his Ph.D. in music, has written a helpful overview of SGM music and GTM music. One can read it on his Religious Affections website. Scott is reasonable and objective in his analysis. This article on SI has some valid points; however, I didn’t comprehend the arguments about melodic anticipation. My personal assessment has been that if a song is well-written theologically, poetically, coupled with a well-crafted melody and appropriate performance style, then is could be used in congregational hymnody. The SGM or GTM songs properly arranged by Sound Forth and/or that reside in the Rejoice Hymnal appear to meet this criteria.

[dgszweda] There are some songs that are superior musically to anything out of a current hymnals …

(emphasis mine)

Seriously? An SGM artist has outdone Bach? Who and what song?

Well, here we go again! Somebody should write a study called “An Examination of Channeling Frank Garlock for use in Articles for Fundamentalists” (Is Frank Garlock still alive?).

Once again, I ask the vital questions I and others have asked again and again: Where are the Bible verses? Where is the developed theology of music in worship? How can we defend articles like this in light of our understanding of sufficiency of Scripture? Does our doctrine of sufficiency of Scripture really require a degree in musicology (or any other non-theological discipline) to discern? While I admit that men who have studied something extensively have more to say and ought to be heard on a topic within their area of study, I reject the idea that men and women of God can’t discern the rightness or wrongness of things purely through application of the Word under the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit.

Why is Scripture so silent on this issue of burning importance? Perhaps it is not so important as some think.

Years ago, I heard teen pregnancy and drug use tied to rock music being pumped into public school hallways during breaks. Now we are told that there is an inherent sensuality to certain beat patterns used commonly in worship music in churches. Such things become self-fulfilling prophecies to a sector of the movement that essentially accepts the monastic interpretation that “the world” we are to shun means everything that isn’t inside our movement. Once a person leaves the fold and hears such “sensuous” musical patterns, any failure in their life will be connected to the music – while every moral failure of the staunch traditional fundamentalist will be explained away as an aberration.

Leaders in churches other than the traditional fundamentalist model don’t choose other music because of a lack of discernment or a lack of understanding. They choose it because they are communicating something with the music and attaining certain goals with it. The mainstream evangelical church where they sing the same lines endlessly, repetitively, tediously (for me, at least) is creating an atmosphere deliberately with the music – just like the traditional church is creating an atmosphere when they sing songs from the 1950’s. One is saying “We like the kool-aid of Charismatic Worship within certain limits, so loose yourself in the music”, while the other is saying “Ward and June are welcome here, with Wally and the Beav. You, with the tattoo, will probably be more comfortable elsewhere.” One is saying “We embrace the culture”, the other “We distrust the culture.” It means little more than that.

As for the question of appropriateness for worship, I leave a few reflections:
1). Where is the vigorous theology of worship music that we need? If anyone has troubled themselves to prepare such, I suspect the criteria for good worship music lies entirely elsewhere than part two of this article is looking. And please don’t send me Scott Aniol links. I know about him already.
2). Music communicates different things in different cultures and sub-cultures, and those change. The breathy music that said “torch song by a singer laying on a piano in a bar” in 1953 says “intimacy” now – which is NOT necessarily the same as sexual. It’s just “closeness”.
3). More analysis of the concept of “worldliness” needs to happen in Fundamentalism. While the article does not focus on this aspect, the spectre of “worldliness” hangs over discussions like this throughout the movement. The word “worldliness” in English simply means “like the world”. But the several words used in the Greek New Testament for the concept of “worldliness”, along with their descriptions in the New Testament, denote something different than our English word suggests.
4). The observation has been made that Fundamentalist ministry educations face a great divide: the missions students are told “plant the churches within your cultural context” while the pastoral students are told “deplore you culture and dig in your feet and resist it.” But it’s clear that you can’t hate your mission field. And pastors (home missionaries) need to at least understand their culture and know what on earth it means by what it says and does. While this culture is sex-obsessed, every beat pattern is not about sensual indulgence. It’s just music to them. And they’re not so sure Homer Rodeheaver is music, just as we’re not sure Rap is.

Until we do our homework on issues like this (the implications of sufficiency of Scripture for the discernment issue, underlying theology, defining worldliness, and what on earth is culture and how does it fit into the whole “world” picture) we will never reach a truly Christian conclusion on these issues.

None of this is in praise of SGM music, of which I know little, or the Getty’s, whom I alternately adore and tolerate, depending on the song. It’s simply a plea for us to do our homework on the core issues before we deal with the peripherals.

[DavidO]

[dgszweda] There are some songs that are superior musically to anything out of a current hymnals …

(emphasis mine)

Seriously? An SGM artist has outdone Bach? Who and what song?

sorry, poor writing on my part. I meant to say “some of the songs” instead of anything.

