# Is musical style purely subjective in worship song?



## Puritan Sailor (Nov 8, 2005)

**This will not devolve into another EP thread. **

I would like to discuss musical styles in worship. What is legitimate? And why? Who decides which type of music is glorifying to God in song?

[Edited on 11-9-2005 by puritansailor]


----------



## alwaysreforming (Nov 8, 2005)

I like what Rod Rosenbladt says: "You never hear of a Polka mass." And that's because the music has to be able to "carry the weight" of the theme, and in this case its God's glory, or the work and person of Christ, etc.

Certain musical styles just don't lend themselves well to this. They're either too "lite", or too trivial, sounding like a "jingle" or commercial. And for some music, its just not good enough, the artistry isn't there; its sounds formulaic and trite. There IS such a thing as QUALITY in music, and while I don't know all that its composed of, I know there has to be a certain amount of complexity to it so it has enough interest and has the necessary "staying power" that endures beyond a 10-year pop lifecycle.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 8, 2005)

to Christopher. There is a reason Old 100th and Old 124th stick around. Of course someone had to write them; and so I see good sense in having a forum for floating new tunes and settings of the psalms for singing in public worship. We have a small field for this endeavor in the feature we call _Psallo_ in *The Confessional Presbyterian *journal. In the 2005 issue, on sale now through the end of November for just $15, the selection is the imprecatory psalm 109:1-10, words and music by Rev. Todd Ruddell, the assistant pastor at First Presbyterian Rowlett.


----------



## Plimoth Thom (Nov 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by alwaysreforming_
> I like what Rod Rosenbladt says: "You never hear of a Polka mass."



Ummm, I guess he's never been to Michigan then. The parish my wife grew up in has an annual polka mass as part of the parish festival each summer. Unfortunately I've been to it.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Nov 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by alwaysreforming_
> I like what Rod Rosenbladt says: "You never hear of a Polka mass." And that's because the music has to be able to "carry the weight" of the theme, and in this case its God's glory, or the work and person of Christ, etc.
> 
> Certain musical styles just don't lend themselves well to this. They're either too "lite", or too trivial, sounding like a "jingle" or commercial. And for some music, its just not good enough, the artistry isn't there; its sounds formulaic and trite. There IS such a thing as QUALITY in music, and while I don't know all that its composed of, I know there has to be a certain amount of complexity to it so it has enough interest and has the necessary "staying power" that endures beyond a 10-year pop lifecycle.



How do you know which styles are high quality though? And who is to say that a certain tune can't carry the intended theme? Aren't these subjective preferences? Or even just cultural preferences?


----------



## Puddleglum (Nov 8, 2005)

Hmm, interesting question . . . I'd say that the music has to fit the words & the setting (you're worshipping an awesomely holy God) - but who gets to deciding "fitting"? Is it a cultural thing . . . ?

The OPC Directory of Worship has an interesting note about music: "Let the tunes as well as the words be dignified and elevated. The stately rhythm of the choral is especially appropriate for public worship." I'm not sure how they determined that the "stately rhythm of the choral" is most appropriate. I think the Directory of Worship is under revision currently, anyways . . . ?


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by alwaysreforming_
> ...



Patrick,

This is not an easy question. Why? Because we do not want to be ruled completely by preferences. But at the same time, if we say that there is no music that is bad, we have completely abandoned any thought of good music. All music becomes immaterial, and we have no aesthetic - which denies the nature of God as a God of beauty.

No easy answer, but we must probe it.


----------



## JohnV (Nov 8, 2005)

I would guess that the decisions come about mostly the other way around. Some things are just outright ridiculous, but popular. Its more a matter of ruling things out, letting the cream rise to the top, letting the good songs grow up, throwing out, and even never letting in, the bad ones. What is really good will endure. 

But it can happen that really good songs are nor accepted, for various reasons which are themselves not always good. I've heard really good melodies fall because they were wasted on bad lyrics, but too identified with those melodies; and vice versa, though not as much. I can't think of any off hand, but I do recall times that I sat in church, not singing along, just shaking my head with sadness. I really have a hard time participating with that, for so little thought goes into it. But if that same church would say, "This is ridiculous: out it goes." I would rejoice right along with them. I think that an intent to be stewardly about music is much more preferred than sophisitication in music, but still dead in spirit. I think that if God loves the prayers of a child, simple though they be, then He would also love the songs of the faithful, simple though they be, as long as they are truly reaching toward holiness in music in their worship.


----------



## Robin (Nov 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by alwaysreforming_
> I like what Rod Rosenbladt says: "You never hear of a Polka mass." And that's because the music has to be able to "carry the weight" of the theme, and in this case its God's glory, or the work and person of Christ, etc.



Hey, Chris....Y E S, there is a polka-mass! No kidding....I saw a PBS special on worship music expressed for world-religions awhile ago.

Fascinating.

There was a South American RC service with (I swear) accordion polka-style music. (Bleah  )

The investigative journalist travelled throughout the world: China; Turkey; South America; Tibet; Japan; England and finally America --- they reviewed: Seiks; Hindu; Buddhist; RC; Anglican; and US Evangelicalism and Black-Gospel.

