"Matt Ols[o]n would do well to eject, but it may cost him his school"

Has anybody ever done a survey on the historical theology of music? What did the saints of the 1800s say on this matter, for example? We may well be re-fighting a battle that has already been fought in days gone by. Might be interesting to take a look at … but not by me!

i think it was a big stink when churches (way back when) actually started singing “man-made” songs rather than the straight words of the psalms—perhaps this was in the 1700s? let me see if i can dig around some actual data.

OK, here:

http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199545247…

or : http://www.music-for-church-choirs.com/page-hymns-92.html

In England, metrical psalms directly modelled on the Bible were the main liturgical diet – hymns, with their vague scriptural references, were frowned upon. Worshippers became dissatisfied with metrical psalms because their texts were not of the rhetorical quality of the Book of Common Prayer and many were very poor adaptations of scripture.

It was the great Isaac Watts (1674 – 1748) who began the reform of congregational singing in England. He wrote many fine hymns - Joy to the World and O God our help in ages past are examples - and started from the principle that texts should express the religious feelings of the people. This was a total turnaround from the previously-held view that they should be scripturally based! Isaac Watts’ principle holds today – I write as the General Editor of two hymn-books, both of whose editorial committees were guided by it.

…

The Wesleys made hymns the central feature of Methodist worship, and before long many people began to admire the Methodists for their hearty and fervent singing. The qualities of sincerity and conviction were a vital part of the Wesley approach and congregations responded with vigour and enthusiasm. So powerful was this surge that many were attracted away from the established church into Methodism.

A number of forward-looking Church of England clergymen began to see the need for a similar musical revival in their own church. But many Anglicans resisted the introduction of evangelical-style hymns because they were still wedded to the metrical psalm - the musical embodiment of Scripture.

The matter came to a head in Sheffield, England in 1819 when Vicar Thomas Cotterill imposed Methodist-style hymnody on his congregation. The people rebelled and took him to the Diocesan Consistory Court. The case was heard by the Chancellor of the Diocese of York who, in a typical Anglican compromise, concluded that both hymns and metrical psalms were illegal in Anglican liturgy but, because their use was widespread, he didn’t feel able to enforce his decision!

This opened the floodgates to all manner of hymns - including Gospel Hymns - and, coupled with the pioneering work of Watts and the Wesleys, laid the foundation of Anglican hymnody as we know it today.

Many thanks, Anne!

This has the potential to actually help us deal with the music issue. I beg somebody to encourage your friend, long-lost uncle, or Pastor who can speak authoritatively on this issue to weigh in on the historical theology of music. I literally have no resources on the subject …

Since Cain and Abel there have been controversies over worship, and music is often at the heart. But it is fallacious to attempt to compare what happened, for example, with the hymn/psalm singing controversies of Watts with the debates today over Christian pop.

I would argue that such a comparison is not tenable for several reasons:

1. In Watts’ day, the controversy was in no way over musical style. Contrary to those who want to make an equal comparison, Watts was not a composer; he did not write music. He wrote texts.

The tunes used for the metrical Psalmody that were common in churches in that day were then adapted for use with the new hymn texts once Watts and others began writing them. Those Psalm tunes were written in common meters, and the hymn texts were written in the same meters, so the tunes could easily be matched with the new hymn texts. The music didn’t change; only the texts changed.

2. Further, there wasn’t even such a thing as “pop music” in Watts’ day. “A new wave of music had hit the popular scene” (which is what I’ve seen one author say about Watts’ day) makes sense only in an age of Pop culture, which did not exist during Watts’ lifetime.

Pop culture exists only with mass media, which did not exist then. The only forms of culture that existed were high culture (the culture of the concert hall) and folk culture (the culture of common people). Most hymn tunes (then and now) are written in folk traditions. So even when people did compose new tunes, they were still in the same tradition of tunes that came before. It is only in the last 150 years or so that people have begun to adapt pop forms for use in worship.

3. Neither was the controversy one of old vs. new. The controversy was not based upon when a particular song text was written. It wasn’t as if they favored old over new or anything like that. They were singing English paraphrases of Psalm texts, of course, written fairly recently. Age (or even more, “contemporaneity”) had nothing to do with the controversy.

