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

I appreciate Dr. Doran’s response. Especially when he says that the article of the FBFI assumes what it needs to prove. This kind of writing does not engage the Spirit-impacted mind of the student of Scripture, but rather looks for ways to increase the “Amens” from a certain crowd, and tends to leave the unconvinced…unimpressed to say the least. Personally, this frustrates me on several levels. One because it is just poor study and rhetoric. We ought to begin with the Scripture and examine everything in light of Holy writ. Instead of beginning with the assumption something is wrong and finding x number of reasons as to why it is wrong. I was troubled reading one of the end notes in the article that of course presented good music (for purchase of course) “produced” by our “kind.” (my words not theirs). We use Church Works Media music and find it similar to a degree to Getty and SGM. Why was Church Works Media not lumped together with these two? I appreciate the work of Church Works Media very much. It is articles like this that gives credence to the accusation that there is a “fundamentalist” hierarchy. Frankly, I am tired of the attitude, ‘If it is not of us (whatever that means) it must be bad, now we just need to prove it.”

I was raised in a very IFB strict musical environment, yet the first time I heard Frank Garlock try to use these same shenanigans, It bothered me then. The absolute and obvious lack of Scriptural reasoning irritated me. I had heard in my IFB upbringing, “The Bible is our sole authority for faith and practice” over and over again. Then when I heard these so called arguments with no Scripture and the Scripture that may be presented was proof-texting ignoring historical exegesis, it turned my stomach… and it still does. Frankly, a lot of SGM music I don’t appreciate that much (seems kind of forced, not very poetic). I enjoy a lot more Getty stuff (the Celtic sound can be a bit too much at times). I enjoy Church Works Media (gets a bit redundant in melodies and harmonies though), greatly enjoy classic hymns (some need an updated melody line), don’t have much used for the Gospel songs of the 19th century (sometimes the lyrics are fine, but the waltzes and polka sound reminds me of the Lawrence Welk show). But firmly believe that we are free in Christ to use his Word wisely and carefully to determine what is and what is not appropriate for musical worship within the local church. I have said too much.

Some people would say that this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVnUQqdqyjo) is beautiful. Who here could give them a sola scriptura reason why it isn’t?

And because if I don’t say this someone will accuse me of it, so no, I don’t think SGM/GT/CWM=what you’ll hear at that link.

Mike,

There is a website available entitled “The Artistic Theologian” that contains a great deal of information about worship, song, philosophy, and the technical aspects of music theory. You may disagree with them, but they have done their homework. None of the contributors have anything to do with Frank Garlock. By the way, he is very much alive and knows where you live!

Dave O,

I meant nothing by saying the “article on SI” other than referencing the current article. The source is obvious to all.

Joel,

I am to the left of Kevin and Scott on this particular subject. Yet, I still enjoy what they write and benefit from it. I understood Scott’s article on SGM much better than the current one. This article is much more technical. I am use to discussing music with my daughters, all of whom have undergrad and grad degrees from the Cleveland Institute of Music. My wife also has two degrees in music. I personally played in symphonic orchestras for many years; and yet I had a difficult time comprehending some of the ideas in the FBFI article.

I brought up the issue of second degree separation, not to disparage the concept, but as a short-hand explanation for how many type A fundamentalists process information. Because connections are so strongly emphasized in this paradigm, it’s tempting for them to look for them everywhere—even when they are not present. In the case of SGM and GT music, there is certainly a cultural connection but not a strong stylistic one, despite the fact that style was the basis of the article’s concern. I was simply suggesting that the authors were led by ecclesiastical associations first rather than by musical ones. Certainly both SGM and GT have a strong presence in conservative evangelicalism and are filtering back to fundamentalism via the emerging middle; honestly I tend to believe that this is the underlying concern and ultimately why they grouped the two.