One thing stood-out glaringly....every single style of music was the SAME - except one. The exception was the classic hymn in the Anglican church. All the others were: 1. A plain, repetitive pattern, climaxing into emotional frenzy or state of euphoria (most always claiming the presence of God or a god in these emotional heights) 3. All were loud and exciting with strong, undulating rhythms. The evangelical music was exactly the same in structure as the Seik and Hindu stuff. Just replace the words. The worshippers all looked and acted the same, too. (Again, simply replace "Jesus" with "Krishna" or "Buddha".)

There was a lack of sophisticated harmony; form structure (cadences) in the musics. Yet, the hymn had an ordered instrumental plot-line; conveyed reverence, dignity and true beauty.

Did you know that musical sound (not only lyrics) has a powerful moral quality? This is why Beethoven entitled his Fifth Symphony "Victory." The harmonic stucture of the main motif (only 4 notes) is some of the most majestic and powerful. It's based on the Tonic and Dominate intervals of a scale. Whoa! Talk about weight!

Hans Zimmer (movie composer) uses this formula for his scores (Gladiator, Batman Begins.) These soundtracks are awe inspiring.



Robin

PS. I'm waiting to hear some Reformed diggery-doo praise songs!

[Edited on 11-9-2005 by Robin]


----------



## Robin (Nov 9, 2005)

Flash....I just had another thought....

Why can't we get back to real, educated musicians governing the music department at church?

Not self-appointed wannabes. I mean "ordained" musicians.

Would anyone go to a doctor that was good with people yet never took an anatomy class?

The discussion is limited and at disadvantage when it is fraught with ignorance and there is no real education in what precisely makes music one thing or another.

Molto Frustissimo,

r.


----------



## Robin (Nov 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> Certain musical styles just don't lend themselves well to this. They're either too "lite", or too trivial, sounding like a "jingle" or commercial. And for some music, its just not good enough, the artistry isn't there; its sounds formulaic and trite. There IS such a thing as QUALITY in music, and while I don't know all that its composed of, I know there has to be a certain amount of complexity to it so it has enough interest and has the necessary "staying power" that endures beyond a 10-year pop lifecycle.



How do you know which styles are high quality though? And who is to say that a certain tune can't carry the intended theme? Aren't these subjective preferences? Or even just cultural preferences? [/quote]

Patrick,

Any composer (trained in music school) knows (as well as minimally decent musician/players) the different emotional properties of music.

Music is emotion set to sound. Music is also a language. 

Advertisers and movie-soundtrack composers know this too. (For the most part.) This is why you won't hear a Polka played during a car chase scene in The Matrix.

The answer is: go to school and you'll learn. Either/or take private lessons from a degreed, qualified music teacher: theory, harmony; basic composition.

We need music-literacy in the church!

r.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 9, 2005)

*Reformed Baptist contra Musical Instruments in Worship*

The following book is interesting given Banner of Truth´s previously publishing Ian Murray´s piece contra exclusive Psalmody (which was quite surprising in the defective handling of the issue; see review here). {edit. I mean, it is interesting that the review was posted by Thomas on BoT's site; the book is published as noted below} Reformed Baptist pastor John Price takes the "œno musical instruments" in worship position and the book is endorsed as noted below. I mention it here because Geoff Thomas indicates a chapter or a least some section of the book deals with the psychology of music, or as Thomas notes in his summary, "œA penetrating analysis of the psychology of music points up its frequently deceptive effect upon the human emotions and the very real danger of confusing a merely sensual excitement with true worship." FYI. 

________________________________________
From: David P. Simpson [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2005 9:35 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Old Light on New Worship Pre-Publication Sale

Dear friend,

I am very pleased to announce that Pastor John Price's important new book entitled Old Light on New Worship: Musical Instruments and the Worship of God, A Theological, Psychological and Historical Study is now available for sale.

The book includes a Foreword by Ted Donnelly and is highly recommended by Maurice Roberts.

Also Geoffrey Thomashas written a review of the book which is posted on The Banner of Truth's web site:http://www.banneroftruth.org/pages/articles/article_detail.php?907

The books are expected to ship by November 14th. Place your order before November 18th and receive a 50% discount for any number ordered. Orders by the case will be shipped without charge.

For more information please see the PDF flyer below announcing the pre-publication sale.

David P. Simpson
Simpson Publishing Company
Post Office Box 100,One South Main Street,Avinger, Texas 75630
http://www.simpsonpublishing.com/
903.562.1234 (Ext. 12) 903.562.1430 (Fax)

[Edited on 11-9-2005 by NaphtaliPress]


----------



## gwine (Nov 9, 2005)

When I was a high school student attending a Church of the Nazarene, a couple students sang _Amazing Grace_ to the tune of _The House of the Rising Sun_. Didn't go over too well with the older people, but I sure enjoyed it.

