Musing About Music
Reposted, with permission, from Theologically Driven.
WikiAnswers poses the question, “Why does music exist?” then self-replies: “Because it brings happiness to people all over the world.”
We must grant that WikiAnswers is scarcely an authoritative reference source, but it does offer a window on popular culture. It reflects that a common reason (and perhaps the most common reason) for the societal “doing” of music today is to forget the pain, grief, anxiety, dreariness, and simple ennui of life and enter an imaginary world where one can have the emotional experience of his choice—usually a happy one. Ironically, the historically central idea of “music” (fr. the Grk. μοῦσα, to muse, think, remember, or reflect) has been transformed in the last century into its own etymological opposite—an occasion, whether active or passive, for not “musing,” or, supplying the alpha privative, a venue foramusement. This is not to say that music as amusement or as a means of forgetting is always bad (see in principle Prov. 31:7), but it does reflect a total reversal of the Western tradition concerning the central purpose of music.
Of course, history only slightly improves on Wiki in terms of warrant. Still it is interesting to know that the perceived function of music from the classical period to the rise of populism was as an aid to musing and remembering, or perhaps better, as a means to creating the affective distance necessary to fostering reflection.
The theme of music as an abstract idea is rare in Scripture. The Greek term μοῦσα appears only once in the NT (Rev. 22:18). More common NT terms reflect instantiations of music: ᾄδω (oding), ὑμνεω (hymning) and ψάλλω (psalming). Hebrew is slightly more fruitful—the most common Hebrew word group for music, the שׁיר word group, includes in its scope not only “singing,” “playing,” and “songs” but also the more abstract idea of “song.” Most of what we know of the purpose for “song,” though, we learn from the songs: they provided a platform for mutual and reflective praise, joy, thanksgiving, lament, hope, victory, and the recollection of the works of God.
Music had a didactic purpose too (so Col. 3:16). This is interesting, because nearly all agree that propositional and prosaic forms of communication are more efficient and precise than non-propositional and poetic forms of communication—at least in the transmission of denotative meaning. So why music? Quite simply, because music adds a connotative and rhetorical dimension to communication that mere words cannot, or at least not efficiently. Among these,
- Music engages the whole person in spiritual discourse, slowing the flow of information to the mind, facilitating reflection, awakening chaste affections,* and encouraging appropriate motions of the will. In short, it allows the musician to muse.
- Music is also an effective mnemonic device. With its penchant for artistic cadence, repetition, rhyme, poetic devices, etc., music helps us visualize and remember the propositional content that attaches to it.
- Music balances immanence with transcendence. Music causes the individual musician to step back, consider abstractly his place in the universal metanarrative, and then resolve to fulfill his duty/destiny.
- Music creates a requisite sense of community. Music helps us see not only how we fit into transcendent realities, but also how we share experimental solidarity with others (whether fellow-Christians, fellow-countrymen, fellow-soldiers, etc.) in common worship, grief, joy, hope, recollection, affirmation, or action.
Assuming that these are the intended functions of music (and both secular and biblical song prior to the twentieth century seems to bear this out), it follows that we should analyze our songs to discover whether they do these things well. This means more than ascertaining that the denotative propositions that attach to music—the words—are good and true and worthwhile (though we certainly cannot neglect this); it means that we must also consider whether the music that attaches to the words does all that it ought to do. This is an ethical question that we cannot afford to leave unanswered. And so I force myself to answer questions like…
- In my selection of music am I more concerned about musing or about amusing? In other words, does the music cause me to remember/reflect or to forget/release?
- Do I make musical choices based on whether they will awaken my affections or stimulate my emotions?
- Is my music strictly about the here-and-now or, conversely, strictly about the wholly other? Or does it attempt to integrate the immanent with the transcendent?
- Does my music complement the lyrics and cause me to remember—both as I sing and afterwards?
- In my choice of music am I more concerned with personal expression or with expressing public and experimental solidarity with a community?
The fact is, God never tells us why he created music, why he made man a musical being, nor why he demands music of us. It is likely that these reasons mirror the reasons why he created ethics, made us ethical beings, and demands ethics from us—to reflect his image! We all know that we should do ethics well and to that end we submit to an endless stream of books and articles that attempt to untangle the gray areas of ethics from the standpoint of both Scripture and natural law. We know that there is a right and a wrong way to do ethics, even when these prove elusive. We know further that public consensus on ethical matters is not wholly trustworthy, and at times is wholly untrustworthy: when waves of ethical novelty shake society, we scrutinize their underpinnings and offer superior alternatives.
