If you knew it's name, you could not know it had anything to do with a bumblebee. The same tune could make you imagine something else entirely. Only the title of the song conveys a univocal idea. There is no univocal or rational content to pure music. It's only sounds, and how we respond to them.
Rock Music in Worship: Why not?
- Thread starter Puritan Sailor
- Start date
- Status
If you knew it's name, you could not know it had anything to do with a bumblebee. The same tune could make you imagine something else entirely. Only the title of the song conveys a univocal idea. There is no univocal or rational content to pure music. It's only sounds, and how we respond to them.
It does not matter either way. There is no thought "in" music in the sense that it contains or conveys thoughts. The only thoughts are those of the composer during the process of composing and naming his piece. The music itself does not think, and it does not hold any ideas. The title conveys a thought. And if a piece includes lyrics, the words convey thoughts. But pure music itself does not speak any intelligible thoughts.
Citing scholars would not prove nor disprove my point.
Try this. Make up a tune that is fairly unique. Now play that tune to several strangers who have not heard that tune, or a similar one before. Then ask them what that tune said. Will they all give the same answer?
Here's an additional test. Write a tune to conveys the following sentence: "the small brown fox jumped over the lazy dog". Can it be done? Then test it. Play the tune for several strangers, and ask them what it says. Will they each reply "the small brown fox jumped over the lazy dog". Why not?
Because the notes do not convey intelligible thoughts.
Define pure music.
Music is always in a context - of its environment, of other music to which it sounds similar, and to a culture. The reason why music can be powerful is because of its associations - just another way to say context - as well as lyrics that can be associated with it.
So, to mangle Van Til, there is no neutrality when it comes to music. There may be right reasons to not use "rock music" in worship, just as there may be reasons for a particular congregation if they so decide not to use "classical music" or "19th century music" in their worship.
Just the sounds - the notes, no video or spoken words. Maybe better would have been "music alone".
Certainly. The context and our past experiences and related knowledge really define how we react to music. And different people have different "associations" they have with different kinds of music.
I'm not sure what "there is no neutrality when it comes to music" means. But I think the reasons for using or not using "rock music" should be objective. Two reasons given I think are irrational: 1) that there is something inherently bad or wrong with some genres, and 2) that the source of the genre contaminates or makes the music bad or evil. Neither of these arguments are logical. And I think in the end, we will see that it's not the genre itself, or the origins of the genre that makes some music inappropriate. But I think some music is inappropriate for some individuals because of their associations and reactions to the genre. I'm sure there are other objective criteria also.
caddy
Puritan Board Senior
Check out Chuck Colson's "The Back Page" Article in Christianity Today:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/main/current.html
The Story is not online yet, so an excerpt will have to suffice:
"When Church music directors lead congregations in singing contemporary Christian music, I often listen stoically with teeth clenched. But one Sunday morning, I cracked. We'd been led through endless repetitions of a meaningless ditty called "Draw Me Close to You," which has zero theological content and could just as easily be sung in any nightclub. When I thought it was finally and mercifully over, the music leader beamed. "Let's sing that again, shall we?" he asked. "No!" I shouted, loudly enough to send heads all around me spinning while my wife, Patty, cringed.
I admit I prefer traditional hymns, but even so, I'm convinced that much of the music being written for the church today reflects and unfortunate trend--slipping across the line from worship to entertainment. Evangelicals are in danger of amusing ourselves to death, to borrow the title of the classic Neil Postman book.....
Great article....
Hopefully it will be online before the week is out.....
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/main/current.html
The Story is not online yet, so an excerpt will have to suffice:
"When Church music directors lead congregations in singing contemporary Christian music, I often listen stoically with teeth clenched. But one Sunday morning, I cracked. We'd been led through endless repetitions of a meaningless ditty called "Draw Me Close to You," which has zero theological content and could just as easily be sung in any nightclub. When I thought it was finally and mercifully over, the music leader beamed. "Let's sing that again, shall we?" he asked. "No!" I shouted, loudly enough to send heads all around me spinning while my wife, Patty, cringed.