4. Rather, the controversy was over whether is was permissible to sing texts (old or new) written by mere humans, or if they were constrained to sing only the Psalms written under the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The common thought in England at that time (following the teaching of the medieval Roman church and the Reformer John Calvin) was that we must only sing inspired songs, that is, we may only sing Psalms. Of course, they weren’t singing Hebrew; they were singing English translations of the Psalms (something defenders of hymnody would later bring up; see below). But nevertheless, they argued that we may only sing adaptions of inspired texts.

5. It should be noted also that hymn were quite prevalent in the day among the Lutherans, Moravians, and others. It was only among the Reformed (out of a desire to purify worship) and Anglicans that psalms only were sung. Watts (and others) came along and argued that we should be permitted to sing non-inspired texts (old or new) as long as the truth contained therein was compatible with the Bible. They based their argument on several points:

First, they argued that since we are permitted to pray in our own words (i.e., we do not have to pray inspired prayers), we should also be able to sing in our own words.

Second, they argued that since the English Psalmody of the day was in all reality paraphrases of inspired Scripture, we should also be able to paraphrase other portions of Scripture or theological truths in hymn texts.

Third, Watts argued that as Christians, many of the Psalms don’t really apply to us since they have very specific references to Jewish life. Further, he wanted to sing about Christ, redemption, forgiveness, the Church, and other New Testament truths, none of which are contained in the Psalms (except perhaps in veiled prophetic sections). Christians should sing Christian truth, Watts argued. Even when singing the Psalms, he insisted, we should be able to interpret them in the light of the New Testament. So, his Psalms of David Imitated is a collection of Psalm paraphrases that add New Testament revelation to those Old Testament hymns. Many of the Watts hymns that we sing today are actually his Psalm paraphrases (“O God, Our Help in Ages Past” is from Psalm 90; “Jesus Shall Reign” is from Psalm 72; “Joy to the World” is from Psalm 98; etc.).

Fourth, they argued that the English Psalm paraphrases were very poorly written. The English grammar was awkward (because they were trying to stay as close to the original Hebrew as possible), and the poetry was poor. Actually, in this point, the metrical Psalmody of the day could probably be more accurately compared to modern praise songs that contain poor grammar and cheap poetry. Watts and others were arguing for texts of higher artistic quality!

So was Watts controversial? Absolutely. But not because he was advocating the use of pop forms of music or even “fresh, new, exciting” texts. He was arguing that we should be allowed to summarize Scriptural truth in our hymns rather than limiting ourselves to inspired Psalms, and that we should aim for a higher quality of English grammar and poetry in our sacred songs.

If we want to have this debate on the basis of historical precedent alone, the burden of argument lay in the hands of those who deny morality in music. It has only been since the Enlightenment that virtually anyone has suggested that music is amoral. It has only been since Darwinian evolutionism and the rise of the machine that western culture has demanded that “new” is always “better.” It has only been since the rise of secular anthropology that culture has been viewed as neutral, and “indigenous” forms of art are seen as pristine and untouchable, and Christians have become enamored with so-called cultural “contextualization.” It has only been since Finney’s “new measures,” that Bible-believing churches have used music to “move” people and “engage” them in a spiritual experience (either conversion or worship). It has only been recently that Christians have done anything but reject the music of pagan culture.

These novel claims, rooted in secular philosophy, are the bedrock of defense of CCM. The burden of proof lay with those wishing to depart from the historic claim rooted in a belief of transcendent reality. And as Kevin rightly point out, very few have offered a reasoned defense of this departure.

And a punt to “Sola Scriptura” just doesn’t cut it.

I am not seeking to defend CCM. I don’t like CCM.

I am seeking to get some perspective on a historical theology of music. You post is primarily about how the Watts comparison is faulty and that CCM promoters are wrong. Lovely. I believe the last bit already, and was intrigued by the first bit. Your analysis of Watts was very interesting.

What is your primary point of contention with CCM, speaking as an authority in these matters? I am certainly not an authority, unless you count the period from 6th - 10th grade when I played the Euphonium …

not a discussion about music!

The anne theory: Just turn it all off, folks, and rest your brains. Keep it for Sundays …

(… that was a sort of joke … for which I will now be skewered … )

hee hee :D

ok, from my vague memories from writing a documentary about the First Great Awakening, i think part of the controversy was that the metered psalm type singing tended to sound bad. ie., People didn’t like the sound of it.