But when it comes to aesthetics, discussion of the gray areas is increasingly thought to be off limits. The only aesthetic standard permitted, it seems, is that of contemporaneity. Popular taste and preference prevail, and public consensus can never be wrong. When waves of aesthetic upheaval shake society, we are expected to submit to them without censure or even reflection. I find this perplexing.
It is impossible to escape the fact that the function of music has changed radically in the last century—in ways that have never before been seen in the history of mankind. And the church is understandably having a hard time adjusting. While reflection and resistance have occurred at times in the Christian community, the Church as a whole seems to have reached an alarming watershed—a consensus decision that (1) there is no profit in philosophizing and theologizing about aesthetics, that (2) the threat of being aesthetically “of the world” does not exist, and that (3) the threat of not being aesthetically “in the world” is by far the greater crisis of the evangelical church.
We must be frank in admitting that some who have attempted to parse the paradox of Christ and culture in the aesthetic sphere have done so poorly. But this does not give us a pass, as ministers of the Word, from being proactive in parsing the paradox and thinking meta-musically. And even when we tire of shrill and uninformed voices on both sides of the debate, we surely must not become angry or dismissive toward those who persist in the exercise. We may not all come to common conclusions (like ethics, music can be quite abstract), but we cannot be so foolish and atheological to imagine that aesthetics have at long last been detached from ethics within the Christian worldview.
Notes
* Gerald McDermott (Seeing God: Jonathan Edwards and Spiritual Discernment p. 40) summarizes the difference between affections and emotions in the following chart. I would like to suggest that the chart extends beyond the affection/emotion dichotomy to include ministry as vocation/avocation and music as musing/amusement:
Affections | Emotions |
Long-lasting | Fleeting |
Deep | Superficial |
Consistent with beliefs | Sometimes overpowering |
Always result in action | Often fail to produce action |
Involve mind, will, feelings | Feelings (often) disconnected from the mind and will |
Mark Snoeberger Bio
Mark Snoeberger is Associate Professor of Systematic Theology at Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary and has served as Director of Library Services since 1997. He received his M.Div. and Th.M. from DBTS and earned a Ph.D. in systematic theology from Baptist Bible Seminary in Clarks Summit, PA. Prior to joining the DBTS staff, he served for three years as an assistant pastor.
- 49 views
GregH, I never claimed to be an expert on music. I have no music expert qualifications. What are yours?
I don’t need to have “qualifications.” Its called common sense. It isn’t that hard.
mmartin, so it is perfectly fine to blast away at everyone that disagrees with you on this stuff even though you know nothing about it? Don’t get me wrong; it is par for the course as they say and I am hardly surprised because I know of several of you. Just proves a theory: those who know the least know it the loudest and most dogmatically. :)
Now that MMartin has:
- confirmed that he’s called everyone he disagrees with an “idiot” (indirectly, because to actually say it directly would get him a greeting from the friendly moderating team)
- said that he has no music training or qualifications
- and has said that this is all just ‘common sense’ (despite the fact that no one can follow his argument)
- and has resorted to ad hominem attacks and this kind of behavior on multiple other threads
Why don’t the rest of us just ignore him as a troublemaker / troll? I mean, it seems like to engage with him is to encourage his behavior.
*****
As charcoal to hot embers and wood to fire, so is a quarrelsome man for kindling strife. - Proverbs 26:21
It is an honor for a man to keep aloof from strife, but every fool will be quarreling. - Proverbs 20:3
As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him - Titus 3:10
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Trust me, you don’t know anything about me nor what “group” I may fall into. Nor I you for that matter. And, I really don’t care either.
All I’m saying is that music is moral because it affects people and communicates a mood or feeling. When I see music in a restaurant influencing my boy to dance, common sense says music influences people. Right!? When calm, soothing music is used to help a baby go to sleep who needs to have “qualifications” about music? Music is a medium that affects people deeply. It really isn’t that hard to understand, except for some …
Maybe if I just type slower. :-)!
BTW, you haven’t any statements about your, ahem, qualifications to refute what I’m saying, except to badger. Not that I care about it, just saying don’t stand on the sidelines.
All I’m saying is that music is moral because it affects people and communicates a mood or feeling.
