Book Review - Worship in Song
Publisher: BMH Books (January 28, 2009)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 0884692620
Buy at Amazon.com
This book—suitable for almost every reader—is not a rant against contemporary music and the people who enjoy it. Aniol’s basic premise is that the “music issue” is primarily a theological issue, and people would do well to seek to have their musical choices (both personal and congregational) driven by submission to Scripture. In order to accomplish this, Aniol’s 246 pages (not counting appendices) are divided into three sections.
The first section (chapters 1-5), “Laying the Foundation,” covers the issues of biblical authority, worship, sanctification and affection. It closes with a brief survey of the influence of culture and religious movements on music throughout church history. I suppose that most believers—including those comfortable with contemporary music—would agree that the Bible is our authority and that sanctified worship is a proper goal. Scott further argues that this can be accomplished only as the heart has proper affections towards God, and that sensual words and rock beat undermine that affection. The concluding chapter of this section is entitled “Pop Goes the Music: Music, Culture, and the Church.” In it the author addresses the relationship between these three elements. He asserts that “culture is the tangible expression of a society’s collective worldview. It is religion externalized. How a particular community looks at life, morality, God, mankind, and justice expresses itself externally in their popular visual art, literature philosophies, and music” (60).
In the second section (chapters 6-9) called “Music in Lifestyle Worship,” the author tackles a subject that is lacking in many books on Christian music: what we listen to personally and privately. In this section he gives a very helpful explanation of the four messages found in any poem: textual, poetic, associative and intrinsic (chapter 6). In chapter 7 Aniol observes that “one of the most significant functions of beautiful music is to give the listener a finite taste of the joy one can have in God” (114). Good “secular” music then must contain the qualities that reflect the qualities of God. There are dangers even in attempting this, suggests the author. He says:
This fear of music drawing undue attention to itself (quoting William Edgar, “Taking Note of Music”) and not pointing the listener to ultimate beauty has motivated some to be wary of and even reject the use of sacred music altogether. For instance, Ulrich Zwingli feared the power of music so much that he outlawed its use in Church completely. John Calvin allowed the use of music in his services but restricted it to metrical Psalmody with no musical accompaniment. Even Augustine saw the danger of music’s emotional power. His writings are replete with evidences of his struggle over whether music was beneficial for Christians…. (115)
Scott goes on to explain that the difficulty is in allowing earthly beauty only to be the deciding factor, instead of seeking pleasure from divine beauty. He illustrates the potential of this by pointing out that the disciples were awestruck by the wrong “beauty” at the Mount of Transfiguration. Aniol admits that this is not always a simple task when he writes, “It would be nice if the issue of musical styles were as simple as evaluating what it communicates and deciding whether it is acceptable to the Lord. It is not, however, that simple. Human finiteness and depravity hinder us from easily determining such things” (138). His advice for making these decisions is to reject any music that communicates a blatantly evil message, to pose serious questions to ourselves about what the music does communicate, and to faithfully apply biblical principles even to the use of our personal music choices.
The third section (chapters 10-17) is called “Music in Assembled Worship.” In this section, the author discusses styles of biblical worship and the purpose of the church and worship. Then he gives a detailed biblical explanation that church music should center on God, sound doctrine, and our affections for God. (I appreciated the fact that Scott was willing to say that some of our most beloved hymns are as shallow as some of today’s praise choruses.) If, as the author correctly argues, “worship is a Biblical response to God resulting from an understanding of Biblical truth about God,” then congregational music must “respond to God because of truth about Him” (173). He goes on to point out that “our sacrifices of praise do not earn us anything; we are already accepted in Christ….But God deserves our best. If we are attempting to worship Him through our music, then we should be certain to strive for excellence in congregational worship music. That means that shoddy, shallow, poorly written music should be avoided, and only what is quality, well written music is worthy of an offering to God” (179). This begins a solid rebuttal of the widespread theory of church music that can be summed up under the heading, “but I really like it!” Once again the author points out that believers on all sides of the traditional vs. contemporary issue can get caught up in what he calls “sentimental” music—and this sentimentalism replaces God and doctrine. Furthermore, Aniol argues that congregational music should be just that: music appropriate for the entire congregation to sing. It is music for a congregation, not an audience.
