Christian Music: Real or Potential?
April 11, 2008 by Eric Parker
And whenever the harmful spirit from God was upon Saul, David took the lyre and played it with his hand. So Saul was refreshed and was well, and the harmful spirit departed from him. (1 Samuel 16:23)
As one who was once enveloped in the scene of “Christian” music I can say it is usually baptized pagan music. When the medium is not changed the message does not change. Now, I’m not talking about genre or dynamics or rhythm or any attribute of the piece. I’m assuming that the whole is more than the sum of its parts. What I am really reflecting on is the passage quoted above.
We are supposed to be taking dominion over creation in all that we do - especially with our music. It seems that the phrase “all of life is worship” has been taken literally. All of our music is praise music. There is no application. As a kid I had Plankeye saying “without you God there’d be a big ole hole inside of me” but I had to go to the Smashing Pumpkins to explain just exactly what that “big ole hole” was.
As I play my guitar and stair out the window I wonder why only Elliot Smith-types can sing about drugs and violence (although no one should promote it). I wonder why Christians can’t make a decent song about social matters or politics. I wonder if the songs I write have any power, not terribly unlike those of David. I wonder if I could say the S-word without being subject to the AFR ban. We should be asking ourselves how our music helps. How does it bring life from death? How can we do it for Jesus? He said ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers you did it to me.’ Serve your brother and Jesus will be served. God desires sacrifices of praise more than praise music. How does our music bring sacrifices of praise? How does our music conquer Satan? Musicians are the best social activists. Cause and effect. I see a lot of potential cause with no effect.
As a worship leader and teacher in a Christian school I whole heartily disagree. How is Contemporary Christian Music …pagan music? God speaks to each of us differently. I enjoy traditional liturgical music also. I feel both have value and with all the garbage being expressed in the secular music today, I am pleased that my teenager has this option.
LC,
Thanks for dropping by
Firstly, I did not say “Contemporary Christian Music is pagan music.” I did say Christian music is “usually baptized pagan music.” My point is that the majority of Christian music does not touch reality. In the sense that most secular music is manufactured as an escape from the real so Christian music, mimicking the secular, tends to flee from reality into the realm of praise. Both the Christian and the pagan are using this God-given medium for the same reasons but with different ends. I think we can judge good music based on its effect. Currently I see very few Christian artists producing work that reaches this world, the phenomenal. We should take our lyrics out of King David’s book. For example, “The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies. Their poison is like the poison of a serpent: they are like the deaf adder that stoppeth her ear; Which will not hearken to the voice of charmers, charming never so wisely. Break their teeth, O God, in their mouth” (Psalm 58:3-6). Our music should be a warning to unbelievers yet enticing to them at the same time. It should charm the devil out of them. It should change the world.
I am curious just what it is about music that makes it pagan or Christian. Is it the words? Is it the tempo, rhythm, beat, amount of dissonance, certain chord patterns, major keys vs. minor keys. I think it is important to define the forms that constitute pagan v. Christian, the criteria by which one makes the assessment that the music is pagan or Christian.
Music, it seems to me, is so culturally conditioned that I wonder whether one culture can say another culture’s music is not Christian.
Would David’s music on the Lyre pass our criteria as “Christian” music? His music had a good effect by calming and soothing Saul. If Bach oratorios put me in the proper perspective toward the Lord and the creation and have an emotionally stabilizing effect on me, that is good, is it not? Can we say the same for new age music. After all, it may have the same effect on others as the Bach has on me. Is God partial to one form of music over against another?
Ed,
It’s good to here from you! I don’t know if I can adequately answer your questions. I should be asking you. The good thing about blogs is you can display your current thoughts for anyone - preferably those with the wisdom of age - to correct or improve. I have to admit that I (not unlike most folks) am a bit biased with regard to music, as my post probably demonstrated. I don’t like “Christian” music. On that note - since the definition of “Christian” music is in question - I must clarify that I am referring to the sort of music that markets itself as “Christian.” That is it’s genre. If you go to the music shop to find a DC Talk album you don’t search under “Alternative” or “Classical” but “Christian.” As to your statement:
“Music, it seems to me, is so culturally conditioned that I wonder whether one culture can say another culture’s music is not Christian.”
