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

I have been a musician for 30 years (guitar and piano) and this is a subject I vary quite a bit on with my IFB pals.

The “7th chord” or note comment I saw was hilarious. Do you know how many hymns in a Baptist church sang every Sonday morning use 7 chords in their songs! Or the choir adds a 7th note in a transition between measures! Just As I Am and Victory in Jesus are 2 of the most popular.

In rock music, one of the most eery chords that is purposely used to created tension is the diminished chords/scales and the Phrygian dominant minor. In the songs “Just a Closer Walk With Thee” and “How Great Thou Art”, the 7th and diminished chords are both used.

They are against drums because of the beat, but a piano gets its sound from beating a tight wound string. You CAN NOT play music properly without time measurements, and I have yet to see a good musician play any instrument without some sort of time keeper, whether it’s tapping a foot or a “conductor” that sits in front of the choir waving his hands TO THE BEAT.

These churches use organs and organs were a creation of the Roman Catholic Church. An organ works by forcing air through pipes ! Ever read the description of Satan in Ezekiel 28:13 about his “pipes”.

Then there’s the electric organ. They are against electric guitars but the organ itself is a manipulation and distortion of a note, it is synthesized.

And I’ll never forget the time I heard the Hylanders sings “I Am With Thee” where the turnaround of the second verse dropped the 7 bomb. Then they followed it up with Michael W. Smith’s song “Friends”. And what was hilarious was the evangelist that was preaching hammered on Michael W and apparently didn’t know that was his song (note: I do not endorse MWS, he is new age to the core).

Music CAN be created for the purpose of moving the flesh in a sensual way, but the motive in that music is obvious and so are the lyrics. If the writer has the intent of glorifying God, the lyrics are doctrinally sound, and it is not purposely made to reflect a worldly style, then the music can have a tremendous effect on a person in a godly manner, even if it does have a drum or an electric guitar in it. One song says, “When we all get to heaven, what a day of rejoicing that will be, when we all see Jesus, we’ll sing and SHOUT the victory”. Why are we waiting to shout? Most churches I see have a dead singing service becasue the music is so soft that folks are afraid the person in the pew next to them will hear how bad they sing. Solution: MAKE IT LOUDER, problem solved!

The music scale consists of 7 notes (there are technically 12 with the chromatic intervals, but they are all part of the 7 note scale). I don’t think that’s just coincidence with 7 being God’s number of perfection. Most of the fundamentalist churches try to stick to the 1,4,5 major scale, and I think to that’s a shame. If you want to make music that glorifies God, then you should incorporate all 7 notes. It amazes me how much certain music gets picked on, but then Beethoven praised when he used all 7 notes in one phrase and used all 7 modes in his composition (Modes are different from the notes but that’s another book).

One of my favorite groups is Avalon. They have a song called “Can’t Live A Day” that brings me to tears almost everytime I hear it. “Awesome God” by Rich Mullins, “Shout to the Lord” by Darlene Zcheck, “Jesus Will Still Be There” by Point of Grace are among my favorites and if an IFBer would break fellowship with me over that, I’d have a hard time hearing his explanation while I have it cranked to 11. If that is offensive to some, let me know when you’ve moved from milk to meat and potatoes.

Toward the end of the article, the author speaks of a “sensual” performance style in a negative manner. He’s not necessarily referring to the songs themselves, but to the manner in which some, not all, people perform those songs.

Regarding the 7th chords, the author wrote

Other elements that sometimes tend to weaken musical sound, when used excessively (as overriding stylistic elements), include:

de-emphasis of strong beats
de-emphasis of strong syllables/words
heavy use of consecutive 7th chords
excessive unresolved dissonance
static melody (in contour, pitch content, or rhythm)

Some of these elements are significantly present in the printed and/or performance versions of SGM songs, and can be found in some GTM printed or performed songs.

Perhaps we should emphasize the word “some” in that last sentence, lest we think he’s referring to “all” of these elements in all their songs. Also, he refers to “heavy use of consecutive 7th chords” rather than simply just the occasional use of 7th chords.