The book concludes by urging us to consider God worthy of good music, and worthy of the time it takes to find, sing, and listen to it. Three appendices are included. One is an appeal to teach children hymns, one organizes church hymns by topic, and one is a suggestion of songs for a personal music library.
This is a well-written, well-organized book. You don’t need to be a musician to understand it, and neither do you need formal theological training. This book could benefit any parent, pastor, teen, or church member seeking to learn more about biblical music philosophy.
- 44 views
[Joseph]I agree with you on the word sensual. I wince when I hear it in these discussions because it is imprecise. I am assuming that when it is used in this context, what is really meant is sexuality. Or perhaps, there is some other gratification of the senses that is being objected to, but I am not sure what it would be. Perhaps Alex, you can enlighten me on that one.
Beyond this, however, I utterly reject the incipient if not fully formed dualism that underlies so much of the discussion of music. “Sensual” is not bad, and it’s also not the same as “sexual”; moreover, “sexual” is not bad either, and trying to link “sensual” to “sexual” as a connotation (which works among many people) relies often on a kind of implicit sense that people will recognize “sexual” as something bad, not merely, as they would protest, something private (for even then, such music would have a place).
While I don’t wish to enter into an involved discussion of the unbiblical prudery present in many Christians’ attitudes towards sexuality and the body, I do wish to reject the idea that something being sensual, or appealing to the senses, is somehow prima facie inappropriate or even immoral. That’s clearly rot, as all music, strictly speaking, is sensual, and all rhythm, moreover, is inherently sensual. Any music, whether waltzes or band-music, that suggests physical movement is also sensual, and it is in no (legitimate) way suspect merely for that reason. If people think it is, then music is the least of my problem with their position. The only way to avoid this kind of argument is to pull a Garlock and say, “Yes, some kind of sensuality is fine - as in band music - but not when it has an evil (i.e., sexual) beat.” If you don’t want to make the silly anapestic (etc.) beat arguments, then the whole line off thinking hasn’t a leg to stand on, and even that appeal (to some sexual beat) is a pathetic attempt to support a sensibility rather than an argument. Garlock and Co. could not distinguish or parse cultural elements from elements inherent to the music that so offended them (like its rhythm), and so they tried to condemn cultural forms (many of which were quite dubious if not obviously wrong) by appealing to some inherent musical properties (this is a kind of essentialist fallacy, which people who ignore the complexity of culture tend to make)
But you are right that all music is sensual according to the general definition (appealing to the senses). Sensuality is not bad, and for that matter, neither is sexuality, though I would not say it is appropriate in a church service. I would say that sexual music is completely appropriate in other settings however. Aniol clearly believes the opposite as the above quote from his book demonstrates.
[dcbii][Alex Guggenheim]Here you have gone beyond my use of base and are using it synonymously with “evil”, hence you have departed from what I said. But if I was not clear let me state that when I refer to a base response I have in view that a base response is not necessarily bad or good but sometimes it is inappropriate depending on the context. And therein lies the observable distinction to which I am referring.
It is a matter of fact that these Masters go to great lengths to discover certain aromas, textures, sounds, shapes and so on, which target in people a certain provocation of their lower, more base, responses. [/QUOTE]
Not to get too far off topic, but can you identify for me an evil smell? By that, I don’t mean evil as in smells like garbage or corpses, or something else ugly, but a smell that can actually trigger a “base” (evil?) response?
Now, can I tell you of certain scents that would be inappropriate for the olfactory system, say in the context of worship? Indeed I could. Again, pointing to the principle of appropriateness.[dcbii] If we know this to be true, and we do, while we may not be able to dogmatically say that there is an inherent immorality to such fashions, why is it so difficult to at least concede that such arrangements which seek lower or base responses in humans, are able to be observed and identified, even in music and rightly said to be unprofitable in some way, at least within the context of worship?Your suggestion that objectivity in music evaluation is limited to reading I believe, though sincere and idealistic, is insufficient. To remove listening is to remove an essential element in the evaluation process. Music appreciation and evaluation, while it can be done by reading, is not “complete” in its evaluation without listening. It is akin to reading recipes without tastings its final product. A full evaluation can never be attained.