James Jordan has some very good lectures (I have them somewhere) in which he demonstrates the “chaotic” nature of actual pagan music. He seeks to show the “orderly” nature of western music and the contrast between the two as (in his Van Tilian mode) an antithesis between the “City of God” and the “City of Man.” The lecture solidifies the point that what one believes about creation and about the Divinity (or divinities) that govern it is reflected in the cultural expression of music. Pagan cultures tend to produce wildly chaotic music (paying tribute to an unpredictable deity), whereas Christianized cultures tend to present a more uniform piece (seeking to glorify the God who is one in three). Classical music, for example, tends to have a four-part movement which usually begins dynamically - slows down a bit - develops into a waltz or dance rhythm - then ends in an even more dynamic display. This pattern can be interpreted as a “death and resurrection” motif. Long-story-short, I agree with Jordan that there is something objective about Christian music (in the broader sense of “music by Christians” ) that sets it apart from pagan music. This objectivity of musical truth prevents one from falling into the error of relativism, that the “good” (that which reflects God’s nature) is defined by its practicality or by man’s knowledge of it. So,
“Is God partial to one form of music over against another?”
I have to answer, YES. However, there are many variables which preclude a strict rule for defining what sort of music God might be partial toward. I think, whatever our definition may be, it must transcend our notion of genre (or genus/species) to that of Truth. St. Thomas defined the “truth” of a thing as “the possession of the existence established for it” by God. For example, an apple is a true apple (universally) if it reflects the existence that God has willed for all apples. Therefore, music must reflect what God wills the nature of music to be. In the above post I attempted (sorely, I’m sure) to define “true” music as that which produces an effect similar to David’s music. Perhaps this is incorrect. Perhaps I have created a pragmatic definition - the very relativism I wanted to avoid. However, I can’t help but think that if we Christians were truly seeking to serve God by extending his Kingdom via music we would see “music-by-Christians” transcending the genre “Christian music” - in fact it may be more apt to just call it “music” - not because it has become a doppelganger, a cheap imitation of the popular but because it has ceased to be defined by its opposition to the “other” the “secular.”
Therefore my question seems to be, “If the music which Christians make does not speak to the unbeliever, does not cast out his evil spirit (his “old” man), does not offer Christ then does it meet the criteria which God has willed for “true” music? This avoids pure pragmatism because the effect is subordinate to the will of God. Pragmatism reduces truth to the will of man. Now we must move on to define “effect” and “criteria”, but I will leave that train in the station for now.
Your thoughts are always appreciated,
Eric
Thank you for your thoughtful and extensive response to my questions. Let me continue to probe with you.
Your discussion of music needing to “reflect what God wills the nature of music to be,” in order to be “true” and to please God, raises some more questions for me.
How do we know what God wills the nature of music to be? The genres are so vast and the intricacies of forms so complex that one suspects music, like poetry and all the other art forms, allows a nearly infinite variety of forms–just like the infinite variety of God in creation. It seems to me that James Jordan’s approach is fine, but it represents a Christian understanding of Western music. And what does he do with Renaissance motets that could be a vehicle for hymns or bawdy pagan songs. If you did not know the text, you could not tell from the music whether you were hearing an anthem for a church service or a peasant song from a minstral show.
I suppose he would go after the words, the intent of the composer/lyricist, and the “sound” of the music, i.e., whether it reflected the calm order of God’s creation, fall, redemption motif. But what would he do with East Asian music that is built on a whole system of different tonalities, rhythms, and musical forms–few if any of which will fit the classical or baroque forms that he deems to be representations of order. Yet, all those forms are cultivated and passed generation to generation by means of a system of ordered forms within their cultural canons of order. Would Jordan go so far–as some indeed have–as to suggest that the whole musical system of China has to be jettisoned because it was not developed under a “christian” cultural world view?