One last thing for any who may be interested: the Roman Catholic Church didn’t create pipe organs. Look up Ctesibius of Alexandria, Egypt, who lived around 200 B.C.

[Don Johnson]

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.

Don I am very curious about this and maybe you can enlighten me. I am aware of the differences between the meanings of those two words. In regards to the music wars, I have long complained about the use of the word “sensual” when one really means “sexual” because when you pin down a conservative and question them on why they use the word “sensual,” they always really mean sexual. To me, that is imprecise but maybe I am missing something.

But my question for you is this. Are there other aspects of the “sensual” definition that come into play here besides sex? In other words, when the word “sensual” refers to arousing and gratification of the desires and appetites, are there other carnal desires and appetites being aroused and gratified through music that you don’t like besides sexual ones?

If as I suspect, the answer is no, I suggest that “sexual” is a more precise word for this discussion than “sensual.” And the same goes for the word “suggestive.” To the conservatives, I would say don’t hide behind words. If you think SGM music is about sex, prove it!

[Brenda T]

Toward the end of the article, the author speaks of a “sensual” performance style in a negative manner. He’s not necessarily referring to the songs themselves, but to the manner in which some, not all, people perform those songs.

Regarding the 7th chords, the author wrote

Other elements that sometimes tend to weaken musical sound, when used excessively (as overriding stylistic elements), include:

de-emphasis of strong beats
de-emphasis of strong syllables/words
heavy use of consecutive 7th chords
excessive unresolved dissonance
static melody (in contour, pitch content, or rhythm)

Some of these elements are significantly present in the printed and/or performance versions of SGM songs, and can be found in some GTM printed or performed songs.

Perhaps we should emphasize the word “some” in that last sentence, lest we think he’s referring to “all” of these elements in all their songs. Also, he refers to “heavy use of consecutive 7th chords” rather than simply just the occasional use of 7th chords.

Brenda, because I have read this stuff for so long, I identify trends and I have a good sense of when the trends started. The 7th chord argument is one of the older ones and with the exception of maybe someone like David Cloud, has been as abandoned by most music conservatives just like creationists have abandoned many Kent Hovind arguments.

It probably preached good in the 70’s because music experts needed ammunition against jazz and the congregation obviously did not know/care what a 7th chord was. But it is very weird seeing it in this article.

The fact that the 7th chords are consecutive does not matter. Adding 7ths strengthens and identifies the function of a chord. There are all kinds of variations of 7th chords and they all define function. For example, a major 7th chord is a slightly dissonant but resolved sound while a dominant chord needs to resolve. In today’s music, good harmony will use more 7th chords than triads. I play very few chords that are not at least 7ths (you can extend chords far past the 7th).

Just to clarify what the author refers to here in 7th chord use—it is important to note the phrasing “consecutive 7th chords.” as the norm in functional 7th chord use is usually (often?) alternating between 7th chords and triads (although ii7 - V7 - I is extremely common in classical and hymnody alike).

This normal 7th chord usage is not what the authors are noting. They are noting consecutive 7th chord use for color purposes as is done in Jazz and pop, such as:

I’m not saying its evil in and of itself, I’m saying the two usages are different. Hopefully that is clear now.

EDIT: I just saw this which was posted while I was typing:

The fact that the 7th chords are consecutive does not matter.

Actually it does matter. The two effects are different.

[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 unscientific guess: They both place similar emphases on reclaiming congregational singing of hymns, and have gone to lengths to make songs available in traditional hymnal settings. Their lyrics both also seem to be recognized and enthusiastically approved by those with Calvinistic theological leanings, which fits the trending mindset of the day rather well, I’d say, both in strains of fundamentalism and conservative evangelical spheres of influence…

1. Do we have any examples of discussions or similar analysis when music styles changed into the Gospel song genre of the Moody/Sankey/Fanny Crosby era? Were there similar discomforts expressed in those days?

2. Has the author ever done a similar critique of the innovations in style of the music of figures like Ron Hamilton? “Lord, I Need You” would be one example of a song that utilizes different styles than some that preceded it. How does it hold up in the analysis of the various “anticipations” of the article?

