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

[Don Johnson]

[GregH]

[Don Johnson]

[GregH] 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).

Do we see those expressions in the temple? In the tabernacle? In the synagogue? In the New Testament church?

I don’t think so, but if you can point to it, by all means…

I think I am going to bow out of this one Don. You know full well that there is no description of the music styles in the temple, tabernacle, synagogue and NT church. Earlier, you were talking about trying to decide which musical experts to believe. Why not listen to the one named David who wrote the Psalms? But no, you don’t want to accept what he said about euphoric worship including shouting and dance because you are not comfortable with it. This argument is just a very weak attempt to stay in your comfort zone.

And it is just not an argument I am going to spend my time on.

Greg, you want to have it both ways. You say, “You know full well that there is no description of the music styles in the temple, tabernacle, synagogue and NT church.” Then you say, “But no, you don’t want to accept what he said about euphoric worship including shouting and dance because you are not comfortable with it.”

So which is it? If David is teaching us about euphoric worship, then surely there is a description of music styles. It can’t not be a description of music styles and there be no description at all, can it?

You can bow out if you like, but it is very bizarre to accuse me of being unwilling to listen if you are unwilling to provide examples that you say are there.

Who is the one with the weak argument?

Don, you know what David says in the Psalms about worship. You know it is often euphoric in nature. You know about references to shouting, clapping and dancing. When those are brought up, you attempt to wiggle out of it by saying that I have to prove it happened in the temple, NT church, synagogue or tabernacle and you know full well that is impossible.

This line of argument is a waste of time for me. It is not intellectually honest. It is just you dancing around and doing cute sparring games. I don’t want to play.

Don,

I agree that context, association, and culture are important. In fact, I believe they are much more the determinant of what our worship music should be, especially since the so-called “intrinsic” value of music can hardly be described clearly, let alone agreed on. I would be one of those you refer to who believe that music doesn’t have an “intrinsic” moral value, but I certainly do believe that music can be very moral depending on a huge number of factors including the three above. This is why we must be discerning, and why music is such a hard topic, but also why I believe it’s ultimately unfruitful to use entirely technical music arguments, when so much of what must be proven is assumed. That said, I appreciate when people try to tackle this topic, even if unsuccessful. That’s one of the reasons I think the arguments over music continue to draw us in — it’s not an area that is clearly resolved, and we are all searching for some clarity in this area, even when there is much disagreement.

On the subject of the “baser” emotions, I would have to say that it’s the misuse and misdirection of these that is really the issue. Anger, wrath, jealousy, hatred, derision, and probably some others are all expressed by God, and therefore cannot be evil of themselves. Of course, it’s also true that most human expressions of these would be of the wrong kind, but given the inexactness of the musical language, I would say it would be very difficult to hear the difference between righteous anger and the unrighteous kind in our music. Maybe this just means that such things should be used sparingly, but there is certainly room, in my opinion anyway, to express God’s anger and judgment in songs.

I do have to agree that David’s dancing is usually ignored when it shouldn’t be. Certainly it doesn’t mean anything unrighteous or “sensual” as we tend to think of dancing, but it is present in the scriptures, and presented for our edification and therefore must mean something. Obviously, we should be attempting to determine what that is. Cultural implications may end up precluding us from using something like that in our worship since we wouldn’t want it to be misconstrued, but we would certainly have to agree that it would be “non-intrinsic” factors that would be preventing its use. Clearly a certain amount of “ecstatic joy” is not unscriptural worship.

In any case, in spite of the amount of heat that is generated on this topic rather than light, I am thankful that it keeps coming up, precisely because it is both a topic that is extremely relevant to our worship today, and the fact that unlike what was taught in the 70’s, we Christians do NOT have this topic completely figured out.

I would venture the assertion that:

There was opposition to the introduction of hymns by human authors to churches that were using the Psalter.

There was opposition to the introduction of the piano (an instrument of the barrooms and brothels) to churches that had only used the organ.

There was opposition to the introduction of Gospel songs to worship services that had only used hymns.