Such a view is perilous and borders on a vile form of arrogance that would suggest that a Chinese composer could not glorify God by composing music that fit an authentic Chinese musical style. Would we suggest that all musicians would have to become western and perhaps even reformed to produce music that pleases God?
My Greek students complain to me that so many of the verb forms are irregular. My response to them is that the verbs are not irregular. They as beginning student just do not know the rules yet that govern the formation of those verbs. The point is that there are rules. Not English rules, but Greek rules. So too with music, poetry, art forms of all sorts . . . they all have a way of organizing and bringing the forms into orderly definition.
Isn’t it more appropriate to suggest that every culture has the means of praising God or dishonoring God within its creative art forms, and that Christians of all cultures need to examine how, within their own culture, to exploit the creativity that glorifies rather than dishonors God? And are not the ones within the culture itself best able to discern motives, implications, history, associations, and reputations of the various figures and forms in order to decide what would be glorifying and what would be dishonoring to God?
Now, I would grant that sometimes–no, often–our cultural blinders can keep us from seeing the short-comings of our own culture and then a critique from a believer in another culture can help us overcome our blindspots. But I would hope and expect that the critique would come from someone who knew the culture well from the outside, who respected the culture, and who was prepared to critique it on biblical premises, not just from the perpsective of another culture’s norms.
What troubles me about the little you have related from Jordan’s perspective is that he so identifies the “biblical” standards of what is pleasing to God with his own cultural forms that he cannot provide a fair critique of another culture’s music and art. I dare say that some of his own cherished hymns, either musically or lyrically, came out of secular sources. Now, again, I must stress that I am forming that opinion on the basis only of what you have sketched out as his approach, so what I say of him must be taken with a grain of salt. However, I would feel that whether or not my comments are applicable to him, they do identify a pitfall that some in western christianity slip into unawares.
In a slightly different vein, in response to your last paragraph, let me ask if music is only valid if it is evangelistic? Is a flower evangelistic, is a majestic vista in the Swiss alps evangelistic, is a sunset in the high plains of Colorado evangelistic? Well, maybe, but not likely. All of that may speak to the grandeur and glory of God, but it is not sufficient to redeem the unbeliever. Neither God’s creation nor ours is sufficient for that. The incarnate and enscripturated word is absolutely required. So too, I would assert with music. It can glorify God, draw attention to God’s nature, demonstrate the infinite variety of the creativity of the image-bearers of God, it can entertain, amuse, delight, calm or animate one’s spirit–and still please God, without meeting the criteria of speaking to the unbeliever (even God’s word does not do that apart from the gacious working of the HS), casting out the old man, and offering Christ to the listener. Music may do all of that to some degree and in certain circumstances, but it need not do that in order to please God.
Well, I have prattled on way too long. Thanks for reading through all this amid your own crunch of papers and exams. Even the opportunity to write helps to clarify the thoughts. I am always seeking to understand the relationship of Christ, culture and the gospel. So, come back at me as we seek further light in the process.
Blessings. Ed.
Ed,
First of all I apologize for taking so long to answer - it being the end of the semester I haven’t had much time. I’m sure you’ve been just as busy or busier.
With regard to your discussion of Jordan’s views on music let me first reiterate that in his lecture he attempted to demonstrate via music the affect of presuppositions upon art. He argued that there is a noticeable difference between Western music and Eastern Pagan music based on beliefs. He assumed that Western musicians are either explicitly Christian or are overwhelmingly biased by a Christian culture and therefore borrow certain absolutes from Christianity - the ole’ Van Tilian streak again. Further, the Eastern music that he played was actual music-by-Pagans. I believe they were Hindu.
Now, I really do not know if he is guilty of forcing a Western music-logic upon an Eastern music form. I think we are all guilty of cultural bias in some respect. You said:
“What troubles me about the little you have related from Jordan’s perspective is that he so identifies the “biblical” standards of what is pleasing to God with his own cultural forms that he cannot provide a fair critique of another culture’s music and art.”