I admit I prefer traditional hymns, but even so, I'm convinced that much of the music being written for the church today reflects and unfortunate trend--slipping across the line from worship to entertainment. Evangelicals are in danger of amusing ourselves to death, to borrow the title of the classic Neil Postman book.....
Great article....
Hopefully it will be online before the week is out.....
I'm not sure if this could be categorized as "objective criteria", but something that needs be kept in mind is the "singability" of certain tunes. While not sinful in and of itself, putting a psalm to a rap tune might not be the most edifying means of worshipping simply for the fact of it's difficulty.
That being said, I would like to see more chant in worship simply because of it's simplicity etc., although it is a preference. Putting psalms to well-known hymns is also a good idea so that people do not have to try to learn the music over and over, but will know them already.
I think that this line of reasoning would fall under:
1Co 14:40 Let all things be done decently and in order.
Can anyone else think of any scriptural principles to govern the "tunes?"
Whatever "tune" is used to sing, it is the sacrifice of praise, the fruit of our lips that is pleasing to God which is repeating His words back to Him in sincerity.
Heb 13:15 Therefore by Him let us continually offer the sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to His name.
Puritan Sailor
Puritan Board Doctor
Let's ask the question then in another way, which will perhaps push us to think through our presuppositions some more too.
Can the rock genre ever be put to a holy use? Can we ever use it differently than the world? Our worship is to be directed strictly with a Godward orientation, guided by His principles, and holy, seperate from the mindset and dominion of the world. Can rock ever be used in that way?
I have another silly question to pose later on if discussion gets dull too. But I'll hold off for now.
Some of this has been touched on already. But perhaps asking the question this way will further the discussion.
Please provide a reasoned or objective answer (i.e. you opinion is not objective, I want logical arguments to discuss)
Can the rock genre ever be put to a holy use? Can we ever use it differently than the world? Our worship is to be directed strictly with a Godward orientation, guided by His principles, and holy, seperate from the mindset and dominion of the world. Can rock ever be used in that way?
I have another silly question to pose later on if discussion gets dull too. But I'll hold off for now.
Some of this has been touched on already. But perhaps asking the question this way will further the discussion.
Please provide a reasoned or objective answer (i.e. you opinion is not objective, I want logical arguments to discuss)
Puritan Sailor
Puritan Board Doctor
That is a good point Jeff about the "order." How could rock be used or be rejected in the church with that in mind.
Well, thinking out loud (and that's probably about all it's worth!
), I would say that "order" in the worship service not only implies a liturgy, but a service that allows all of the worshipers to lift up the name of our Lord simply, and with structure. The music itself should never become the focal point of the service, it is words themselves...the fruit of our lips. God does not make the music the focal point, otherwise He might have given us more explicit instructions on certain tunes to use.Now to some people, rock music might not violate this idea, but for me (a lover of rock BTW
) rock music does not give me the picture of an ordered service. Rather, when I think of rock music, I see disorder in many cases. For example, think of the mosh pits, the drug use, the clothing style etc. etc. of most who REALLY love rock and roll. At least in our culture, guys who where leather pants, long hair, make-up and scream in a microphone doesn't portray a person who is "orderly." Now I realize that this is a generalization, but I think that there is at least some merit to this kind of thinking.Forgeting the characterization, I (who would be considered in most cases an orderly type of guy) when I listen to rock and roll do not do it that I might be "orderly", but that I might let loose, and so forth. While rock may not have this effect on everyone, I think that it affects most people this way. It probably depends on how exactly one defines "rock" as well. I think of hair bands, heavy metal, alternative and the like.
If this is the case, I think that rock probably is not best suited for the worship service, but something more tame, where people can hear the words clearly, understand what they are singing, not putting the emphasis on the tune, but their voices.