But (my opinion only) I think music in the church should be able to be sung easily by a group. Phil Keaggy's _Be Thou My Vision_ would not do.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Nov 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> Patrick,
> 
> Any composer (trained in music school) knows (as well as minimally decent musician/players) the different emotional properties of music.
> ...



Fine, but who decides? And isn't this only a cultural manifestation? You still have not moved beyond Western music. The Church is bigger than the West. What kind of music would you put to Ps. 88 in order to convey the emotion there? Or Psalm 2? Who is to say what style is more appropriate for that?


----------



## gwine (Nov 9, 2005)

I can't see anything wrong with the leaders deciding the music based on cultural constraints. Having gone from Church of the Nazarene gospel tunes to the Trinity Hymnal of the OPC, I am adjusting to the measured pace of most of the songs. They tend to grow on me, although with my inablility to carry a tune some of the songs with extreme frequency changes are difficult to sing, and some praise songs grate on me because I think they were made to be sung by one person instead of the whole congregation. Can you imagine the whole congregation trying to sing a hymn to a rap theme?

I can't imagine forcing our style of music on a congregation in Eritrea or the Ukraine.


----------



## py3ak (Nov 9, 2005)

Patrick,

Some cultural influence has to be admitted. I have read that the Chinese have 22-tone music and the Arabs have 17-tone music, versus our 12 tones here in the West. I don't think that our ears are trained to detect 22 different tones (just like a Chinese person has trouble distinguishing "l" and "r" or a Mexican has trouble distinguishing "b" and "v"). I think you have to take the congregation into account when singing. Maybe Chinese people could sing things that to us would sound deathly boring because we couldn't hear the (to us) minimal variations. In some Mexican congregations they have a terrible time staying on tune with the hymns that have been translated --they also tend to sing everything in 4/4 time no matter what! But they will put Psalms to what is basically simple folk music and then they sound good.


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Robin_
> ...



Patrick,

I think this is what is governed by "there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the word, which are always to be observed" (WCF 1.6).

The unity, balance and aesthetic quality of music is a matter of the light of nature. Music cannot be scientifically categorized into good and bad so that all will agree, yet there is a good and a bad.


----------



## Scott (Nov 9, 2005)

Patrick: As to who will decide, it is the Session. As to what standard they use, I would say that we judge by the results. Does the tune achieve the purpose - i.e. reverence and awe or whatever mood is appropriate.


----------



## Scott (Nov 9, 2005)

Robin wrote: " saw a PBS special on worship music expressed for world-religions awhile ago."

I must see this. Can you give any more detail (title, when aired, etc.)? Thanks


----------



## kevin.carroll (Nov 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by gwine_
> When I was a high school student attending a Church of the Nazarene, a couple students sang _Amazing Grace_ to the tune of _The House of the Rising Sun_. Didn't go over too well with the older people, but I sure enjoyed it.
> 
> But (my opinion only) I think music in the church should be able to be sung easily by a group. Phil Keaggy's _Be Thou My Vision_ would not do.



That's interesting, Gerry. Amazing Grace was originally set to a popular bar tune. Newton might have approved of what those kids did.

For what it's worth, I'm sick to death of RUF rewrites of hymns, though. First, when you hear one tune, you've heard them all (which should be helpful, but it isn't) and second they never provide you with the music anyhow, so one must flounder for 2-3 verses before you can sing.

I sound like an old fogey suddenly...:bigsmile:


----------



## kceaster (Nov 9, 2005)

I think it can be subjective to us, but the real question is, is it subjective to God? If the praise is for Him, then the tune it is sung to is not immaterial, since He created the 7 perfect tones that comprise it. In other words, the tune is ruled by the sovereign who made it.

Now, that does not mean that all music is equal. What it means is that God will make to endure all things He has put into place by His providence. I think it gives us a certain latitude to be sure. But it also means that we should be as careful as we can be.

The tunes we sing are not arbitrary. That is one of the critiques I have of some psalter tunes. It seems to me that some tunes are not suited to the theme. Is that subjective? Only time will tell. I truly believe that God sovereignly orders our liturgy and our worship of Him down to the last note. If it is worthy of His praise, I think it will endure. If it is not, it will be lost like all the original tunes to which the psalms were sung. God was obviously not well pleased with the music. That leads some to believe that the music is not as important. But again, we have to fall back on His sovereignty. None of us sing in a vacuum. God must care, otherwise there would be no recollection of music at all.

Therefore we should be careful. God gives us latitude, but as I compose, I want those compositions to be worthy of the words. If they are, they will last and the church will be edified. If they are not, they will go the same way all other tunes have gone that no one remembers. But God is sovereign. He is the one making the thing last, not our memories or our subjective desires.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## gwine (Nov 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> If the praise is for Him, then the tune it is sung to is not immaterial, since He created the 7 perfect tones that comprise it. In other words, the tune is ruled by the sovereign who made it.
> 
> KC



If I understand you correctly, are you saying that our western scale is the only perfect one?


----------



## JohnV (Nov 9, 2005)

> _posted by Kevin_
> If it is worthy of His praise, I think it will endure. If it is not, it will be lost like all the original tunes to which the psalms were sung. God was obviously not well pleased with the music.