I think he attempted to go beyond the cultural to the level of basic fallen anthropology, noetic and spiritual. He presented Pagan vs. Christian. Sure the Christian and the Pagan can sound very much the same. We both know how close the “natural” man can come to the truth, e.g. Plato, et al. Christians do not monopolize on Truth we just bear the rights to it. Jordan does have his own bias against Modern music but these are not made at the level of Christian vs. Pagan but at the level of reason - I actually tend to disagree a bit with some of his assertions at this point.
I still agree with his basic premise, that Pagan cultures who worship multiple deities which do all but govern this “world of flux” through imitation of the divine produce a chaotic form of music - one that reflects a superstitious mentality. Like pigeons instrumentally conditioned to feed at random intervals. Their behavior becomes chaotic because they believe that whatever they are doing at the moment the food enters is actually the cause of the food’s entering. At each interval the light comes on and the food enters at a different time than previous. Therefore the pigeons begin to stammer back and forth lifts their legs, and shake their wings almost as if they are having seizures - all because they don’t really know what they did to cause the food to come out but it must have been something they did.
These pigeons instrumentally trained to feed randomly captures the nature of Pagan behavior. It would be consistent for a person who believed that the gods are as unpredictable and chaotic as the changing bed of a river to create chaotic seizure-music. However, not everyone is consistent. When they are not Cornelius Van Til would say that they are borrowing from Christianity. Not that they have to know the Christian message, but that they fall into the pattern demonstrated by St. Paul in Romans ch.1. They are not borrowing from Western culture unless we want to say that Christianity is to Western culture what redness is to an apple. Perhaps this was true in the past. I think it is still somewhat true. Although, most Americans consider Democracy and the Gospel to go hand-in-hand, which I think is tragic.
So, how do we know what God wills the nature of music to be? Our previous discussion has dealt with the subject of music and not necessarily the predicate. I think Jordan, in the lecture that has now become somewhat of a chimera in our forrest of ideas, attempted to deal with the clash of subjects at the presuppositional level without moving into the particulars. Granted, the whole is composed of parts, but we can at least make a valid broad statement: God desires the nature of music to reflect his glory. That is a tautology, but we Van Tilians are known for our circularity : ) Seriously though, I think there is such a thing as objectivity to good and bad music as long as “good” does not mean “what I like” and “bad” does not mean “what I do not like.” Those are minimalist definitions, and by the length of this reply I hope you realize that I am not a minimalist.
“Good music” is that which participates in the Good One. In that sense there is something about every music form that is good since, as St. Augustine says, something must first be good in order for it to become evil. And because all men are created in God’s image and because He is displayed in his creation both Pagans and Christians will inevitably have similar lyrical ideas and musical sounds. However, no matter what they sound like only one is acceptable before God as a sacrifice of praise. We know that.
“Good music” is that which reflects the God of creation. Pagans can do this too. Pagans get married and divorced but the God-given institution is not damaged in the least. Pagans write music in the West and in the East. It all glorifies God but there are different ways of glorifying. One perhaps by demonstrating his justice and another by invoking his mercy. I think men can accurately judge between the good and the bad. - morally and aesthetically. Much of this “goodness” depends on the skill of the artist/lyricist. Plenty of my poems in college were objectively bad. Of course, it took professional poets to enlighten me on the flaws. I think the things that make certain songs (not genres) objectively bad are obvious: overtly abstract lyrics, ear-piercing dissonance, off tune instruments, etc. The simplest answer tends to be the correct one. Our problem, as you have pointed out, comes when we are critical of the music of other cultures. In those cases we tend to define “good” as “what sounds good to me.” At that point we need to know some context. Many pieces are pleasing because they reflect the history of a nation or civilization. Smetna’s Ma Vlast, for instance - although it is aesthetically pleasing for those who do not know the context; It sounded much better when I knew the story. There are many other variables involved. We Westerners need to be more open to learning more about the context of other cultural music forms.
That’s enough for now. I’ll come back in a bit with the second part.
Eric