I don’t know for sure; I was not there obviously, though i could probably dig up copies of the original discussions somehow. Maybe you have?

This guy I quoted above takes the exact opposite take you are saying:

It was the great Isaac Watts (1674 – 1748) who began the reform of congregational singing in England. He wrote many fine hymns - Joy to the World and O God our help in ages past are examples - and started from the principle that texts should express the religious feelings of the people. This was a total turnaround from the previously-held view that they should be scripturally based!

Not saying who is right, just that there seem to be varying views of this?

Scott (and Kevin): Let me get this straight. You unilaterally define all CCM as “pop” rather than “folk” and you unilaterally define “pop” as confined to the modern era because its existence (according to you) depends on mass media. This conveniently allows you to distinguish every other time in history when the church has thought about worship music. Neat trick. And completely unhelpful.

As a back-up, you broad brush all CCM as (1) “deny[ing] morality in music,” (2) “demand[ing] that ‘new’ is always ‘better,’” (3) “view[ing culture] as neutral, and ‘indigenous’ forms of art … as pristine and untouchable,” (4) “enamored with so-called cultural ‘contextualization,’” (5) “us[ing] music” for the first time ever in history [come on, really?] “to ‘move’ people and ‘engage’ them in a spiritual experience (either conversion or worship),” and (6) “do[ing] anything but reject[ing] the music of pagan culture.”

Given that this is utter hogwash, it’s no surprise that “very few have offered a reasoned defense of this departure.”

[dmyers]

Scott (and Kevin): Let me get this straight. You unilaterally define all CCM as “pop” rather than “folk” and you unilaterally define “pop” as confined to the modern era because its existence (according to you) depends on mass media. This conveniently allows you to distinguish every other time in history when the church has thought about worship music. Neat trick. And completely unhelpful.

As a back-up, you broad brush all CCM as (1) “deny[ing] morality in music,” (2) “demand[ing] that ‘new’ is always ‘better,’” (3) “view[ing culture] as neutral, and ‘indigenous’ forms of art … as pristine and untouchable,” (4) “enamored with so-called cultural ‘contextualization,’” (5) “us[ing] music” for the first time ever in history [come on, really?] “to ‘move’ people and ‘engage’ them in a spiritual experience (either conversion or worship),” and (6) “do[ing] anything but reject[ing] the music of pagan culture.”

Given that this is utter hogwash, it’s no surprise that “very few have offered a reasoned defense of this departure.”

I tend to agree with you on much of this. The folk/pop distinction is a smoke screen and is pretty weak since it depends on the existence of mass media (in their opinion). Everything was apparently fine in the folk world until recording technology came along and messed everything up. Now we have the monster of pop music. Hmmm.

In my opinion, the line between pop and folk is either non-existent or certainly not clear cut. What they call folk has always been about the same themes that you hear today in country music and other pop genres: themes of love, life, nostalgia, etc. Some of it has been good and some has been bad. I suspect that much of what passed for folk in the past would not pass FCC guidelines today for decency.

Even the name “pop” (short for “popular”) suggests it is very close to folk. As Scott said, folk is the music of common people. What is pop if not music for the common people? I just don’t buy that the music of the common people all of a sudden became incapable of redemption simply because it is now passed around on in the internet rather than by minstrels going from village to village. Scott would say the music is tainted because there is a lot of money involved in pop. When has money not been an issue in music? Bach did not work for free. Musicians have to eat too.

What amazes me is those who post here who reject certain claims (such as the distinction between pop and folk) with absolutely no substantiation apart from “I tend to agree” and “in my opinion.” I’ll be the first to admit that many of the claims of conservatives (and/or fundamentalists) over the years have been unsubstantiated, but why is such methodology acceptable for those who defending Christian pop?

I’ll just substantiate one point here as an example, with regard to the distinction between pop and folk. This is not a distinction invented by my or Kevin, or any other conservative Christian for that matter. It is a distinction long recognized by musicologists and cultural historians.

For example, Ralph Vaughan Williams, who is well known for using English folk tunes in his art music, and for editing The English Hymnal and makes use of many folk tunes for his hymnody, worried about the fact that the emerging pop culture would destroy legitimate folk culture (which it eventually did). I’ll explain how, for those interested (please forgive me for using material from an article that was published in the June, 2008 issue of the Ralph Vaughan Williams Society Journal).