Kevin, this is a very interesting observation. Could it be true that God was not well pleased with the music of the Hebrews, even David's melodies? May we make such a judgment on the basis that the music itself is lost? I'll have to think about that. I'm not saying I agree with you, and I tend towards not agreeing. But this idea sets in motion a whole slew of thoughts on the subject for me. Keen observation, brother.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Nov 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> Patrick: As to who will decide, it is the Session. As to what standard they use, I would say that we judge by the results. Does the tune achieve the purpose - i.e. reverence and awe or whatever mood is appropriate.



I guess what I am looking for are principles which transcend culture, but are still identifiable by all. Is "reverance and awe or whatever mood is appropriate" expressed the same way in all cultures? If not, then what do we fall back on? How do we grow in maturity in this area? I imagine that an American conservative Presbyterian would feel rather uncormfortable with the more festive worship music in an African or Latin American reformed church. But I don't think we would say they are being irreverent toward God with their music. Or would we?


----------



## cupotea (Nov 9, 2005)

Does anyone remember when the CCM group Glad did that song about how many of the great hymns of the faith were folk songs (in some cases, bawdyhouse ditties) appropriated and given religious lyrics?

Well, it's true, at least in a several (though not all) cases. 

Folk music is, by definition, simple. It's not grand. It's not intellectually appealing.

But it is folk; i.e. it speaks to people where they live in terms they can understand.

Most CCM is junk; but not, in my opinion because the music is junk. It's junk because the lyrics are self-centered and devoid of theological content.

The music itself is just pop; i.e. modern folk.

In the middle ages they believed that certain notes or tones were satanic. If I recall correctly they had a particular horror of the E minor seventh. 

I think this is silly and esoteric but it's of a piece with the attitudes of many musical snobs. 

And for the record, I am, recently become a church musician.


----------



## JohnV (Nov 9, 2005)

I think, Patrick, that music, as an art, is an expression that forms the culture. When we go about analyzing any given moment in history, and we want to determine the cultural givens, the music of the time is one of the things we look at, along with other arts. 

In our time music is both the driving force of a culture, and driven by the culture. What you're asking, it seems to me, is to try to wrestle music back out of the tail-spin it is presently in. Looking at our culture, from Roy Rogers, the singing cowboy, to Elvis, to Hard Rock, to Heavy Metal, to Rap, to just plain lewdness with noise that has some definition of beat, it is easy to see that the trend is truly downward, spiralling from tonality to mere brute noise, but taking the culture with it. And this is impacting the church as well, people thinking "I know what I like" as a definition of what constitutes acceptable music. In other words, present day music in the churches is following the same trend as doctrine, where people are their own authority for what passes as true and acceptable. 

But if we transform the music, then we transform the culture too. For culture is defined by the expressions in the arts that are found in it. You can't separate them. What we need to do is to humbly transform the culture, like the early Christians did.


----------



## Robin (Nov 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Robin_
> ...



I see what you mean....

I think the discussion cannot be intelligently and skillfully addressed unless there is recognition that it is NOT about "style." The Church of Jesus Christ is *not* a culture, btw. The Church is called to be separate from culture as she enters into the "holy of holies" on the Lord's Day.

The issue is really about understanding what music is and it's right use. Then it's a question of sin.

A true pastor oversees every detail of the liturgy. He works closely with the music director in connecting music with what is spoken. The pastor has authority to refuse inappropriate musics. A pastor devoted to the Word will assure that whatever is sung will represent what is being taught in the liturgy/sermon and that the music will not overpower.

Bottom-line: the pastor governs the church service. He is responsible for worship on the Lord's day. This is what Scripture teaches. It's a church order thing. A good pastor will understand the different skills needed to prepare a God-honoring service - he will have the discernment, self-control and sense of responsibility to protect the flock from cultural influences. 

For one hour a week, the Church leaves the culture to "enter into" the courts of Heaven. (Ephesians) 

Who else, but the pastor (as he obeys Christ), leads to the flock safely to pasture each Lord's Day....as we sojourn through the desert to the Promised Land?

As for musical treatment of the Psalms....there is nothing more awesome than Harp accompanyment. (I'm biased, of course.)

r.


----------



## Robin (Nov 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> ...



Spoken from one of the "good" pastors! 

I like this, Fred. 

Robin


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Nov 9, 2005)

heh @ this thread and the cultural snobbery in it.

Suggestion - go listen to Allistair Begg's broadcast on this very subject about 2 days ago.

I'll be back with comments later......


----------



## Robin (Nov 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Steadfast_
> Does anyone remember when the CCM group Glad did that song about how many of the great hymns of the faith were folk songs (in some cases, bawdyhouse ditties) appropriated and given religious lyrics?
> 
> Well, it's true, at least in a several (though not all) cases.
> ...



Michael,

With all due respect, many of these assertions are quite off.

