On "Conservative" Worship
- 85 views
“I don’t think the answer to “worship wars” is to replace music with prayer.” I didn’t suggest a permanent replacement. I suggested it would be for a season, until we can get back to singing. Perhaps we can agree that the Lord’s Supper shouldn’t go forward for brothers who have unresolved conflict…so if we set aside the Lord’s Supper until there is a resolution of the disunity, why not set aside music for prayer for a brief period to resolve a similar conflict?
Darrell, given that the range of possibilities for “not much about music in the NT” includes “you might as well tell people to breathe”, the Bible simply doesn’t support what you say. Period. You’ve been caught, and called on, using the basic rhetorical fallacy of argument from silence, and you simply need to leave that one behind.
And yes, you are doing guilt by association, and if you want peace in the church regarding music, you need to stop. You can point to the Rolling Stones or Mötley Crüe, and I’ll point to Rite of Spring and Bolero, not to mention The Barber of Seville or Die Zauberflöte—really almost all opera. And we will get nowhere because we are using rhetorical fallacies that have no place for serious theological discussion.
Again, let’s start with the purpose of music—to convey God’s Word to God’s people in lyric form and prepare them for a meeting with Christ. To help us memorize things that we read too seldom. Then we can start making decisions based on what can work well, not based on our own biases for/against black Gospel and/or classical music.
And again, it needs to be said that as far as I can tell, most of the arguments I’ve seen against modern music in the church can be summarized as “music of white Protestants prior to Elvis Presley is OK, but other music, not so much.” I am not accusing anyone of intending it this way, but if you make this argument, this is how ethnic and racial minorities who understand music are going to hear it. So make such arguments—even beyond the rhetorical and logical fallacies inherent in them—is just begging for trouble.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Bert, where have I suggested anything about Bolero or Barber of Seville? What have I been ‘caught’ at other than pointing to the NT text to see what is there? My point is that some churches have so emphasized a particular importance to a given style that must be done in assembled worship even though it forces people out of the church. Thanks for your compassion on a guy who was told by his pastor that he needed to leave the church.
[Darrell Post]Bert, where have I suggested anything about Bolero or Barber of Seville? What have I been ‘caught’ at other than pointing to the NT text to see what is there? My point is that some churches have so emphasized a particular importance to a given style that must be done in assembled worship even though it forces people out of the church. Thanks for your compassion on a guy who was told by his pastor that he needed to leave the church.
Darrell, the point is that pointing to the sinful origins of rock & roll music is a technique that can equally be applied to a lot of hymns used by traditionalists. Another example; the bridal march from Lohengrin, by Wagner—a guy whose history of love affairs and anti-semitism does not take a back seat to that of modern rock & roll stars.
You want to push out rock & roll for its history, you’ve got to push out most of classical music for the exact same reasons. So guilt by association is really a rhetorical suicide pact when used by both sides, or…in light of the subject….a rhetorical pact of silence, because that’s how much music will be left when you get rid of something “that looks like” or “that has roots in” sinful behaviors.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Bert, music has a voice. The sounds can be orchestrated to go along with ideas and events. This week at the presidential inauguration, they will play hail to the chief. It would be an offense if they played circus clown music when Obama and Trump walk in. Soldiers march to military marches, not baby lullabies. The sexual revolution didn’t use military marches, or lullabies, or sacred music to celebrate their sin, because it didn’t fit.
[Darrell Post] Bert, music has a voice. The sounds can be orchestrated to go along with ideas and events. This week at the presidential inauguration, they will play hail to the chief. It would be an offense if they played circus clown music when Obama and Trump walk in. Soldiers march to military marches, not baby lullabies. The sexual revolution didn’t use military marches, or lullabies, or sacred music to celebrate their sin, because it didn’t fit.
Horsefeathers.
First of all, men have used music as a tool to help in seducing women since the practice has been recorded.
Secondly, they did use music, but corellation does not equal causation.
"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
Darrell, yes, music has a voice, and it has moods and all, but all you’re arguing is again the guilt by association fallacy. It proves precisely nothing, except that you don’t have a real argument at hand.