As an aside, I’m glad that this discussion has few references to the “association” argument. If that were meaningful, the Wesley hymns we’ve sung would have turned us all into Arminian Methodists.

I appreciate what you have to say, Dave, whether I agree with your music or not. This is a very difficult issue, and gets more difficult all the time. I appreciate the fact this is a sensible discussion on these pages.

For Bob: I am not convinced by what you say that either music or emotions are as neutral as you are arguing. I’m not sure that the Bible ever gives one that idea either. We can take the idea one step further and say all sounds are neutral. I am not sure that is true either. Would any of us in this discussion say that a preacher who yells angrily and loudly at his congregation for 30 minutes is glorifying God by means of morally neutral phenomena? On any occasion? Would any of us say that the man who tries to lure a woman using enticing tones in his voice is using morally neutral phenomena? In any culture? Or are only sounds that combine to create music morally neutral? If God says to praise Him with loud cymbals (Psalm 150:5), could Israel simply have neglect the “loud” and remain morally, spiritually neutral? After all, cymbals and volume are neutral things.

I think, really, the moral neutrality view of music is probably a creation of our American Evangelical Ghetto. I may be wrong, but I doubt if creators of music before say 1960 or 1970 ever thought in terms of the neutrality of music or emotions. They felt justified about what they were doing, perhaps, but not neutral. Those who create music are typically passionate about it. It is kind of hard to get passionate about something that has moral neutrality: say the tick of my clock. True, Leroy Anderson wrote the Syncopated Clock, to the delight of music lovers, as well as his typewriter song. But that is the music that delights us, not the tick of the clock (just anticipating someone’s rejoinder).

[Ron Bean]

I would venture the assertion that:

There was opposition to the introduction of hymns by human authors to churches that were using the Psalter.

There was opposition to the introduction of the piano (an instrument of the barrooms and brothels) to churches that had only used the organ.

There was opposition to the introduction of Gospel songs to worship services that had only used hymns.

“The organ in the worship Is the insignia of Baal” The Roman Catholic borrowed it from the Jews.” (Martin Luther, Mcclintock & Strong’s Encyclopedia Volume VI, page 762)

I did isolate an example from that piece, but it is not because it is the only one. There are only a few chord movements in that song that I can’t functionally defend. The Eb7 - F movement most certainly is functional. It is a bVII7 - I which is used all the time and is a variant of iv6 - I.

Adding major 7ths to the I and IV chords are for color as you mentioned. And thus we get to the author’s objection (which they did not make by the way; you apparently know them well enough to know what they are referring to). They actually find something wrong with using 7ths for color?

Yes, that is silly. It is as I have mentioned, just a veiled attack on jazz that has absolutely no merit. It had no merit in the 70’s when it was taught more widely and it has none now.

You are giving more credit to the article than deserved. First of all, the authors did not explain what kind of 7th chord usage they objected to (color rather than improved function). Second, they did not say why there was something wrong with using 7ths for color.

I hear over and over from you guys that these things mean something. But you can’t tell us what they mean. So when will that happen? When is someone credible going to step up and tell me a plausible reason why I need to eliminate major 7ths from my music?

A few points and I’ll be done.

- I’ve never heard of these authors until I read these two articles. I’m not attempting to do their heavy lifting for them other than to clarify what I think they’re saying about consecutive 7th chords because it seemed to me that point was misunderstood/not fairly treated.

- It’s not my purpose to give any more or less credit to this article thandeserved. See above.

- You keep saying, essentially, that jazz harmony is good, etc, but you provide nothing solid to back it up beyond assertion. Why is that? (Not attacking jazz myself, just responding to you.)

- Jazz harmonies are not functional in the same way as harmony in the common practice period from which basic theory is drawn. In that sensea bVII7 - I7 progression is not similar to a vi - V7/V - V7 - I progression.

- As to what these these things mean, if the meaning could be put into words precisely, we wouldn’t need music. Art thou a master of the piano and theory and knowest not these things?

Sigh… Around and around we go.

We know a major 7th has meaning but we don’t know what. But we need to wrestle with that meaning and figure it out. But even if we could, that meaning can’t be put into words precisely.

