Here's my blurb:
The influence of popular music since the invention of mass recording is inescapable, even in the church. But has it always been for the good? Are there forms of music that are by their nature unsuitable for use in singing the praises of God? Should the church just make use of whatever it finds in the culture around it? (Have you noticed that church music now sounds like Coldplay?) Can, and should, new forms of music emerge from the corporate worship of the church? How will good theology influence music itself (and not just the words)? This seminar asks probing theological questions about the relationship between sacred and secular, traditional and hip.
And here's my thinking in draft form: churches have on the whole moved beyond the sacred/secular divide when it comes to styles of music. This means they have become 'post-aesthetic' - which means that they have decided that the style of music is only incidental to the business of singing in church.
Nowadays, most evangelical churches imagine themselves choosing a style of music on the basis of its cultural relevance. The right style of music, then, is the style that clicks best with the congregation of the day. Or something like that.
There are good theological instincts at work here. The Bible does not mandate a style of music, though it talks about music often and is operatically full of songs. People in the Bible are constantly singing! What is more, we recognise that the gospel does not come to us bound hard to a particular cultural expression - in fact, the missionary genius of Christianity is that it transcends cultural expressions. Church singing in Africa and church singing in Indonesia are going to be different - thank goodness.
Furthermore, a healthy doctrine of creation and a cursory glance at church history will show us that the church adapts forms of music to its uses rather than needing to invent them from scratch. So: today's beer hall song is tomorrow's Lutheran hymn; that familiar sea-shanty will be turned to use in the Methodist chapel. The creative process of course involves borrowing from the world around us.
But does this mean that church musicians are aesthetic relativists? I don't think it can mean this. We don't want to offer short-cuts here - ie, that the organ is a more sacred instrument than the electric guitar. That is just silly. No: what I mean is this. Without prescribing what the outcome is, I would expect that as music is pressed into the service of congregational singing and worship of God, it will be transformed as music. And this means that the church will continually be generating fresh styles as it puts the music it hears to holy purposes.
Which means that, while church musicians ought to be open to repeating what they hear around them, they ought also to be encouraged to innovate and develop their musical style as a reflection of what they are doing. Borrowing and transforming is one thing; aping is another.
How might this work out in practice? A preacher I greatly admire once said to me when I put the relativist/pragmatic argument forward that no, there was definitely a style for church music. He said it was 'folk music'. Now, I think there is something in this - though I am not quite sure what he meant by 'folk'! That is, a style of music that achieves a marriage between the words of praise and the use in congregational singing can never be arbitrary, though it may vary enormously over time and place. It will be 'folk', I guess, if it is in the service of the people. And it is no accident that Christians have been responsible for developing some highly original forms of music from asking 'what musical style best serves and edifies the people of God?' and 'what musical style best correlates with the words of scripture?'
16 comments:
I think you have ventured into a vague land, where there will be more exceptions than general observations. The "borrowing/transforming good, aping bad" principle sounds fraught to me.
I think music is interesting because it is one of those things that project a certain cultural identity for a church, and we actually don't want that. The effect is inevitable, even if we don't try to manipulate it consciously. Unfortunately, even no music, a la Quakers, has a certain dour baggage to it.
If we go for the default mainstream american folk/rock music sound, we need to accept that we will be putting ourselves in a middle aged, low-brow place culturally. If a congregation is predominantly like that (self pretty much included here) then I suppose it won't hurt, but the obvious risk is that it becomes a self perpetuating identity, which is a bad scenario, and risks confusing the actual gospel message.
Whether we go more techno, more house, more metal, more goth, more jazz, more gospel, more trad-folk or modern-folk, more hymns of praise, more classical, etc - in my opinion, none of those things actually have an objective specific spiritual meaning in the end. Music is certainly powerful, but not specific. Lyrics and probably dance moves can tell a more specific story.
Different musical styles will engender a variety of responses. The same music will attract some, inspire some, repel others, bring some down, pretty much beyond our control.
Maybe its a good idea to actively mix it up, and make a conscious effort to encourage all music we find around us, especially stuff we don't know or understand. We could seek out pretty much anything that represents the taste of our immediate community, and actively draw it out of people. This is hard, because it would mean encouraging/tolerating music we might not personally like or feel comfortable with. But if we want to clearly express that christianity is cross cultural (and I mean, even within our own shores) then musical agnosticism could be a prime way to do that.
cheers mpj.
i like the idea of folk music - i choose to take it as popular music - perhaps vulgar music (i think that's a term that hasn't been reappropriated yet - wait - i can think of lots of vulgar music...)
anyway, you know what i mean, music that is singable, not alienatingly foreign (eg gregorian chants)
and i think this is what you're driving at, no? a cultural appropriateness, with the gospel transformation, becoming something more than the sum of the parts?