Believe me, I was in no way trying to undermine the concept of a properly nuanced and biblically applied secondary separation, but you must agree that this is not how many fundamentalists practice it. Instead, it is often reduced to an issue of who’s connected to who, and when it does, linking groups will by necessity be part of their rhetorical structure—whether it holds up logically or not.

Mike,

That’s great that your family has been blessed with that kind of music. I remember hearing your wife and your girls play years ago. They were a rich blessing then. They have to be fantastic today! All three of my sons play multiple instruments and my wife teaches about 40 + students. We also love music. I pray that we’ll be able to have impact you all have made. God bless you my man! For the record I”m not bothered at all how you are compared to Kevin and Scott. You’re all good guys,….making really good music! Whatever you do……just don’t strum your guitar! :)

Straight Ahead!

jt

[DavidO]

Some people would say that this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVnUQqdqyjo) is beautiful. Who here could give them a sola scriptura reason why it isn’t?

“Make a joyful noise” (Ps. 100:1 KJV)!!

LOL

Why SGM and GTM?

I think it was mentioned already, but for many, these are the only two groups or types of *conservative* evangelical music they know of, outside of mainstream CCM. When I first started listening to such music with an open mind and freedom of conscience, I appreciated SGM and GTM immensely. I loved their message, the lyrics, the Scripture-packed songs. And I sensed that the lyrics and songs sung there could have been sung in some of the fundamentalist churches I was once a part of. I even wrote a blog article on the Rise of the Modern Hymn Movement based largely on those two ministries.

Since then, I have grown in my appreciation of other Christian artists and musicians, and I find that only some GTM and SGM songs are the enduring ones, that really should be sung in corporate worship. And some Chris Tomlin songs, for example, also make my cut - but not all. One has to be choosy since so much is being made and there still is a lot that isn’t of sufficient Scriptural depth and musical quality for my desires. But there is a lot that is really good.

Repetition

I haven’t seen anyone point out the lament this article has for the “excessive repetition.” That point in the debate always bothered me. Yes in the 80s there were excessively repetitive and trite worship songs. But that is less common now. And I could never sing “Blessed be the Name of the Lord” without hearing that weak argument go through my head. How is this not repetitive, and excessively so at that? Furthermore, the wholesale insertion of choruses and refrains into older hymns was a means of encouraging repetition - shouldn’t these be taken out and the original song lyrics sung without the chorus?

Of course, Psalm 136 is the definitive Scriptural argument that says repetition is not ungodly. It is hard to be more repetitive than Ps. 136.

[Bob Hayton]

Repetition

I haven’t seen anyone point out the lament this article has for the “excessive repetition.” That point in the debate always bothered me. Yes in the 80s there were excessively repetitive and trite worship songs. But that is less common now. And I could never sing “Blessed be the Name of the Lord” without hearing that weak argument go through my head. How is this not repetitive, and excessively so at that? Furthermore, the wholesale insertion of choruses and refrains into older hymns was a means of encouraging repetition - shouldn’t these be taken out and the original song lyrics sung without the chorus?

Of course, Psalm 136 is the definitive Scriptural argument that says repetition is not ungodly. It is hard to be more repetitive than Ps. 136.

Yes, besides the Biblical example, there are a few problems with the repetition argument. First, as you pointed out, conservatives tend to be a bit inconsistent with that “rule” and secondly, good music will always have repetition built into it. Always. Always. Always. Always……….

I, too, felt the first article sounded somewhat promising, though I admit I had my doubts as to where the discussion would go. But the second installment was disappointing. It was couched in credible language but suffers many of the same argumentative errors made by the Garlock school.

I am somewhat happy, though, for the somewhat irenic tone especially in the first piece.

(Sorry for all the somewhats.)

This was an interesting article, and one I had a hard time wrapping my hands around. I’m not a trained musician, so the technicalities of the post were beyond my paygrade. It’s the conversation that ensued, though, that was interesting to me. Let me summarize my thoughts.