His predecessor, Cecil Sharp, especially make the distinction between high art, pop, and folk explicit. In Sharp’s understanding, art music “is the work of the individual, and [an expression of] his own personal ideals and aspirations; it is composed in, comparatively speaking, a short period of time, and, by being committed to paper, it is for ever fixed in one unalterable form.” Sharp saw, then, four primary distinguishing characteristics of art music: art music is (1) individual, (2) personal, (3) quickly composed, and (4) unalterable.

Conversely, Sharp saw folk music as (1) racial, (2) communal, (3) continually developing, and (4) variable: “Folk music, on the other hand, is the product of a race, and reflects feelings and tastes that are communal rather than personal; it is always in solution; its creation is never completed; while, at every moment of its history, it exists not in one form but in many.” Since Sharp and Vaughan Williams were most interested in the revival of the English folk song, their writings further elaborate and explain these principles.

Unfortunately, according to Cecil Sharp and Vaughan Williams, folk music as an art is largely dead, and this provides the first evidence of a distinction between folk and pop music in their thought. With a chain of events including the Industrial Revolution and the creation of mass media came the emergence of a new form of culture that found its home in commercialism — pop culture.

Pop culture by its very nature destroyed folk culture since mass media soon found its way into every corner of modernized society and influenced the before-uninfluenced. Sharp marks the end of folk art around 1840. This is not to say that folk music itself is dead. Rather, according to Vaughan Williams it is the “art of the folk-singer” that no longer exists, and “we cannot, and would not if we could, sing folk-songs in the same way and in the same circumstances in which they used to be sung.” Vaughan Williams clearly bemoans this fact in his praise of this music “which is unpremeditated and therefore of necessity sincere, music which has stood the test of time, music which must be representative of our race as no other music can.”

Sharp recognizes the confusion between the use of the terms “folk” and “popular” in the English language (as mentioned in one comment above) as one of semantics:

The word itself [“folk song”] is a German compound, which of recent years has found a home in this country. Unhappily it is used in two senses. Scientific writers restrict its meaning to the song created by the unlettered classes. Others, however, use it to denote not only the peasant songs, but all popular songs as well, irrespective of origin, i.e., in the wider and looser sense in which it is sometimes used in Germany. This is to destroy the value of a very useful expression, and to rob scientists of a word of great value. The expansion was, moreover, unnecessary. For the English language already possessed in the phrase “popular song,” a description which covered the wider field. There was, therefore, no need to do violence to the restricted and strictly scientific meaning of “folk song” by stretching it beyond its natural signification. On the other hand there was a very good reason for coining a new term, or for importing a foreign one, to signify a peasant-made song, because our language contained no word with that precise meaning.

Those, therefore, who claim the right to use the term folk song in the loose sense of popular song, are placing upon it a meaning never given to it by the scientific writers of Germany, the country of its origin.

There is no doubt that Sharp, and by extension Vaughan Williams, saw a definite difference between folk music and pop music and that they found folk music to be superior to pop. It seems that the confusion between the terms lies primarily in the word “popular.” Neither folk nor pop music are by necessity popular — it is not the defining characteristic of either — yet both often are popular. Additionally, not only is the popularity of a tune not an indication of its positive value, but also, according to Sharp, is it not an indication of its negative value: “The important thing to remember … is that bad tunes are popular, not because of their badness, but because of their attractiveness. The classes who sing bad tunes sing them simply because they never hear good ones that appeal to them with equal force.” Sharp and Vaughan Williams found in folk music, as I will show shortly, tunes that were both good and popular.

Both Sharp and Vaughan Williams clearly evidenced their opinions that folk and pop music were different in their rejection of pop music as they collected tunes throughout England. As Julian Onderdonk notes, “[Vaughan Williams] pursued the great majority of his collecting in isolated rural areas and rejected songs betraying the influenced of urban popular [“pop”] music.”

They considered the pop music of their day to consist of “poverty-stricken tunes” that exerted a “harmful influence upon the character” and that were “banal” and “vulgar.” They desperately desired to improve the musical tastes of the people, and they considered folk music the perfect tool in their endeavors. Sharp advocated the use of folk tunes in education, wherein he hoped to “effect an improvement in the musical taste of the people, and to refine and strengthen the national character.”