Puritan Sailor
Puritan Board Doctor
Yes, some good thoughts. In the beginning of the thread, buried amidst the deviations of the thread, I did define rock more broadly to include the softer more festive stuff, not just the grunge chaos. Basically, I'm refering to music that has a back beat (whether actually played on drums, or just implied by the other instruments or rhythm of the tune). This is why ruling out instruments won't answer the question, because you can have accapella rock in this sense. I would invite anyone to listen to Take 6, a Christian, predominantly gospel accepalla group if you want to see that idea in practice. I don't know of anyone who uses their material in worship mind you, but I simply bring it out as a theoretical possibility.
Rock music is the sound of the world. (no pejorative)
Carefully examine the history of it here:
http://www.rockhall.com/timeline/
Reasons for having certain music in worship is always morally based. Moral understanding in music has to do with form and dynamic qualities of it.
The qualities include: pitch, rhythm, dynamics and form. These govern the emotional expressions in all musics, no matter what genre.
The mediation of (amplification) music is especially important to consider. Something powerful happens in mediated music - having a profound effect on the listener.
RobinGood points. There's also an older group call 2nd Chapter of Acts, that I'd classify as rock in the broadest sense - and much of their music was "worship" oriented.
Certainly there are many more examples of rock music that would be terrible for a worship service, but there are counter examples as well. So I don't think it's the genre that's the problem - but the words and the way it's played (so the words are understandable) and it must be God oriented, and composed for group singing. I think most examples of rock music we think of would not work very well.
I also remember some "hard" rock from a group called the Resurrection Band (the REZ Band). Not much of their stuff would be good for corporate worship, but some was good for individual worship of God. They may have a few "anthem" type songs that could have been remixed for group worship. But it's been a long time since I listened to them.
As for rock being music from "the world", what music isn't? I'd love to hear the *heavenly* host singing praises to God, but they haven't released an album, and I can't find the mp3 on the Internet. I guess we'll have to make do with what we can hear, which is the music of the world.
I apologize for my poorly worded post above. I'm in general agreement with everyone so far, it is not the genre that is the problem, but it is the associations that one (or others) may have with the music, and whether the music adds a godly dimension to worship or is, at its worst, a distraction.
This is of course tied in with one's notions about corporate worship. As a former music director, I've often said that a church's music will reflect that church's "regulative principle" and, ultimately, its theology.
I would also "improve" our definition of rock music to define it as not only with a backbeat, but with electric guitar - said instrument having no place, In my humble opinion, in a worship service. I've not seen a service where the use of an electric guitar was appropriate, but your mileage may vary ;-)
This is of course tied in with one's notions about corporate worship. As a former music director, I've often said that a church's music will reflect that church's "regulative principle" and, ultimately, its theology.
I would also "improve" our definition of rock music to define it as not only with a backbeat, but with electric guitar - said instrument having no place, In my humble opinion, in a worship service. I've not seen a service where the use of an electric guitar was appropriate, but your mileage may vary ;-)
panta dokimazete
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
No more than Berg or Webern's...dodecaphonics was a method of atonal composition not a style - I don't think any of the practitioners composed anything dedicated to the glory of God - in fact, they were modernists.
What parallel are trying to draw?
Luciano Berio, quoted in Classic Essays on Twentieth-Century Music,
I stand by my earlier statement that music is the language of emotion and without text and compositional intent it is neutral.
[Edited on 4-1-2006 by jdlongmire]
JD,
My question is (and I am glad you added Berg) if there is something inherent about that atonal method of composition that is unconducive to worship? Could a Christian composer compose dedacophonic music suitable for singing Psalms to? Why or why not?
Do you agree with Berio? Can a genre (can we call it that?) be irredeemably devoted to something wrong?
My question is (and I am glad you added Berg) if there is something inherent about that atonal method of composition that is unconducive to worship? Could a Christian composer compose dedacophonic music suitable for singing Psalms to? Why or why not?
Do you agree with Berio? Can a genre (can we call it that?) be irredeemably devoted to something wrong?
panta dokimazete
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I would call dodecaphonics a genre of modernism, so - no - I would not think so. It is musical legalism.
Is legalism glorifying to God?