"Have you noticed that church music now sounds like Coldplay?" Oh yes, I bloody well have noticed. If only we'd been influenced by Radiohead instead: bring on the electronic worship and the jazz worship, I say! Anything except that whiningly oh-so-earnest Coldplay rock!
--anyway, you know what I mean, music that is singable, not alienatingly foreign (eg gregorian chants)--
If appropriately translated/pointed (as I've observed in various contexts, including a Vespers held last Saturday at Christ Church St Laurence), though, I've found that can actually work-out much better in terms of audibility, singability and comprehensibility than one might at first think.
On the other hand, due to being completely deaf in my left ear I find Renaissance Polyphony (part. Palestrina) rather difficult to follow.
Having said the above, I must admit that I've also seen Gregorian Chant done excruciatingly badly; in one chapel whose anonymity I wish to maintain, Compline (!) was 'sung' staccato effectively at the pace of an AK47, thus rendering impossible any attempt to follow the proceedings.
Hey Paul Knight,
Interestingly, I think that what Michael has put forward here actually addresses the 'Christianity getting bound by its own music culture' issue that you're concerned about.
If Christian musicians are self-consciously and consistently working through their influences in such a way as they put them to best use in praising God and reflecting his character, then it will have at least some effect in stopping a church's musical influences becoming the defining bit of cultural baggage.
Having an idea about how the gospel transforms any type of music is surely better than the wavy sea of attempting to not look like anything in particular for fear of becoming conformed to it, or embracing everything just in case we become conformed to something.
Um. That made sense in my head. Anyone else?
On another note, to what extent do posters here think church music ought be didactically framed? Without intending to get overly prescriptive here, occasionally it might nonetheless seem apt to query whether certain aesthetic paraphernalia in effect distract participants, prospective participants and listeners from a composition's point.
Very interesting area that I feel has only ever been skimmed rather than completely explored. Interesting comments, too! Here's my Blog take on 'Redeeming Culture' rather than Paul's valid worry of 'borrowing/transforming good, aping bad'.
The songs are different from the originals and use the superb depth of lyrics (and circumstance) that we generally fail to achieve in a sub-culture:
Unplugged at the oldest English church
Vulgar folk music is a sizable part of the old hymn book... composers such as Ralph Vaughn Williams used to travel around england documenting folk tunes, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Vaughan_Williams
Perhaps that's an example of making an active effort to broaden the music mix, as I have pondered. England in 1900 was a much more homogenous society than ours however, so it was a less daunting task.
I agree with the "folk music" tag, in that I think the music that is played/sung in churches should be a reflection of the spirituality and yearnings of the people of God. Christianity is a popular movement rather than a high-brow one. The New Testament is written in very simple language, popular, even "vulgar" Greek, it was disseminated mostly by manual workers, included our Lord himself. I don't think popular should meant trite or biblically illiterate, however. This is the case when the spirituality of the people is shallow or unreal. I think a good example of a Christian music genre is Gospel music, which is a popular genre (who are the composers?), but was born of the experience of suffering and longing for God, and where there is a strong personal appropriation of Bible passages. This genre is not trite, it rises to operatic heights without being elitist, and is also strongly communal. Maybe if our music sounds like a pastiche of the world's music, it's because we haven't suffered enough.
Organs are wind instruments. Wind is pneuma. Pneuma is also s/Spirit. Ergo, organs are spiritual. Guitars are not.
Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord (Eph 5.19)
Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God. (Col 3.16)
Wow. Byron, that's genius. Does that mean my recorder from primary school has an elevated status also? I always thought its dulcet tones were something special.
Exactly Duncan! Especially when played by small children, as only they can!
Psalm 8:2
@ Byron - haven't you got a thesis to write? :-)
@ Paul - are we really just complete relativists when it comes to aesthetics and music though? Doesn't a doctrine of creation demand more from us?
Also, my pastor friend argued strongly that 'Western' music (understood roughly) with its particular tonality was in fact naturally speaking a tonality more suited to use in church worship and indeed aesthetic expression. His argument from observation was that non-western cultures quickly drop their tonality and adapt to the western one.
An interesting if tendentious thesis!
I have to divorce myself from church music constantly because I don't like folk and can't bear to hear pop, rap, or opera, or country for that matter.
Personally, I listen to Deep Purple almost exclusively and I praise God for their great quality of musicianship, something that has long been lost in our present culture. The only christian musician who I know of that has ever come close to this kind of high quality is guitarist Phil Keaggy, and even he conformed to the bland pop of today's society.
Post a Comment