Likewise, when asked to edit The English Hymnal, Vaughan Williams “found an opportunity to improve musical standards at large in an area where many people were exposed to functional music who might never attend a concert or an opera performance in their lives.” The following two quotes by Sharp and Vaughan Williams are perhaps idealistic in their hopes, but nevertheless reveal their motives behind using folk tunes and their understanding of the distinction from pop music:

For good music purifies, just as bad music vulgarizes; indeed, the effect of music upon the minds of children is so subtle and so far-reaching that it is impossible to exaggerate the harmful influence upon character which the singing of coarse and vulgar tunes may have. Up till now, the street song has had an open field; the music taught in the schools has been hopelessly beaten in the fight for supremacy. But the mind that has been fed upon the pure melody of the folk will instinctively detect the poverty-stricken tunes of the music-hall, and refuse to be captivated and deluded by their superficial attractiveness. Good taste is, perhaps, largely a matter of environment; but it is also the result of careful and early training.

In the English-speaking countries where artistic impulses are so apt to be inarticulate and even stifled, there are thousands of men and women naturally musically inclined whose only musical nourishment has been the banality of the ballad concert or the vulgarity of the music-hall. Neither of these really satisfied their artistic intuitions, but it never occurred to them to listen to what they called “classical” music, or if they did it was with a prejudiced view determined beforehand that they would not understand it. To such people the folk-song came as a revelation. Here was music absolutely within their grasp, emotionally and structurally much more simple than their accustomed “drawing room” music, and yet it satisfied their spiritual natures and left no unpleasant aftertaste behind it. Here indeed was music for the home such as we had not seen since the days of Thomas Morley when no supper party was complete without music when the cloth was cleared away.

Is not folk-song the bond of union where all our musical tastes can meet? We are too apt to divide our music into popular and classical, the highbrow and the lowbrow. One day perhaps we shall find an ideal music which will be neither popular nor classical, highbrow or lowbrow, but an art in which all can take part… . We must see to it that our art has true vitality and in it the seeds of even greater vitality. And where can we look for a surer proof that our art is living than in that music which has for generations voiced the spiritual longings of our race?

Though perhaps a bit naive, Sharp and Vaughan Williams both demonstrate a clear differentiation between folk and pop music in their motivations.

This same distinction is also seen in early American music, which I’ve written about as well here, but I’ll leave it at that for the moment. Oh, and for those who asked, here is one explanation of why I object to the use of pop music in worship.

Regardless, the point of this line of discourse is not necessarily about music, but rather the fact that, with rare exception, those who defend Christian pop do so with little substantiation beyond playing the “sola Scriptura trump card.”

[Scott Aniol]

What amazes me is those who post here who reject certain claims (such as the distinction between pop and folk) with absolutely no substantiation apart from “I tend to agree” and “in my opinion.” I’ll be the first to admit that many of the claims of conservatives (and/or fundamentalists) over the years have been unsubstantiated, but why is such methodology acceptable for those who defending Christian pop?

Scott, if there is one thing we agree on, it is that we each believe the other side lacks substantiation. Look, I will not disagree that people can put music into sub-genres and debate those classifications forever. If you want to make a big issue of separating music between folk and pop, go for it. In fact, I will concede the point that we could break down folk itself into numerous categories.

But the big question is whether there is a substantial difference in redemptive capacity between what you call pop and folk. Where you struggle is trying to prove that what you classify as pop is inappropriate for worship. I did not think you could even do that when you discussed rap in that series a while back and you would think rap would be a slam dunk for someone like you.

By the way, terms like “I tend to agree” and “in my opinion” are generally recognized as useful to demonstrate a certain grace, a lack of unqualified dogmatism, a tactful admission that we know we don’t know everything. I would not make fun of you if you used terms like that. In fact, I would respect it.

Regardless, the point of this line of discourse is not necessarily about music, but rather the fact that, with rare exception, those who defend Christian pop do so with little substantiation beyond playing the “sola Scriptura trump card.”

Is Sola Scriptura somehow deficient? Are we supposed to be teaching new believers the right musical styles in addition to the doctrine that they need to grow so that they can become mature Christians? I don’t think so.

You wrote:

Can we not agree on the following statements?