First, the folk music in the world (the Celtic nations: England; Ireland; Norse, et al) is some of the most intellectually rigorous material. In ancient Ireland, Harpers instructed their people; war-chieftans (William Wallace) dictated battle plans to their troops; recounted victorious epics (Homer) through spoken word and Harp. This is called the bardic tradition. So feared were the powerful (in music and idea) harpers, Queen Elizabeth issued law to arrest and hang them; the harps were gathered up to burn. It was then, they went underground posing as minstrels. Travelling the pubs and great houses of the gentry, their "romantic ballads" were actually code-language for lost liberty and national zeal. This kept the Irish intact under great oppression.

Celtic repertoire is built upon human emotion. A skilled Harper was required to incite three styles of emotion in the hearer: sorrow; joy and rest.

"Be Thou My Vision" is an eleventh century plainchant (monastic) from the Crusades. Knights meditated on its (over 20 verses!) in vigil, preparing for battle. 

The idea that hymns came from bar rooms is totally false. Urban legend. Rather, hymns were taught to laymen, who, in turn took it to the streets (evangelization!) This tradition was a product of Martin Luther and the Reformation.

Too often, the claim of "musical snobbery" serves a similar
cop-out as the anti-intellectuals justify their self-imposed ignorance.

Education is a good thing, always.



Robin

[Edited on 11-9-2005 by Robin]


----------



## cupotea (Nov 9, 2005)

With all due respect, Robin, I can play "Be Thou My Vision" quite well, and I am far from a virtuoso. It's not at all difficult. I don't play the harp though I do play stringed instruments.

The simplest of melodies can generate the strongest of emotions, the melodies to "Be Thou My Vision" and "Come Thou Font of Every Blessing" are cases in point. They are not at all technically difficult.

I am not arguing for the introduction of rap music, I am saying simply that melody matches mood. There is a place for uplifting music, for solemn and for other kinds.

Maybe I have misunderstood the purpose of this thread. What I was objecting to was what I perceived to be a snobbishness against simplicity of form.

But I thank you for your brotherly correction, nonetheless, and I rejoice in it.

[Edited on 11-9-2005 by Steadfast]


----------



## AdamM (Nov 9, 2005)

Great thread.



> I imagine that an American conservative Presbyterian would feel rather uncomfortable with the more festive worship music in an African or Latin American reformed church. But I don't think we would say they are being irreverent toward God with their music. Or would we?



Agreed.

The music played by the ancient Jews certainly was different then what most would consider "traditional" today.


----------



## Robin (Nov 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Steadfast_
> With all due respect, Robin, I can play "Be Thou My Vision" quite well, and I am far from a virtuoso. It's not at all difficult. I don't play the harp though I do play stringed instruments.
> 
> The simplest of melodies can generate the strongest of emotions, the melodies to "Be Thou My Vision" and "Come Thou Font of Every Blessing" are cases in point. They are not at all technically difficult.
> ...



Hey, Michael...I didn't mean to correct you. I only thought distinctions should be made...

As a music teacher/performer, I note that purity of a melody can be quite basic (easy to play, if you will.) There's nothing wrong with this, of course! No one is insisting Bach fugues be played all the time.

But, I lament over the arrogance of self-taught/self-appointed worship leaders, claiming that "God gave them" a song (who can argue against that?) in an attempt to justify their utter lack of skill in composition. (Bad harmony; structure in favor of loud and rhythmic.) Then musicians like me get accused of "snobbery." (I know you weren't accusing anyone, btw.) Clarification is needed, though.

As simple as folk tunes are, they are written well. The folk-music cultures pursue study of music as a daily lifestyle (good stuff.) Music is not entertainment in the folk genre. It is life.

Some tighter questions are: do we tend to think that music is only entertainment? Are we using it primarily as entertainment? What is our knowledge of music historically? What is the differences between music as entertainment; consolation; celebration; lamentation; encouragement; education; commercialization? Have we lost these distinctions today? Etc.

In a nutshell, self-appointed worship leader/teams are as much a blight on the Church today as are self-appointed, non-ordained, pastors. Both tend to disdain the authority of Biblical church order.

r.

[Edited on 11-9-2005 by Robin]


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by OS_X_
> heh @ this thread and the cultural snobbery in it.
> 
> Suggestion - go listen to Allistair Begg's broadcast on this very subject about 2 days ago.
> ...



Kerry,

I don't think there is any cultural snobbery in any of my posts. It is a simple fact that if something is completely relative (whether in morals or aesthetics) it means that there is no standard and anything goes.

If something is not relative, then there must be "good" and "bad."

Now what does not follow from that is that a particular cultural millieu is "good" and all others are "bad"; rather, the are aesthetic qualities to all forms of music (order, rythm, etc) that apply to the African drum, the European organ, or the Asian stringed instrument. There is good European music, and bad European music. There is good African music, and bad.


----------



## ReadBavinck (Nov 9, 2005)

The question still remains though: by what standards should decide if something is good or bad?

What makes a particular one piece musically appropriate and another not?


----------



## AdamM (Nov 9, 2005)

> The question still remains though: by what standards should decide if something is good or bad?



in my opinion, this is where elders in the local church enter the picture. God gives the church elders who have responsibility to make sure that the worship in that particular cultural context is done properly.