[Edited on 4-1-2006 by jdlongmire]
Is legalism glorifying to God?
[Edited on 4-1-2006 by jdlongmire]
Let me be sure I'm understanding you (you seem to have more exposure than I do, as I can't STAND the stuff). Dodecaphonics is modernism (which you associate with legalism) in notes and measures?
Some examples are here
Two questions, assuming I have gotten you right.
How is modernism equivalent or necessarily involucrative of legalism?
How does music express either modernism or legalism?
And to answer you, No. Legalism is a slander on God and does not glorify Him --except by being overcome and judged.
Some examples are here
Two questions, assuming I have gotten you right.
How is modernism equivalent or necessarily involucrative of legalism?
How does music express either modernism or legalism?
And to answer you, No. Legalism is a slander on God and does not glorify Him --except by being overcome and judged.
panta dokimazete
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Dodecaphonics is musical legalism, in that it unnaturally constrains musical expression by a set of rigid rules - more here - and I can't stand it either...
Not my point...modernism is anti-fides...
see the link, but the "music" was an outgrowth of the modernist movement - I still would call it more of an experiment (or abberation) than a style or a genre...I do not think there are any current dodecaphonic composers.
then we are agreed...
panta dokimazete
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
For what it is worth, I tried to write an Easter cantata in my neo-baroque music composition days using twelve-tone rows. I made fairly good progress but ran out of steam.
Even so, I had to cheat, I used four separate themes starting on different notes. The poliphony sounded sort of like Hindemith and was more or less pleasant. My purist friends mocked me, accusing me of trying to revert back to tonality. That was exactly the point.
But then I was converted and lost all desire to glorify myself in the guise of bringing glory to God.
Even so, I had to cheat, I used four separate themes starting on different notes. The poliphony sounded sort of like Hindemith and was more or less pleasant. My purist friends mocked me, accusing me of trying to revert back to tonality. That was exactly the point.
But then I was converted and lost all desire to glorify myself in the guise of bringing glory to God.
panta dokimazete
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I confess - if there is any musical method that could be totally anti-glorifying to God, it would be dodecaphonia...again - musical legalism...
JD,
So theoretically there would be other forms of musical legalism? And the problem is the rules? What if someone were to compose mathematically (as one man told John Wesley he wanted to do)? Would that also be legalism?
Then the relationship between modernism and legalism is that both are opposed to faith? There is no further connection? Also, then Schoenberg's style of music, for instance, is opposed to faith?
I am still trying to understand your view (and work through my own) of how music relates to other arts, to presuppositions, to God and so forth. As far as dodecaphonia (nice term) goes, it started from a presupposition that was opposed to God and proceeded to work itself out from there. Is that right?
Victor said:
So theoretically there would be other forms of musical legalism? And the problem is the rules? What if someone were to compose mathematically (as one man told John Wesley he wanted to do)? Would that also be legalism?
Then the relationship between modernism and legalism is that both are opposed to faith? There is no further connection? Also, then Schoenberg's style of music, for instance, is opposed to faith?
I am still trying to understand your view (and work through my own) of how music relates to other arts, to presuppositions, to God and so forth. As far as dodecaphonia (nice term) goes, it started from a presupposition that was opposed to God and proceeded to work itself out from there. Is that right?
Victor said:
Aren't the two members of that sentence rather exclusive of one another?
JD,
That was an interesting (and short) article. I suppose one can get a bit of a taste of what it was like by listening to Saint-Saens' Carnival of the Animals, when he slows "Offenbach's racy can-can from 'Orpheus in the Underworld'" (Leonard Bernstein) way down.
It makes me wonder what would happen to the Egmont overture if we changed the mode and slowed it way down....
That was an interesting (and short) article. I suppose one can get a bit of a taste of what it was like by listening to Saint-Saens' Carnival of the Animals, when he slows "Offenbach's racy can-can from 'Orpheus in the Underworld'" (Leonard Bernstein) way down.
It makes me wonder what would happen to the Egmont overture if we changed the mode and slowed it way down....
- Status