1. The Bible speaks with authority to every issue in the Christian life.
2. In almost every case, we will need other information to help us apply the Bible to life’s situations.
3. Such applications are debatable.

Lest you think I’m crazy, go back and read what John Piper himself said about this issue: “The sufficiency of Scripture does not mean that the Scripture is all we need to live obediently.”

Scott, I will disagree with you that we need other information to help us apply the Bible. The Bible is sufficient as it is for all matters, especially those of faith and practice (which I underline here because worship is fundamentally a matter of faith and practice). It isn’t until musicians like yourself start arguing that we need to add more to our practices (we need the right melodies, the right instruments, the right styles, or whatever) that this becomes confusing or an issue.

If you’re going to argue that Scripture + arguments for a specific musical style based on instrumentation or ‘culture’ will help us determine what pleases the Lord and what doesn’t, you’re going to have a tough sell to me at a minimum, and I’m fairly sure others here will disagree. Your arguments are based on the same depraved culture and depraved mankind that I would use to make a pro-CCM argument.

In any case, we should redirect this conversation to a different thread like the Big Daddy Weave one.

… Scott, who gives us a lengthy comment attempting to defend the unsubstantiated propositions that anyone who does not categorically reject CCM music is an idiot and that only musicologists and cultural historians are qualified to decide these matters. In doing so, he relies solely on Ralph Vaughn Williams and Cecil Sharp regarding the alleged distinction between folk art and pop art. In closing, he anticipates that those of us who are not musicologists or cultural historians but merely unthinking Christians will (in our ignorance) respond, “That’s nice. But how do you get from the Bible to categorical rejection of CCM (and, as a result, disdain for NIU)?” He attempts to foreclose that question by mocking those who stoop to playing “the sola Scriptura trump card,” linking to his own post on the matter that is likewise condescending and never addresses the question. So let’s put it to him (and anyone else) plainly, and hope for a constructive response:

1. Summarize — for those of us who don’t have time to read your books and/or who haven’t been impressed by the substance or tone of your comments so far — how you conclude from Scripture and a logical, reasonable application of Scripture that CCM categorically cannot be used in worship.

2. If you’re not taking the position that all of what gets lumped into the category of CCM is unbiblical, summarize for us what portions of “contemporary” music biblically can be used in worship — e.g., Chris Tomlin? Soverign Grace? Getty/Townsend? Twila Paris? Michael Card? Aaron Schust? acoustic guitars but not electric? tympani but not snare? SATB but not something else?

3. Either way, summarize for us why NIU’s music choices properly subject it to scorn, ridicule, shunning, etc. as if it had denied an actual fundamental of the faith or vouched for someone who did.

[Jay]

Regardless, the point of this line of discourse is not necessarily about music, but rather the fact that, with rare exception, those who defend Christian pop do so with little substantiation beyond playing the “sola Scriptura trump card.”

Is Sola Scriptura somehow deficient? Are we supposed to be teaching new believers the right musical styles in addition to the doctrine that they need to grow so that they can become mature Christians? I don’t think so.

You wrote:

Can we not agree on the following statements?

1. The Bible speaks with authority to every issue in the Christian life.
2. In almost every case, we will need other information to help us apply the Bible to life’s situations.
3. Such applications are debatable.

Lest you think I’m crazy, go back and read what John Piper himself said about this issue: “The sufficiency of Scripture does not mean that the Scripture is all we need to live obediently.”

Scott, I will disagree with you that we need other information to help us apply the Bible. The Bible is sufficient as it is for all matters, especially those of faith and practice (which I underline here because worship is fundamentally a matter of faith and practice). It isn’t until musicians like yourself start arguing that we need to add more to our practices (we need the right melodies, the right instruments, the right styles, or whatever) that this becomes confusing or an issue.

If you’re going to argue that Scripture + arguments for a specific musical style based on instrumentation or ‘culture’ will help us determine what pleases the Lord and what doesn’t, you’re going to have a tough sell to me at a minimum, and I’m fairly sure others here will disagree. Your arguments are based on the same depraved culture and depraved mankind that I would use to make a pro-CCM argument.

In any case, we should redirect this conversation to a different thread like the Big Daddy Weave one.

Jay, I am halfway in agreement with Scott on this particular point, and if his assertions about music are correct, he can take no other position on this particular point.