[DavidO]

Just to clarify what the author refers to here in 7th chord use—it is important to note the phrasing “consecutive 7th chords.” as the norm in functional 7th chord use is usually (often?) alternating between 7th chords and triads (although ii7 - V7 - I is extremely common in classical and hymnody alike).

This normal 7th chord usage is not what the authors are noting. They are noting consecutive 7th chord use for color purposes as is done in Jazz and pop, such as:

I’m not saying its evil in and of itself, I’m saying the two usages are different. Hopefully that is clear now.

EDIT: I just saw this which was posted while I was typing:

The fact that the 7th chords are consecutive does not matter.

Actually it does matter. The two effects are different.

David, what do you mean the “two effects are different”? Please be specific about these supposed “different effects.”

I just don’t get the point you guys are trying to make. You are suggesting that music consisting mostly of triads with a few 7th chords is harmonically stronger/superior to the piece you posted above. The author says that kind of music is “weakened musical sound”? Really?

I am not saying to never use triads. But saying that jazz harmony (because that is really what this is about) weakens musical sound is not a tenable position. Jazz harmony is the greatest harmony we have to date. And while I suspect you would not be like this, many that suggest it is wrong are proponents of gospel songs which comparatively have absolutely no harmonic strength whatsoever.

My point is that this 7th chord controversy is an attack on jazz that has been abandoned by everyone except a very few. I just can’t believe people are still teaching it or that anyone still believes it.

It is important to deal with this because in general, harmonic strength is the big advantage of some of these newer hymns written today. The harmony is not a step backward; it is clearly better. I am not going to defend SG so much, but the Gettys are writing better music than typically found in hymnals. So is Church Works Media. Attacking them for harmony is attacking positive progress.

[Greg Linscott]

1. Do we have any examples of discussions or similar analysis when music styles changed into the Gospel song genre of the Moody/Sankey/Fanny Crosby era? Were there similar discomforts expressed in those days?

2. Has the author ever done a similar critique of the innovations in style of the music of figures like Ron Hamilton? “Lord, I Need You” would be one example of a song that utilizes different styles than some that preceded it. How does it hold up in the analysis of the various “anticipations” of the article?

I would be interested in this as well. It would be intriguing to see if the music conservatives ever attacked their own.

[GregH]

[Don Johnson]

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.

Don I am very curious about this and maybe you can enlighten me. I am aware of the differences between the meanings of those two words. In regards to the music wars, I have long complained about the use of the word “sensual” when one really means “sexual” because when you pin down a conservative and question them on why they use the word “sensual,” they always really mean sexual. To me, that is imprecise but maybe I am missing something.

But my question for you is this. Are there other aspects of the “sensual” definition that come into play here besides sex? In other words, when the word “sensual” refers to arousing and gratification of the desires and appetites, are there other carnal desires and appetites being aroused and gratified through music that you don’t like besides sexual ones?

Some might say there are Ordinate and Inordinate Affections, or that one can be moved emotionally about a good object in an inordinate way. I say that because I began to reply that this music is too emotional, then realized - duh! - all music is emotional, that sort of being the point.

Now, I am not sure about it simply being a matter of arousing inordinate affections, but I would agree that the way contemporary styles makes one feel (even if that feeling is directed towards God rather than self), is inappropriate. It seems to me that contemporary music is more about me experiencing God as a thrill than me submitting to God as God. The experience is a ‘rush’ that is like drugs, alcohol, football stadiums, the concert hall, or even sex. (Please note: I am saying “like” not “is”.)

It might be too specific to say that music is sexual (although some secular musicians use that kind of language) - but as one definition for ‘sensual’ says: “arousing or exciting the senses or appetites”, it can arouse senses/appetites that are similar to the arousal of sexuality. But it is the sensory experience it is after that seems directed towards baser senses than, say, ‘A Mighty Fortress is our God’.