(1) Most (but not all) here would agree that values are at least indirectly communicated in musical forms, whether intrinsically or by dominant associations. As a result some tunes are more appropriate than others as media for theological truth. Whether it’s rock and rap on one edge of the spectrum or opera and a rollicking Hammond organ on the other, there are some forms of music that just don’t effectively accomplish what church music is supposed to accomplish.

(2) The criteria for identifying psychologically, artistically, culturally, and associationally what is appropriate and inappropriate are extremely difficult to identify, and may not even be universal.

(3) But as I read through the comments, a very interesting sentiment seems to emerge from some, viz., that anyone who actually TRIES to navigate that complex maze of factors and come to a conclusion is an idiot worthy only of vitriol, ridicule, and motive-bashing:

At the end of the day, I add my voice to those who plead ignorance about “melodic anticipation” and the like. I don’t understand it, and as the axiom goes, I distrust what I don’t understand. But I have to give credit to the article for trying to supply an answer to the myriad demands for objective criteria for adjudicating the psychological effects and artistic appropriateness of musical forms.

Perhaps the article is, in the end, an example of begging the question. I grant that possibility. It is very easy to assume that something is wrong and only then begin to selectively gather data to support that assumption. It is also possible, though, to assume that something is right and only then begin to selectively gather data to support that assumption.

The article may fall flat, but it’s the start of a conversation that evangelicals really need to have.

Mark Snoeberger wrote:

(3) But as I read through the comments, a very interesting sentiment seems to emerge from some, viz., that anyone who actually TRIES to navigate that complex maze of factors and come to a conclusion is an idiot worthy only of vitriol, ridicule, and motive-bashing:

For my part, I respect the authors’ ability to analyze a piece of music as thoroughly as they did and I respect their documentation and attempt to present “objective criteria.” But where I take issue, and I believe were others take issue, is when their analysis devolves to something less than objective, when the science turns to assumption about how to interpret the data. At this point, the authors are not honestly trying to navigate a complex maze of factors; they are using their musical knowledge to bolster their prior beliefs about the appropriateness of pop music.

It’s one thing to be able to prove that a certain musical style prompts a physical or emotional response (you can do that with a march or a waltz just as easily), but it is an entirely different thing to argue that this response is intrinsically inappropriate (which they state that they believe). Instead of integrating sociological, theological, or cultural data, they rely exclusively on musical form to answer the question; and in the end, the larger issue of whether or not a specific style is appropriate in a given context remains unanswered.

It’s not that they included musical analysis—it’s that the entire argument was based on musical analysis alone.

[Mark Snoeberger]

(3) But as I read through the comments, a very interesting sentiment seems to emerge from some, viz., that anyone who actually TRIES to navigate that complex maze of factors and come to a conclusion is an idiot worthy only of vitriol, ridicule, and motive-bashing:

No, I don’t think that anybody who tries to do what these authors did is an idiot. But I think this particular article is a very bad try. I do understand the technical things they discuss and I would challenge their technical analysis in some cases. In other cases, I would challenge their conclusions they draw from that technical data.

As an example, they are technically correct that SG and Getty music is heavy with anticipations (beat and melodic). But their conclusion that anticipations lead the body to “fill the gap with suggestive movements” is just well, not very defensible.

On the other hand, their statements about 7th chords and unresolved dissonance are not even defensible on a technical level.

… seems to be this line from the article:

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.

It would have been helpful if the author had explained what he meant by “sensual” and “suggestive” so that we knew if he meant something negative or simply was referring to sensory responses. But, the series of articles is to be continued, so perhaps that will come in time.