The fact is that if you are going to have any useful theology of music, you are going to have to marry that theology to the theory/practice of music. I can’t see any way around it. And it is pretty clear that the Bible is not any kind of user manual on music theory.

My problem with Scott is not that he holds that his opinion on Scripture+ but the fact that he seems unable to provide the “+” to the Scripture. Over and over, he says there is a “+” but we don’t know what it is. If there is a “+”, shouldn’t someone get specific about it?

Here is an example: above, Scott refers to “good” and “bad” tunes (melodies). He often talks about tunes in that terminology. But I have never yet seen any writing from him on what makes a tune good or bad using musical theory and terminology.

If we need Scripture+ instead of just Scripture, shouldn’t someone be able to define what the “+” is in a way that musicians can follow?

I’ve tried writing a reply three times now…hoping this is the charm. :D

[GregH] Jay, I am halfway in agreement with Scott on this particular point, and if his assertions about music are correct, he can take no other position on this particular point.

The fact is that if you are going to have any useful theology of music, you are going to have to marry that theology to the theory/practice of music. I can’t see any way around it. And it is pretty clear that the Bible is not any kind of user manual on music theory.

Greg, I originally started that post by agreeing with Scott, but the more I thought about what I was writing, the less comfortable I felt with it.

My point is this - if we handed a bunch of Bibles to a group of unsaved pagans with no contact to “the West” (think the Auca Indians from fifty years ago) - would those Bibles be sufficient to teach them how to write songs and conduct musical worship? I think that they would, and I don’t think that we need to parachute Scott (or anyone else) in there to teach them the appropriate music, instruments, or style to use. I think that God would accept their musical worship insofar as it agreed with the concepts the Bible teaches.

I learned all kinds of things in undergrad and grad school - Greek, OT/NT history, church history, church administration, etc. Not one of those things would keep me from reading and learning and living in a way that would please God. All I need is the Bible, and that’s why I objected to Scott’s dismissal of the “sola scriptura” argument. Of course, if I’m right and Scott isn’t, then I think his whole argument must, by necessity, fall apart.

My problem with Scott is not that he holds that his opinion on Scripture+ but the fact that he seems unable to provide the “+” to the Scripture. Over and over, he says there is a “+” but we don’t know what it is. If there is a “+”, shouldn’t someone get specific about it?

Here is an example: above, Scott refers to “good” and “bad” tunes (melodies). He often talks about tunes in that terminology. But I have never yet seen any writing from him on what makes a tune good or bad using musical theory and terminology.

If we need Scripture+ instead of just Scripture, shouldn’t someone be able to define what the “+” is in a way that musicians can follow?

I agree with this part of your post, and would actually take it further - does that “+” (whatever it is) come from Scripture or be derived from Scripture? If it does, then why is it so difficult to find and understand? If it doesn’t, then why is it necessary for believers’ worship? I also agree with you that Scott’s inability to define the “+” is a real issue with whatever it is he’s writing. Now, I did mention yesterday that I got his free book on Kindle, so maybe that will be sufficient to clue me in this time, but the more of what I have read of his writings, the less sense he seems to make. Granted, I’m not a “musician” (although I do like to sing), so maybe that’s my problem.

We are responsible for aesthetic judgments, just like we are responsible for determinations of truth and goodness- Philip. 4:8. Not everything true and good is listed in the Bible in a numbered list, neither is everything lovely, etc. There is an objective standard of beauty, and if we accept the quest to order our lives according to it, we have to ask what things mean. There’s plenty in the great conversation and the democracy of the dead about what music means. Just because its not immediately and easily accessible doesn’t mean it can be disregarded. Scott’s right- the distinction between pop and folk culture is well-established.

Jay-We don’t have to start an experiment with the Auca Indians to see what dropping the gospel on some pagans would do to their music. That’s already been done in a place that came to be known as Christendom. Here’s an interesting article pointing out that Christianity shaped music in what we now know (knew?) as the West, not that some pre-existing musical forms were adapted into Christianity.

http://www.ipcsav.org/article/identity-and-ethnicity/

That same Western music at its zenith = music “inherently sacred in character”- not my words, a guy who taught history of music theory at the Mannes College of Music, where he serves on the board of governors.

http://www.firstthings.com/article/2009/10/sacred-music-sacred-time