I am using non-dogmatic language because I am not an expert on music! I think the average person can have a godly philosophy of music without having expertise in it, but not being an expert may not be able to express his philosophy with precision. Words like ‘sensual’ or ‘sexual’ in such a context is used as shorthand to express thoughts we don’t have technical language to express.

I hope that makes some sense.

Pardon the rambling below. I don’t think I’ll have more time this weekend to comment, so I’m going to sprinkle out a few thoughts from the salt shaker of my noggin.

I’ll grant that some modes of worship might be classified as ecstatic, and that some forms of ecstatic expression might be inappropriate (see below). But even granting that, I don’t think we can argue that (1) richly emotive music is necessarily ecstatic, or (2) that ecstatic expression is categorically inappropriate. What will we do when we see our Savior’s face in glory? How ecstatic will be our praise be then? And then there’s the question as to whether SGM or GTM is really in that category at all.

As to inappropriate ecstatic expression, maybe I’ll blog sometime about how I feel when I overhear worship services from the super charismatic Spanish church next to my house — unintelligible to me, but predictable corporate crescendos that reach an ecstatic peak and then taper off. This is awkward to say, but I sometimes feel like I’m hearing something I shouldn’t. I’m not asserting that their worship is sexualized, but it does seem to be an ecstatic journey they take every week, and I doubt that it is channeled by good theology. The music I know of from SGM and GTM seems categorically different.

By the way, some of beloved gospel songs of old describe ecstatic experience even if the music doesn’t engender it. How about some of the lines in “Blessed Assurance?” The phrases “foretaste of glory divine,” “whispers of mercy,” “echoes of love” are not describing merely cognitive processes leading to assurance. They seem to describe quasi-mystical experiential confirmations of assurance. On the other hand, I would not describe those lines as being sexual in any way. How such experientialism should be evaluated theologically is yet another issue.

[Don Johnson]

[GregH]

Don I am very curious about this and maybe you can enlighten me. I am aware of the differences between the meanings of those two words. In regards to the music wars, I have long complained about the use of the word “sensual” when one really means “sexual” because when you pin down a conservative and question them on why they use the word “sensual,” they always really mean sexual. To me, that is imprecise but maybe I am missing something.

But my question for you is this. Are there other aspects of the “sensual” definition that come into play here besides sex? In other words, when the word “sensual” refers to arousing and gratification of the desires and appetites, are there other carnal desires and appetites being aroused and gratified through music that you don’t like besides sexual ones?

Some might say there are Ordinate and Inordinate Affections, or that one can be moved emotionally about a good object in an inordinate way. I say that because I began to reply that this music is too emotional, then realized - duh! - all music is emotional, that sort of being the point.

Now, I am not sure about it simply being a matter of arousing inordinate affections, but I would agree that the way contemporary styles makes one feel (even if that feeling is directed towards God rather than self), is inappropriate. It seems to me that contemporary music is more about me experiencing God as a thrill than me submitting to God as God. The experience is a ‘rush’ that is like drugs, alcohol, football stadiums, the concert hall, or even sex. (Please note: I am saying “like” not “is”.)

It might be too specific to say that music is sexual (although some secular musicians use that kind of language) - but as one definition for ‘sensual’ says: “arousing or exciting the senses or appetites”, it can arouse senses/appetites that are similar to the arousal of sexuality. But it is the sensory experience it is after that seems directed towards baser senses than, say, ‘A Mighty Fortress is our God’.

…

I think Greg is on to something. Don’s response seems to reveal this, too. This music is too emotional, and incites inappropriate feelings or encourages the baser senses. What are baser senses, exactly? Are we getting close to dualism here? All senses are God-made and good. We can abuse them, sure, and some sensations are not appropriate in certain contexts. But all sensations are good in their proper context. What is wrong with feeling a “rush” or a “thrill” like one gets at a football stadium or concert hall? Or even the joy of sex. What is wrong with that feeling?