However, a professor of music at Ohio State defines “gap fill” as

A general psychological principle, proposed by Leonard Meyer, that listeners expect a stimulus sequence to return to any states that have been omitted in some sequence. For example, if a melody ascends along some scale and skips one of the scale tones, Meyer suggested that there would arise a psychological craving to return at some point and “fill” the gap that had been created. Meyer proposed that gap fill constituted a formerly overlooked Gestalt principle

Also, a Ph.D. student wrote in a paper in 2010

… the body determines the cognitive processing of information pertaining to the perception of metrical structure. For both start from an ambiguous stimulus and show how the body resolves the ambiguity.In the first case, bodily movements determines whether the stimulus is heard as a duple rhythm or a as triple rhythm. In the second case, anthropometric features determine in part how the pulse will be placed on an unaccented anapest rhythm… . bodily events or properties fill a gap in the full explanation of the considered cognitive phenomena

[Brenda T]

… seems to be this line from the article:

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.

It would have been helpful if the author had explained what he meant by “sensual” and “suggestive” so that we knew if he meant something negative or simply was referring to sensory responses. But, the series of articles is to be continued, so perhaps that will come in time.

I don’t think there is any doubt as to the answer to that one. “Sensual” and “suggestive” are code words for “sexual” in this context. If the authors want to come on SI and tell me that is not what they meant, I will apologize. But I have heard this argumentation enough to be 99% sure what they meant. No one will deny that music often creates a physical response (which is not a bad thing by the way). The question is whether those movements are sexual.

[GregH]

[Brenda T]

It would have been helpful if the author had explained what he meant by “sensual” and “suggestive” so that we knew if he meant something negative or simply was referring to sensory responses. …

I don’t think there is any doubt as to the answer to that one. “Sensual” and “suggestive” are code words for “sexual” in this context. If the authors want to come on SI and tell me that is not what they meant, I will apologize. But I have heard this argumentation enough to be 99% sure what they meant. No one will deny that music often creates a physical response (which is not a bad thing by the way). The question is whether those movements are sexual.

Greg,

I think you may be trying to prove too much by equating ‘sensual’ with ‘sexual’. Here are the definitions from Dictionary.com:

sensual

1. pertaining to, inclined to, or preoccupied with the gratification of the senses or appetites; carnal; fleshly.
2. lacking in moral restraints; lewd or unchaste.
3. arousing or exciting the senses or appetites.
4. worldly; materialistic; irreligious.
5. of or pertaining to the senses or physical sensation; sensory.

sexual

1. of, pertaining to, or for sex: sexual matters; sexual aids.
2. occurring between or involving the sexes: sexual relations.
3. having sexual organs or reproducing by processes involving both sexes.

While there is some overlap, the terms don’t mean exactly the same thing. It would be better to take the terms at face value without evidence to the contrary.

Doug is a member of SI and may respond here. I am sure he is aware of the discussion.

And, to Mark Snoeberger, I very much appreciated your comments, especially this one:

But as I read through the comments, a very interesting sentiment seems to emerge from some, viz., that anyone who actually TRIES to navigate that complex maze of factors and come to a conclusion is an idiot worthy only of vitriol, ridicule, and motive-bashing:

If we ever get anywhere with this debate, we need to tone down the rhetoric and talk to one another.

It is fair enough to criticize specific points of an argument. GregH has done some of that, and it is possible that he is correct. I don’t have the expertise to judge. He has said that some of the arguments made are correct on the technical side of the question, but has disagreed with the conclusions. That’s fair.

I am uncertain what to make of technical arguments. I have listened to many teachers make arguments of this sort before, but then comes someone else with some technical ability with a rebuttal. How is the layman to know which is correct? It isn’t enough to give credence to the guy who agrees with your own conclusion, and accept his technical arguments over the other guy.

So I agree that the technical argument, no matter what side of the debate you are on, has limited value. It usually breaks down into the claims of dueling experts.

But really, since the problem with music is essentially a spiritual one, it can only be answered with finality with spiritual arguments either directly taught in the Scriptures or legitimately derived from them. Even then, there will still be controversy, because not all walk in the Spirit.

Finally, part 3 will be out next week, probably Thursday. You’ll be able to evaluate the whole argument then.

Have a merry Christmas in the meantime.