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by AdamM_
> 
> 
> > The question still remains though: by what standards should decide if something is good or bad?
> ...



Yes. And it would also be likely that the elders would be best equipped to know the congregation and what would assist them in worship.


----------



## kceaster (Nov 9, 2005)

*Gerry....*



> _Originally posted by gwine_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by kceaster_
> ...



I was referring to the natural tones that exist in God's created order. There are 7 perfect ones, and then there are various ones in the middle of those. Sort of like 7 colors of the light spectrum. I'm not making any observation about western music. All I'm saying is the perfect tonal qualities of music are 7 in number. Eastern or western.

Blessings,

KC


----------



## Saiph (Nov 9, 2005)

Kevin,

What are those 7 natural tones ? What frequency ?


I do not know what to think when it comes to music. I am going to see the guitarist Buckethead tomorrow night. I do not know how one determines what style is appropriate in Church. I am learning Paganini's 24th caprice right now on the guitar to enhance my abilities. Some thought he was posessed by the devil. So should I not learn it because of that ? Maybe he was. If we knew for sure, would it be wrong to worship God with that music ?


----------



## gwine (Nov 9, 2005)

*Kevin*

From an earlier post:



> I have read that the Chinese have 22-tone music and the Arabs have 17-tone music, versus our 12 tones here in the West.



That was what made me ask about the 7 perfect tones. Assuming the 22 tone and 17 tone musical system to refer to an octave (as does the 12 tones of the west), from whence comes the 7 perfect? I realize the 12 notes of our scale include the 7, but how would that work in the other two?

Not being contentious, just puzzled.


----------



## ReadBavinck (Nov 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by AdamM_
> ...



So what knowledge should the elders take into account when deciding on how worship should conducted?


----------



## Saiph (Nov 9, 2005)

Were not some of Luther's hymns redeemed bar tunes ?


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Were not some of Luther's hymns redeemed bar tunes ?



Bar is a musical term, and has absolutely nothing to do with taverns.


----------



## JohnV (Nov 9, 2005)

It would seem to me that this would be not altogether that much different than the way they handle other matters of spiritual concerns in the congregation. In everything they need to be as informed as they can, not using merely their own biases as guidelines. Generally, as in all matters, they would represent the authority of Christ Himself, and they would need to lean on the gifts that He endows them with. They would need to be as informed as they could manage. 

It also seems to me that music itself hardly ever figures into the equation. It only appears to. It is used as a smokescreen for other things. And those things are often quite subtle. Stopping the music won't itself stop the thrust, but on the other hand, enforcing a musical standard for a time takes away the vehicle often used in our time to bring in new ideas. 

I think that music is an expression, an art form. One has to look at the presentation of music to see what it is saying, both in the lyrics and in the way the music is presented. I just don't believe that blaring in God's ear is very respectful of His majesty. 

Just because I like this or that, that doesn't mean that it makes it praiseworthy to God. And the other is also true, just because I don't like this or that, that doesn't mean that it is not praiseworthy. But we think nothing of offending the sensibilities of others in our music anymore, and that is a statement of our culture. 

My first hearing of "Londonderry Aire" was to the words of Psalm 103, so very fitting together. I still like it. But the elders have mostly decided that it is not fitting for worship services. And I can respect that ruling, now knowing more about the history of the music. Even bar songs have their origins from very earnest and expressive sources, but turned into debauched uses. 

There are a lot of things to think about concerning the music of worship. But I think the most of it would be judging of the cultural emphases.


----------



## Saiph (Nov 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Saiph_
> ...



Excellent point.


----------



## kceaster (Nov 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by gwine_
> *Kevin*
> 
> From an earlier post:
> ...



The seven perfect tones are alphabetically C, D, E, F, G, A, and B. All the other tones are diminished or augmented between the primary tones. I'm not sure what they are numerically, but I believe that they are expressed in numerical terms.

KC


----------



## Robin (Nov 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Kevin,
> 
> What are those 7 natural tones ? What frequency ?
> ...



Having studied "the Pag" for years....(the 24th is especially stunning!) you could only be blessed and empowered to pursue it.

Legends of his "demonic possession" comes from superstition. Back then, he was the first violinist to employ unique fingerings to achieve such astonishing music. He was a maverick; the violin experienced major development due to Paganini's experimentations and attitude. His eccentricities were not unreasonable. He had to play for rude, indulgent gentry and royalty that were bored with such refinements as virtuoso musicians. Once, Paganini was so exasperated at people talking during his performance at an aristocrat's house concert, he ripped-off 3 of the 4 violin strings; turned the instrument upside down and played a caprice on the one string that was left! (jaw-dropping) Sort of akin to Richie Blackmore smashing his guitar to get a rise out of the audience. Only in this case, Pag was playing a Stradivarius. It wouldn't be nice to smash one of those.



r.


----------



## Saiph (Nov 9, 2005)

Robin, 

My question is really, can we redeem pagan music to use in the worship of God ? Were Luther's tavern hymns an example of this ?