I can’t speak for others, but I have never argued that there isn’t some music I would consider unprofitable for worship. I certainly already identify such based on association and appropriateness. If we are, however, to try to identify arrangements that have no associational problems, and no obvious appropriateness problems, but that seek to produce base response in humans, shouldn’t that be done by objective, observable criteria, and further, shouldn’t we be able to do it from a musical score rather than having to listen to it (assuming we have enough training to do so)?[dcbii] If we do it by listening (which is most of the evaluation I’ve witnessed), does it have to produce a base response in > 50% of those listening, or what is an appropriate number? And how do we know that response is truly intrinsic vs. associational? The only way to eliminate this factor I can think of would be to take someone who doesn’t know much about music, hasn’t traveled much or experienced much from other cultures, and present them with music from a culture whose musical ideas are different from ours (something with a different scale, different rhythms, etc.), i.e. something they have not only never heard before, but is outside their ideas of music, and have them attempt to evaluate the emotion produced by different tunes without knowing what the tunes are about, what they are used for, etc. Even then, we would have to do this with a lot of individuals to come up with conclusions that are even partly valid.My intent was not necessarily to initiate discussing precisely how certain musical values are obtained since there is science for this already. Your suggestion does not seem to be a bad one for a certain controlled experiement though I suspect it would necessitate other elements which none of us music novices are considering.[dcbii] This brings us back to evaluating the score. If certain “arrangements” are eventually documented to be able to generate lower responses in humans (and I rather doubt this is the case), it should be something we can then identify by what is written. Which brings us back to Gabe’s suggestion of a computer program. If this is so objective, it ought to be something we can easily automate. Once we truly understand the principles (assuming we can formulate them in the first place), application should be relatively easy.Never minding the issue of the use of anthropic language in God’s description of his mentality (at times) to us in his Word to justify the consideration that we can utilize music that may introduce to us, human anger, hatred, jealousy and so on but I do agree that “music” in itself or the arrangements themselves, though not always appropriate for worship can be quite appropriate for personal entertainment. But even here we still must remember that all things for the believer still must be evaluated for is acceptability according to the Scriptures.
The bigger problem I see is that what we see as base responses, anger, hatred, jealousy, even physical lust, all have proper applications in God’s order. God himself even expresses anger, hatred, and jealousy, which means that not all expressions of those are sin. That might mean that such music is not appropriate for worship, but would not disqualify it for other purposes, and would certainly not designate it as morally evil.
One thing I do understand and that is that music is not “experienced” by everyone in the same way. But this principle seems to me to be being used as carte blanche with many objecting that there are no observable or determinable boundaries either for worship of personal use. Everything is justified because nothing can be rejected.
[Joseph]Well then, it appears we agree (I will take the liberty, and correct me if I am wrong, that you are one of those that don’t find it difficult). What do you know…Joseph and a borderline gnostic and conspiracist agreeing![Alex Guggenheim]… why is it so difficult to at least concede that such arrangements which seek lower or base responses in humans, are able to be observed and identified, even in music and rightly said to be unprofitable in some way, at least within the context of worship?Besides the borderline gnostic view of the body suggested by the above (as well as its conspiracy theory overtones), it’s not “so difficult” for many people.
I do have a question, though, for you Joseph. Is your “conspiracy theory overtones” reference to my mention of the work of the Evil One and/or humans with quite carnal intentions to be viewed that it is your position that it is weak or at least poorly deduced that Satan or such company can be or should be relieved of any such suspicions or charges of dark science with regard to music? In the most simplest of terms, do you reject that Satan has sought in any form or fashion to influence any form of music or has had a part in the inspiration of certain elements of music? And if you don’t reject it but acknowledge it, then welcome to the conspiracy club and tell me when do you begin inserting this variable in your considerations regarding the evaluation of music?
Thanks
Alex
Your dilemma is a false one, and I simple note that rather than further respond to it.
The idea that people strive to learn how to elicit carnal responses, to become “Masters” of this diabolic trade of appealing to the flesh, and then ply the nefarious trade in the music industry strikes me, yes, as have the overtones of conspiracy theory, particularly in its attribution of intentions and use of language, as my paraphrase indicates.