Plus, if you think no one ever used martial music, lullabies, or sacred music to seduce a woman….seriously? My favorite is the middle one; do you really think nobody ever used a lullaby to persuade a lady to go to bed? Or nobody ever used martial music to persuade a uniform-minded woman the same way? Or nobody ever memorized a hymn or two to lead a virtuous but gullible young lady astray, or took someone to a concert featuring Bach’s work with bad intents?
Seriously?
Note; I have personally used lullabies to persuade my wife to go to bed, specifically a little ditty to orchestral accompaniment by Lennon & McCartney that sounds like a 1930s movie theme. Works nicely in the right setting. No evil drums, guitars, sung with a good voice, no offbeat characteristics, nothing. You could sing it in Bible camp judging by the lyrics.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
“The sounds of rock and roll were more or less born out of the sexual revolution where that generation found the perfect rhythm and beat to help them celebrate and accentuate their free sex and drugs. The reason they found it to be the perfect musical vehicle for their message goes back to the truth that music has a voice.”
As I went back and reread some of your arguments, I realized that you are basing much of your animosity against CCM and/or Christian rock on a partly false and over-the-top simplistic argument that the sounds of rock and roll were born out of the sexual revolution. Not true. That is such a shallow, simplistic argument that no serious music scholar would hold. It is, however, the repeated lies from fundamentalist preachers/evangelists that I remember having to listen to growing up with my fundamentalist upbringing. Rock music didn’t just appear in a vacuum; several different genres combined, all of which brought a different aspect of musicality. If one attends the Rock and Roll Hall of fame in Cleveland, there is an exhibit to the actual roots of rock and roll. They divide the exhibit into 4 sections, each devoted to a musical genre that influenced rock and roll. You have Gospel (specifically black gospel), bluegrass/folk/country, the blues, and R&B.
In addition just about every music scholar will point to both Elvis and Buddy Holly as the primary figures whose music from the 1950’s influenced the sixties. I would argue that Buddy Holly’s influence was greater on the rock and roll band, the instrumentation, the song writing, the vocals, the recording, the professionalism, and guitar playing. 60’s and even 70’s rock legends all point to Buddy Holly as their main influencer. This includes: the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan, the Byrds, Pete Townshend (from the Who), Eric Clapton, and Bruce Springsteen. Buddy Holly did not bring any sexuality to his music and his persona was the very polar opposite to Elvis. In fact, he was skinny, geeky-looking with his big black-rimmed glasses, and yellow teeth. He also was deeply religious and refused to drink alcohol.
Rather I would argue that much (not all) of rock and roll was created good and then became distorted by certain artists that tried to combine it with free sex and drugs. But even that is a simplistic argument because there were so many artists with unique styles, backgrounds, motivations, and etc….To pigeonhole them all together and associate them with the sexual revolution falls right into the logical fallacy of guilt by association.
[Darrell Post]But the song ‘Hail to the Chief” proves that the “voice” of the song is really dependent upon how the song eventually gets used, and that that use can change. The lyrics come from Sir Walter Scott’s romantic poem The Lady of the Lake. Hail to the Chief was originally published as ‘March and Chorus in the Dramatic Romance of the Lady of the Lake’. It only got it’s voice as a presidential anthem because it started being used at presidential events. The reason we recognize “circus music” is because circuses have been around for centuries and thus that fast-paced music is culturally identifiable with the event. I just heard this week that Barnum and Bailey Circus is closing for good, so within a few generations, that music may be used for something else and no longer have the “clown music” associations. The sexual revolution was not that long ago, so there is still some validity in associating rock and roll music with it, but there are also many uses of rock-style music that have nothing at all to do with sex. In my opinion, it is the current usage of music that gives it it’s “voice” and not the way it may have originally been used.Bert, music has a voice. The sounds can be orchestrated to go along with ideas and events. This week at the presidential inauguration, they will play hail to the chief. It would be an offense if they played circus clown music when Obama and Trump walk in. Soldiers march to military marches, not baby lullabies. The sexual revolution didn’t use military marches, or lullabies, or sacred music to celebrate their sin, because it didn’t fit.