Is the problem that conservatives are so afraid of speaking about sex or thinking about it, that anything that sniffs of it they view as a “baser sense” a passion best reserved for the bedroom where it is tolerated, at best? I’m not saying that modern worship music is sexual. But people sway back and forth, and *horror!* that must mean they are enjoying themselves in some kind of euphoric, sensual way. Which puts us close to sex. It is a bad thing to feel pleasure and joy and happiness, in an uninhibited way. We fight against that as we keep our rules in so many other areas, so it must be bad here in music. I don’t know what those people are doing, swaying back and forth during the singing. And look! They are lifting up their hands!

I wonder if that isn’t behind much of the condemnation of modern worship music? It is a fear of something unknown, and an assumption that sensual, must be sexual - in any case, listening to music that actually sounds good, and feels fun, or that moves you and lifts your soul in a euphoric way to a great climax - coupled with powerful words — all of this must be bad. It can’t be right. We have to dutifully sing 150 year old songs, that don’t move us musically, and by which we can ensure we are exercising the discipline and stamina to focus on the words and all of this is wrapped in a sane, neat and tidy string. This is holy worship, that other is chaos and bad.

Sorry, I’m rambling here, but am I on to something? And disclaimer of course, not everyone thinks this way - it is just based on some observations I have had on this issue. Not trying to throw everyone under the bus who enjoys older music styles.

I did a quick example of why the music you posted above is good harmony David.

The third bar of your example contains a Cmin7 - F7 - BbMaj7 progression. That apparently fits into the author’s definition of “too many consecutive 7ths.” But in fact, that progression is beautiful, perfectly defensible and far superior to what you see in gospel songs.

That progression is commonly used to move from I to IV. Now, here is an example of how that movement happens in the hymnal. This is the second line of “Just As I Am.”

Now here is the same progression using the harmonic ideas from your example. (Gmin7 - C7 - FMaj7 is the same progression in the key of C)

There is a string of five 7th chords, all defensible, all beautiful in my opinion, and far superior to the harmony in the first example. If you play both examples, you will see what I mean.

I did not discover this; it is just typical jazz harmony. And this is the kind of thing that jazz harmony does for us. It is just gorgeous stuff and attacking it makes us look pretty silly in my opinion.

Don and Bob,

First of all, I am encouraged that you are not being totally dogmatic here Don. That means a lot actually. It sounds as though you think there is some kind of carnal desire aroused by modern worship that is outside of sex but you can’t pinpoint it. It appeals to a baser sense as Bob puts it.

Like Bob, I don’t know what baser sense that might be. Obviously, senses can be abused but in themselves, they are not wrong. I certainly can agree that if music created sexual desires, it would not belong in church, but I have not seen anyone step to the plate to defend where the sex actually is in the music in question. (Where is the author of this article by the way?)

We certainly see euphoric worship in the Bible. At least, it is far more euphoric than I think most of us would be comfortable with today (shouting and dancing, etc). I think culturally we are uncomfortable with that today and suspicious. We can’t really say dogmatically it is sexual but it is still somehow inappropriate…

So I think this debate is a whole lot about cultural preferences. And I glad to see that there is less dogmatism. And by the way, I note that David Cloud is taking pot shots at BJU over music, which I consider to be a very healthy thing for BJU :)

[GregH]

all beautiful in my opinion…

And here’s what it really boils down to, GregH. Opinions. God told us what to sing in Colossians 3:16, but He didn’t say one iota about what this ought to “sound” like (i.e., style, rhythms, melodies, etc.) He left this up to the individual faith communities to discern these things for themselves, and this is obviously where the cultural component will come into view.

Schroeder: This is the music I’ve selected for the Christmas play.

Lucy: What kind of Christmas music is that?
Schroeder: Beethoven Christmas music.
Lucy: What has Beethoven got to do with Christmas? Everyone talks about how great Beethoven was. Beethoven wasn’t so great.

[Schroeder stops playing]

Schroeder: What do you mean, Beethoven wasn’t so great?

Lucy: He never got his picture on bubblegum cards, did he. Have you ever seen his picture on a bubblegum card? How can you say someone’s great who’s never had his picture on bubblegum cards?

Schroeder: Good grief.