So all musicians out there need to avoid certain things because of what they mean but nobody can tell you what they mean…

That is the gist of the argument here.

You are wrong in some of your theory and understanding of functional harmony David but I am not going to go into it because I am getting weary of this too. And I have no idea how you know from that article and not knowing the authors what they mean by consecutive 7th chords being a problem but I will assume you do.

A quick answer to your question though. Basic theory did not come from the common practice period. Some of it was discovered then. And some of it was discovered after the CPP. And some of it, believe or not, was discovered by jazz greats who by the way, leaned heavily on CPP theory. I have a feeling more will be discovered in the future. But this I know for sure. Jazz harmony is just an extension of CPP harmony. It is more sophisticated, more nuanced, and yes better than the basic triad harmony that some here seem to want Christian music to stick with.

We know a major 7th has meaning but we don’t know what.

This isn’t really what I said. Music communicates; that’s my point.

…this I know for sure … [jazz harmony] is more sophisticated, more nuanced, and yes better than the basic triad harmony…

Izzat so? How do you know?

[Don Johnson]

Well, I’ll take Erickson and Hodge over Aaron, with all due respect. Both of them said our emotions are corrupted. Passages were cited as proof. I don’t see how you can get around it.

Actually, they don’t say that. In fact, the quotes you give actually support the opposite of what you’re arguing. The scripture passages clearly point out that it’s not love (the emotion) that’s the problem, rather it’s the object of that love (self versus God.)

And the quote about the affections functions similarly. Affections are necessarily for something. I can’t have affection for nothing. And so Augustine’s pointing out that his problem was that his affections were wrongly directed; the problem was not that he had affections in the first place. To have affections is a necessary outworking of humanity being made in the imago dei.

So either you’re not reading your own quotes carefully, or you’re intentionally using them to support something they simply don’t support. I will assume the former, given that the second would be dishonest. But either way, they simply don’t support your argument.

[GregH]

Don, you know what David says in the Psalms about worship. You know it is often euphoric in nature. You know about references to shouting, clapping and dancing. When those are brought up, you attempt to wiggle out of it by saying that I have to prove it happened in the temple, NT church, synagogue or tabernacle and you know full well that is impossible.

This line of argument is a waste of time for me. It is not intellectually honest. It is just you dancing around and doing cute sparring games. I don’t want to play.

I was responding to your point. You made the assertion (post #44). Apparently you think that simply making an assertion ends the argument. If the passages you refer to apply to the argument, the burden of proof lies on you since you brought it up. If these passages are normative for the Christian church, prove it.

That’s all I’m saying. Why accuse me of intellectual dishonesty? Nice rhetoric, but that’s not an argument either.

[dcbii]

On the subject of the “baser” emotions, I would have to say that it’s the misuse and misdirection of these that is really the issue. Anger, wrath, jealousy, hatred, derision, and probably some others are all expressed by God, and therefore cannot be evil of themselves.

The theologians say the whole person is corrupted, it’s not that we are simply misusing good emotions, but that we are degraded in our passions. That seems to be what the scriptures are saying as well:

Romans 1:26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, (NAU, KJV = ‘vile affections’)

The word ‘degrading’ modifies the word ‘passions’, describing the quality or character of the passions. They themselves are dishonorable. It is not simply that something good is being used towards a wrong object, the whole passion itself is corrupted and a mutated form of that which was originally created. (see also 1 Thess 4.5, a passion characterized by lustfulness).

[dcbii] Of course, it’s also true that most human expressions of these would be of the wrong kind, but given the inexactness of the musical language, I would say it would be very difficult to hear the difference between righteous anger and the unrighteous kind in our music. Maybe this just means that such things should be used sparingly, but there is certainly room, in my opinion anyway, to express God’s anger and judgment in songs.

But the debate isn’t about expressing God’s anger and judgement in music, but human passions.

Anyway, thanks for jumping in. I appreciated your comments.