It’s worth noting that “Entrance of the Gladiators” (Fujcik) speaks of an entirely different kind of circus than the “Greatest Show on Earth”, specifically the Circus Maximus of Rome. But in its current “stereotype”, there is something that would be oddly appropriate about its being played at an inauguration. :^)
Or, given the number of death wishes poured out, especially against Republicans, maybe the original mood is more appropriate than we’d like these days, too. Thumbs down!
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Bert has mentioned in a few of his posts the sexuality that is associated with classical music and he’s right on the money. In fact, Wagner as a composer probably had the most influence on the past 175 years of classical music compositions. But just about every musical historian/scholar would agree that much of what Wagner wrote was sexually erotic music. Clara Schuman, a pianist and composer and also married to the composer Robert Schuman wrote this 150 years ago after hearing and seeing one of Wagner’s Operas. “It was the most repulsive thing I have ever seen or heard in my life. To be forced to see and listen to such sexual frenzy the whole evening, in which every feeling of decency is violated and by which not just the public but even musicians seem to be enchanted—that is the saddest thing I have experienced in my entire artistic life.” His motivations for writing the music and opera was to create a sexual liberation movement that was more in line with the ancient Greeks rather than Judeo-Christian. He constantly used the “Tristan chord” which seems to never resolve, to create dissonance in his music. By the way, when a Tristan chord is used in classical music today, hardly anyone associates it with sex.
I should note that describing the excesses of classical composers is not intended just to point a finger at them, but rather to point out that when we use genetic fallacies like “guilt by association” in debate, we always will end up in a fight. It’s guaranteed by Romans 3:23.
And that said, we will always be missing the point, which is whether music fulfills its Biblical role of imparting God’s Word to God’s people in lyric form, giving them forms for returning praise to Him, and the like. So we can then move on to real criticisms of a particular song, or perhaps in some cases a musical group. Example questions:
1. Are the lyrics Biblical or not?
2. How does the poetry of the lyrics work in the language they’re meant to be sung, or are they in the “excessively free verse” or “doggerel” categories?
3. Does the melody work with the lyrics? (I remember a vocal version of “Lying lips are abomination to the Lord” that was as bouncy as a song about giving candy to a five year old….)
4. Are the musicians using musical tools effectively—we’re not talking about being virtuosi, but do they have a basic grasp of the genre they’re using? Dynamics, harmonies, vocal effects, etc..?
5. Are lyrics being sung intelligibly?
One thing that I must admit I cannot quite put a finger on without falling into a bit of “guilt by association” myself is that I cannot stand “Jesus is my boyfriend” songs like Michael W. Smith’s “Breathe”. Hint of Scripture and theology to it, but most of the song is “I’m desperate for you” and “I’m lost without you”. Best I can do is to say that it’s clearly expressions of lust rather than love.
Closest thing I can think of in the Psalms to this is Psalm 42, but the comparison is to the need for water. Maybe we need to bring back Psalm-singing, and we’ll start to understand that je ne sais quoi that ought to characterize good church music.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
There is no competition between music and preaching… both have their place.. I see music as a plow that prepares a heart /attitude towards preaching/teaching. Ephesians tells us not to be drunk with wine but be filled with the spirit…then more importantly it gives the formula : singing and making melody in your heart..praising and full of thanksgiving…I believe the role of music is to clear the soul/mind from secular distraction in preparation of the word..
Jim
[jreeseSr]It seems to me that this view has things reversed. As far as I can tell, there is nothing in Ephesians 5 to suggest that psalm and hymn singing precedes or produces Holy Spirit filling. Instead of using music to prepare hearts for preaching, at EBC we use preaching to prepare hearts to sing. First the word dwells richly in us, then we sing, per Paul’s parallel instruction in Colossians.There is no competition between music and preaching… both have their place.. I see music as a plow that prepares a heart /attitude towards preaching/teaching. Ephesians tells us not to be drunk with wine but be filled with the spirit…then more importantly it gives the formula : singing and making melody in your heart..praising and full of thanksgiving…I believe the role of music is to clear the soul/mind from secular distraction in preparation of the word..
Discussion