Anyone want to start a list of things that aren’t moral that affect people and communicate moods and feelings? Colors, sounds, smells, words……
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
Well, mmartin, here is the thing. People that actually are qualified to talk about the issue know that it is not just simple common sense. Frankly, your insistence that it is just simple common sense is all the evidence I need to know that you really don’t even know the questions much less the answers.
My qualifications are not the issue here. I am not the one making sweeping dogmatic judgments about music and musicians.
[Jay]Now that MMartin has:
- confirmed that he’s called everyone he disagrees with an “idiot” (indirectly, because to actually say it directly would get him a greeting from the friendly moderating team)
- said that he has no music training or qualifications
- and has said that this is all just ‘common sense’ (despite the fact that no one can follow his argument)
- and has resorted to ad hominem attacks and this kind of behavior on multiple other threads
Why don’t the rest of us just ignore him as a troublemaker / troll? I mean, it seems like to engage with him is to encourage his behavior.
*****
As charcoal to hot embers and wood to fire, so is a quarrelsome man for kindling strife. - Proverbs 26:21
It is an honor for a man to keep aloof from strife, but every fool will be quarreling. - Proverbs 20:3
As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him - Titus 3:10
* Yes, it is true that I have no formal music training or qualifications. Didn’t know either myself, you, or anyone else in this conversation needed “qualifications” to comment about this subject.
* Not sure what you mean by “no one can follow my arguments.” The main point I’ve been saying is simply that music is moral because it communicates. I am not the first person in the world to say such a thing. How is this too hard to follow?
* Yes, common sense is in effect as I have illustrated repeatedly.
[GregH]Well, mmartin, here is the thing. People that actually are qualified to talk about the issue know that it is not just simple common sense. Frankly, your insistence that it is just simple common sense is all the evidence I need to know that you really don’t even know the questions much less the answers.
My qualifications are not the issue here. I am not the one making sweeping dogmatic judgments about music and musicians.
Then you aren’t reading my comments. The finer points of music, i.e. the academic study of the psychology how exactly music can influence us to be happy I am not qualified to speak about. But that also isn’t the point of view I’m coming from. As I said earlier, when I see my son walk into a store normally but then starts dancing when he hears the rock music, common sense says music is moral and does influence us. I also refer also to my illustration about calm, soothing music to help an infant go to sleep. These are not music doctorate level observations.
You said, “People that actually are qualified to talk about the issue … . ” How are you then “qualified” to be in this conversation and other people are not?
Let me be clear. Anyone is qualified to be in this discussion. Anyone…
But it takes a whole new level of qualification to be qualified to make the dogmatic judgments you are known for. You and a few others are making those judgments and the bar is higher for you. If you guys want to be taken seriously when you make the statements you do, there should be a bit of evidence that you know what you are talking about. You had better be experts not just on the theology and philosophy of music but the technical side of music too.
You keep asking about my qualifications. I am not going to talk here about them. If they are important to you, you will find them easily enough.
Again, you aren’t reading my comments. I have made statements and have backed them up with examples and illustrations. I have provided evidence repeatedly to back up my points about music. In other words I have done exactly as you have requested.
If you are asking me to be an expert on the theology, philosophy, and technical side of music, then when exactly are you going to ask the same of everyone else in this conversation? Very, very few people are that kind of an expert.
You ask me about my qualifications but then dodge my questions about yours.
I asked quite a simple question of you and you turned around and started calling all of us idiots. Is that the answer with illustrations you were referring to?
No one disagrees that music affects our emotions, so I’ll ask again….how is music any different than anything else that affects our emotions? Why is music moral but weather and paint aren’t?
maybe because MUSIC is used to worship God while the weather and colors aren’t.
Though, I do know of several churches that have an artist paint a painting on the platform during the music and preaching.
music without lyrics is moral given that music performed in worship (not just filler in between songs, or segments of the service, etc) almost always has words (I’m talking about congregational singing here)? Sure there can be solos on violin or piano etc, but that really isn’t the issue. The issue is praise bands right? They are used with music with lyrics.
I opened the new mailer that came from the main Christian bookstore in town and guess who was featured on the cover? Big Daddy Weave….I admit I chuckled.
[Mark_Smith]maybe because MUSIC is used to worship God while the weather and colors aren’t.
Though, I do know of several churches that have an artist paint a painting on the platform during the music and preaching.
Worship is not confined to what we do inside a building. “The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament sheweth his handiwork” (Ps. 19:1).
Discussion