[jcoleman]

[Don Johnson]

Well, I’ll take Erickson and Hodge over Aaron, with all due respect. Both of them said our emotions are corrupted. Passages were cited as proof. I don’t see how you can get around it.

Actually, they don’t say that. In fact, the quotes you give actually support the opposite of what you’re arguing. The scripture passages clearly point out that it’s not love (the emotion) that’s the problem, rather it’s the object of that love (self versus God.)

Please explain how the scriptures sited make the point you are making. See my reply to Dave Barnhart (dcbii) in connection with this. I think you are quite mistaken, the doctrine of depravity is that the whole person is affected/corrupted by the fall. That doesn’t mean that every man is as bad as he could be, but every man is totally affected by the fall.

Part of our discussion here has turned from a discussion of Doug Bachorik’s article to a discussion of emotion and its use or misuse in music.

I thought I should point out that it isn’t simply the effect music has on the hearer’s emotions that is the issue. The point that I think bro. Bachorik is making is that music can portray inappropriate emotion by the way it is composed. You can disagree with the proposition and argue against it if you like, but ultimately, I think that is what his point is.

It isn’t simply that music makes you “feel good” that makes the music good or bad. That’s a subjective evaluation on the part of the hearer. Rather, the music itself can express good or bad ideas/emotions/passions/affections. When the thing communicated is bad, the music is bad.

That, I think, is what we are arguing about.

Don,

Help me here. Are you suggesting that the clapping, dancing, shouting, etc in the Psalms are not worship, are not euphoric, or are not clapping, dancing, and shouting, etc., or that worship in the NT is so vastly different that those passages don’t matter? I am not sure exactly what you are arguing on this point.

[Don Johnson]

Please explain how the scriptures sited make the point you are making. See my reply to Dave Barnhart (dcbii) in connection with this. I think you are quite mistaken, the doctrine of depravity is that the whole person is affected/corrupted by the fall. That doesn’t mean that every man is as bad as he could be, but every man is totally affected by the fall.

We agree that the whole person is affected/corrupted by the fall. And referencing your reply to dcbii, those “dishonorable passions” are “dishonorable” precisely because they express something God-given (say, love) towards something God never intended it to be directed toward. I don’t believe that you can give an example of an emotion that can’t be expressed in legitimate ways. Sex is good in the context in which God created it for. Anger is good when directed at evil. Hate is good when felt for the effects of evil. Etc. Now certainly the emotion and its object are so closely connected when that emotion is expressed that we find it hard to separate the two. That is, it is impossible to express one of those emotions/passions/affections without an object of them. So we tend to categorize the each emotion/object pair as an emotion. But in a technical sense (rather than vernacular) that’s not the case. And that’s important because God tells he made all things good. And evil is a corruption of good things. Evil doesn’t exist apart from good; it is only evil a perversion of something originally good. How do are emotions/passions/affections (created a good thing) perverted? By twisting them so that they point at objects different than God intended.

And this is important to the current discussion because in order to prove that the music itself is evil you have to prove not only that music communicates emotion (we agree, it does) but also that it communicates an object for that emotion to be expression toward. Now certainly the context (words, actions of the performer, etc.) can communicate that object. But can the music by itself? The arguments I’ve heard always end up relying on some contextual piece (whether directly or by association), which would suggest that the music cannot communicate that object by itself.

Incidentally, I believe that this whole discussion of “baser emotions” suggests that we’ve adopted a kind of Gnostic dualism. Or, rather, (though there’s nothing new under the sun) we’ve adopted our current culture’s idea of man as an animal—we talk about such emotions as “animalistic.”. And as such we think of some emotions as being not necessarily evil (though, perhaps dangerous because we think they tend that direction), but not necessarily good either. So something like sex becomes something to be allowed as necessary, but not exalted as something God gave as a good gift. But I don’t believe that scripture allows us to make those kinds of distinctions between less-good and more-good emotions. Rather it would combat such a devaluing of the physical (for the “animalistic” emotions tend to the be the physical ones—hence the Gnostic connection) passions by exalting them as to be highly valued in the context for which God designed their best possible enjoyment.