----------



## kceaster (Nov 10, 2005)

*Mark...*

Luther did not have any tavern hymns. A bar song is not a song sung in a tavern, it is a musical form. "A Mighty Fortress is Our God," has the following "bars". Sing these musical lines, and you'll see why they belong to the same bar.

Bar A - A Mighty Fortress is Our God
Our Helper He amidst the flood

Bar B - A bulwark never failing
Of mortal ills prevailing
On earth is not his equal

Bar C - For still our ancient foe

Bar D - Doth seek to work his woe

Bar E - His craft and power are great

Bar F - And armed with cruel hate

This is a bar form. Hymns are rife with this form.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Saiph (Nov 10, 2005)

My point is that the tune came from secular music. Can we use secular music adn put religious words to it ?

Can I use music from Shostakovich in church ? Can I put the words of Amazing grace to the tune of "House of the rising sun" and sing it in church ?

Is there anything wrong with that ?


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Nov 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by AdamM_
> ...



If this is the case, then there is intrinsically a cultural element in the process of music selection, right? What a congegation needs in one culture, may be expressed differently then the need of a congregation in another culture. Does that sound right? 

But what do we do with multi-cultural churches? And how does this reflect the worship practice of the universal church? We should always be moving toward the ideal in heaven when we shall all sing the same music and language. How can we do that here and now? Just keep our differences and understand that they are what they are, cultural necessity, not permanently established laws of music?


----------



## kceaster (Nov 10, 2005)

*Mark...*



> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> My point is that the tune came from secular music. Can we use secular music adn put religious words to it ?
> 
> Can I use music from Shostakovich in church ? Can I put the words of Amazing grace to the tune of "House of the rising sun" and sing it in church ?
> ...



Quoting Peter Masters



> Luther was a great composer himself, and also an adapter of other works. We read in Robert Harrell´s work, _Martin Luther: His Music, His Message_ that Luther wrote thirty seven chorales, fifteen of which he composed himself. Thirteen were derived from Latin hymns or church music. Four were taken from German religious folk songs. Only one out of the thirty seven came from a secular folk song. This hardly justifies the idea that Luther helped himself wholesale to secular sources. And in the case of the one drawn from a secular folk song, it is probable that the world had stolen that melody from the church, and Luther merely reclaimed it (totally adapting and sanitizing it). Dr. Peter M. Masters, "œThe Sword and the Trowel" Vol. 71 No. 1 1999 - Worship In The Melting Pot - Part 3, Back to Bible Worship: What Really Happened at Corinth?



The "fact" that Luther brought secular music into the church is an urban legend. Masters says that it cannot be verified.

I have argued before, that music, which has a deep emotional draw, cannot be associated with the church once it has been associated with the world, WITHOUT bringing with it the sinful connections with which it was created. Our flesh is feeble enough. We do not need associations of "House of the Rising Sun," mixed with words about God's amazing grace. It should not be done because our minds remember the sins God says He forgets.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## gwine (Nov 10, 2005)

> I have argued before, that music, which has a deep emotional draw, cannot be associated with the church once it has been associated with the world, WITHOUT bringing with it the sinful connections with which it was created. Our flesh is feeble enough. We do not need associations of "House of the Rising Sun," mixed with words about God's amazing grace. It should not be done because our minds remember the sins God says He forgets.



But everything we do is associated with the world. Someone who was DUI and kills because of an accident is going to be reminded of her sinfulness every time she gets in a car, drives past a tavern, sees a little boy just like the one she killed, etc. So should she avoid cars or kids? (taverns - yes) God's amazing grace will have to come out of the forgiveness He extends to her, not out of the things of the world.

I am having difficulty seeing how secular music cannot be used for worship, provided the words are scriptural and the music can be sung by the congregation. _Amazing Grace_ to the tune of _The House of the Rising Sung_ would not fit the second, but listening to it sung as a duet was pretty neat for me 35+ years ago and would still be today. The only association I would make is, "Hey, they used the tune _The House of the Rising Sun_. Neato!


----------



## Saiph (Nov 10, 2005)

> I have argued before, that music, which has a deep emotional draw, cannot be associated with the church once it has been associated with the world, WITHOUT bringing with it the sinful connections with which it was created. Our flesh is feeble enough. We do not need associations of "House of the Rising Sun," mixed with words about God's amazing grace. It should not be done because our minds remember the sins God says He forgets.



That is what I was looking for. I will have to consider this more.


Check this out:

Amazing Grace


----------



## kceaster (Nov 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by gwine_
> 
> 
> > I have argued before, that music, which has a deep emotional draw, cannot be associated with the church once it has been associated with the world, WITHOUT bringing with it the sinful connections with which it was created. Our flesh is feeble enough. We do not need associations of "House of the Rising Sun," mixed with words about God's amazing grace. It should not be done because our minds remember the sins God says He forgets.
> ...