Hey Ed,

I’d be curious what % of the SI readership agrees with this presentation. What would really be cool is for you to do one of your poll’s. You might get these guys to in a sentence or two explain their use/non-use of Getty & company. Then for a position a little to the left of them you might get the Beethoven guys (Harding, Bauder, Aniol) to write their view. Then maybe find another position or two - and let’s take a poll of the SI group. Without being mean here - I really think Durning here is right - I think we could call this first view the “Neo-Garlock” view of SGM.

If I’m right - almost no one Type B or left would agree with this first presentation. Frankly even Harding here wiggles a little away from these guys. That’s interesting! One takes note when Harding wiggles from away from a conservative position on music - that doesn’t happen every day (of course to be fair - Harding only clearly wiggles away from “melodic anticipation.” What’s interesting here is that I also did not agree with the stated view of “melodic anticipation.” This is a good sign! Perhaps Mike and I can build on this agreement! Ah - warm fellowship in Troy!). Again to articulate four or five different views and then do a poll would be classic SI!?

Just a thought - Straight Ahead & Merry Christmas everyone!

jt

ps - for the record I’m loving listening to Handle’s Messiah this time of year - I think it’s my favorite!

[Joel Tetreau] Frankly even Harding here wiggles a little away from these guys.

So much so that he tries to place blame for the article on SI rather than the FBFI blog on which it appears. :D

[Dr. Mike Harding] This article on SI has some valid points; however, I didn’t comprehend the arguments about melodic anticipation.

Can someone answer a question for me? Why is it that SGM and the Gettys are often grouped together in this context? I see little in common really. Is there some connection I am missing?

[GregH]

Can someone answer a question for me? Why is it that SGM and the Gettys are often grouped together in this context? I see little in common really. Is there some connection I am missing?

My non-educated guess is that 1) they are new, 2) people in churches either like their music at home or use their music at church, so there is talk going on 3) anything that is new should at the least be treated skeptically, and at most is probably evil, and should be addressed immediately and 4) anything that meets these first three items and falls under a single key fundamentalist standards (music), are by default grouped together. In the 70’s or 80’s these would have also been grouped together with bat eating Ozzy Osborne and Black Sabbath, but in this new century we are enlightened, so we don’t make these same mistakes.

Can someone answer a question for me? Why is it that SGM and the Gettys are often grouped together in this context? I see little in common really. Is there some connection I am missing?

I think it’s a matter of them both being commonly used by conservative evangelicals. Both are the conservative evangelical “reponse” to the shallower offerings of mainstream CCM. Consequently they are both popular in the emerging middle of conservative evangelicals and type b/c fundamentalists. Eventually what happens there influences historically fundamental congregations. It’s not so much that SGM and the Gettys have a musical commonality as they have a subculture commonality. Also SGM musicians have covered several Stuart Townend (who partners regularly with the Gettys) songs. When second degree separation is a significant part of your paradigm for interpreting reality, it’s natural that the you would home in on these cultural links rather than actual stylistic commonalities.

[Joel Tetreau]

If I’m right - almost no one Type B or left would agree with this first presentation. Frankly even Harding here wiggles a little away from these guys. That’s interesting! One takes note when Harding wiggles from away from a conservative position on music - that doesn’t happen every day (of course to be fair - Harding only clearly wiggles away from “melodic anticipation.” What’s interesting here is that I also did not agree with the stated view of “melodic anticipation.” This is a good sign! Perhaps Mike and I can build on this agreement! Ah - warm fellowship in Troy!).

Can’t believe it! I don’t agree with the article’s view of “melodic anticipation” either. At least I don’t believe that it makes the body want to ‘fill the gap’ with suggestive movements. Who would have ever thought that we could find three people in the world who disagreed with that?!?

I don’t think putting the two together has anything to do with “second degree separation” paradigms. They are sources which represent a perceived threat, so they’re addressed (improperly) together. While I agree that they shouldn’t be examined as if they are the same thing (and I’d add that it really isn’t that workable to speak of either SGM or GT music in monolithic terms), it also doesn’t seem reasonable to say that they are no commonalities that might cause people to see them as the main representatives of the new music (whatever that means).

Dragging “second degree” separation (whatever that means for the writer) doesn’t make sense. Perhaps you meant something like guilt by association (i.e., SGM and GT do touch at some points therefore can be lumped together), but that is not what secondary separation means.

For the record, we use SGM and GT songs for our worship and find them very profitable, so I’m not taking the side of the article at all. I think it fails precisely because it assumes things which it needs to prove. It works for the convinced, therefore, but fails for the rest.