It gives people way too much credit and seems grossly to simpify how Satanic agency, about which I think we have little ability competently to speak, probably works. Perhaps I’ll contact Screwtape and ask about this.
[Joseph]Well Joseph, if one remains posited that they have little ability to competently speak regarding the nature and mechanics of Satanic agency, it is not surprising they are eager to dismiss it as a topic when it comes up.
The idea that people strive to learn how to elicit carnal responses, to become “Masters” of this diabolic trade of appealing to the flesh, and then ply the nefarious trade in the music industry strikes me, yes, as have the overtones of conspiracy theory, particularly in its attribution of intentions and use of language, as my paraphrase indicates.
It gives people way too much credit and seems grossly to simpify how Satanic agency, about which I think we have little ability competently to speak, probably works. Perhaps I’ll contact Screwtape and ask about this.
As to your first paragraph, I am surprised by the naivety of it. You are a person of broad consideration and your observations often warrant esteem. If you believe there aren’t people who, all down through history in varying contexts, have made the mastery of eliciting the carnal interests of other human beings their chief aim in life and some how music escaped all of this I really do not know what to say otherwise.
[Alex Guggenheim] Here you have gone beyond my use of base and are using it synonymously with “evil”, hence you have departed from what I said. But if I was not clear let me state that when I refer to a base response I have in view that a base response is not necessarily bad or good but sometimes it is inappropriate depending on the context. And therein lies the observable distinction to which I am referring.I’ll just point out that I put “evil?” to ask if you were going that far with “base.” I see you aren’t so that’s answered.
Now, can I tell you of certain scents that would be inappropriate for the olfactory system, say in the context of worship? Indeed I could. Again, pointing to the principle of appropriateness.
And while I agree that some scents would not be conducive to worship (and at 11:59 a.m. on Sunday morning pretty much any *good* scent that falls in the “food” category would not be conducive to worship), I still don’t see how they could on their own generate any base response such as anger, lust, etc. With association, of course, all bets are off.
Your suggestion that objectivity in music evaluation is limited to reading I believe, though sincere and idealistic, is insufficient. To remove listening is to remove an essential element in the evaluation process. Music appreciation and evaluation, while it can be done by reading, is not “complete” in its evaluation without listening. It is akin to reading recipes without tastings its final product. A full evaluation can never be attained.I think you are missing my point, though I may have stated it poorly — once an evaluation has been done (including listening), if music that generates “base” responses is so readily identifiable, you should then be able to turn to a score to see where those identifiable elements are, and further, to be able to recognize them again in a different score. If this can’t be done, I would suggest that the element/phrase/section/etc. doesn’t mean what it is thought to mean. And with regard to recipes, I’ve seen good cooks be able to reject or decide to try recipes by looking at what they contain without ever tasting them, by virtue of long experience with how the ingredients taste separately and together.
Never minding the issue of the use of anthropic language in God’s description of his mentality (at times) to us in his Word to justify the consideration that we can utilize music that may introduce to us, human anger, hatred, jealousy and so onI agree that we can’t make hard and fast comparisons of what we experience to what God experiences. Nevertheless, it is God that expressed in human terms what he feels about sin, about Israel going astray, etc., making a comparison at least reasonably valid.
but I do agree that “music” in itself or the arrangements themselves, though not always appropriate for worship can be quite appropriate for personal entertainment. But even here we still must remember that all things for the believer still must be evaluated for is acceptability according to the Scriptures.Agreed, but we still haven’t established that what music itself does is wrong according to the Scriptures, even if it is found to be deterministically able to generate “base” responses.
One thing I do understand and that is that music is not “experienced” by everyone in the same way. But this principle seems to me to be being used as carte blanche with many objecting that there are no observable or determinable boundaries either for worship of personal use. Everything is justified because nothing can be rejected.That’s not what I am arguing at all. I reject much music for use as worship music, and other music even as music for personal use. However, because I don’t believe in its intrinsic value, I don’t base my judgments on evaluating it in that way.
Dave Barnhart
I don’t mean to be a John Bircher and see an organized, in-the—flesh conspiracy under every rock. I’m just acknowledging the power of the prince of this world.
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
Discussion