I realize that every analogy breaks down eventually, just like a Ford.  But you can't really compare driving with an element of worship. And here's the key for those of us who hold to the RPW, God has prescribed singing, just as He also prescribed every other element. Now if He forbade Israel to use anything from Egypt in their worship, we have to assume that their music was included. How much sense does it make that God should preclude the worship of the nations, while at the same time, accepting the tunes to which His Word is sung.

I would also argue that secular music is a worship song. It is sung to whatever gods there may be. I think music has that quality about it. If one sings to His lover, he is worshipping her in some fashion. If this is the case, and it may be a big "if" for you, then wouldn't it follow that the music of the church be completely separate from the nations? In fact, the music that exists today has really been stolen from the church and twisted to its own ends. And I say, why do we want it back? I think the answer is purely subjective. We like the way it sounds or makes us feel. Sorry, but it ain't about us. And, I'm sure you would agree with that.

To me, this isn't an argument about Christian Liberty. Anything touching the corporate worship of the church is God's liberty, not ours. While we have latitude, we do not have liberty, and so we need to ensure that the music we offer God is the purest it can be. This side of heaven, that's pretty difficult. But at the very least, we should know that we shouldn't take music from the world and bring it into the church. The great hymns and tunes of 300-500 years ago were composed under the purview of the church, they were not taken from the world. As Masters suggests, if they do resemble secular music it is because they were reclaimed after having been stolen.

Now does that mean we have to use music from 300-500 years ago? Can't we use something more recent? Yes. And there are new compositions even now.

But as has been suggested, the music of worship is under the purview of the church and her officers and so, whatever music we use, we should ensure that it is the purest available. We should not offer God the dregs of this world, but the finest music from regenerate hearts.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## alwaysreforming (Nov 10, 2005)

I just heard the song from your link....

talk about boring! And it doesn't seem like it would lend itself AT ALL to congregational singing.

And on this topic, my old chuch (mega) used to say, "Hey, its all God's music, whether its secular, gospel, hymns, etc. We're gonna do everything here 'cause its all God's anyway!"

I wasn't swayed by that argumentation. They would actually do pure secular songs if they thought there was ANY way they could make the stretch about how it fit in! I was grieved by it.

I like what Patrick said about the "cultural element". That is true. What constitutes good music in one culture may not necessarily hold true in another. Perhaps as long as we're making the most reverential and beautiful music we can according to contemporary cultural practices, we're doing alright. If a backwoods tribesman came to worship God, and his whole clan followed him, what would their words and music sound like? Probably, whatever was reverential and beautiful TO THEM. I think that's alright.

Now, when we have "multi-cultural" areas, how do we harmonize this? I'm not sure, but I'm sure the answer doesn't lie in appealing to the lowest common cultural denominator. Perhaps we appeal to the highest, this seems to make sense.


----------



## Saiph (Nov 10, 2005)

Christopher,

Whether you like the song or not, do you think it is wrong to have secular music, like even a Chopin prelude, in church ? Should christians only write original music ? And if so should we even use secular music for inspiration ?


----------



## alwaysreforming (Nov 10, 2005)

Hmmmm.... you raise a very good question, Grasshopper!

I'm going to go out on a limb and say...

No, it ISN'T necessarily wrong to use "secular" music sources and inspiration for the "music" portion of our worship. The "words" should be distinctly and particularly Christian, however.

For one, the "music" itself can't be necessarily Christian because there is not enough "content" that music can carry to express the theme that Jesus alone saves, etc.

Under our cultural mandate, we are to subject the world and ourselves to the kingdom rule of Christ Jesus. Just as we could take a secular tree and fashion a beautiful wooden cross from it, can't we take also the fruits of those men who are created in God's image, and bring the beauty they've created to help lift up our praise, adoration, and thanksgiving to God?

Beautiful music is beautiful music. A Christian can write crappy music. I hear it all day long on the "Christian" radio station. And "secular" musicians can write awesome music, just look at all the great composers, even the ones who were Christians might not have been writing music for the express and sole use of the Church.

Now, if we are going to bring in "pop" music, then I think we have to be EXTREMELY careful! By its very nature, it seems to appeal to the "here and now", and usually lacks the elements that have already been delineated in the posts above as being requisite for God-glorifying music.

And if you're asking specifically, if we should take already well-known secular songs and simply change the words to become Christian songs in worship, then I think we'd have to hold them up to a very high standard and judge whether or not they meet the criteria we have already set as being reverential, weighty, beautiful, majestic, etc. AND whether the need is really there to do so in the first place.

Plus, if the song is in any way overtly sinful (either by the lives of the composers, the content of the original song, the supposed inspiration of the original song, the subject matter, etc) then it should not even be considered. 
And even some music genre's can be automatically excluded, like metal, as it is usually associated with the sounds people would attribute to the Devil. (You could survey a 100 people walking by, play a song, and ask, "If you had to pick, would you say this music sounds more reverential or ungodly?" The vast majority would say "ungodly", so please no one try to argue this point.)


----------



## JohnV (Nov 10, 2005)

We don't have a ditto smiley big enough for me to ditto Kevin's post. Great job, Kevin; well said.

I'd like to contribute a quote from a book about slavery, written by Julius Lester, published by Scholastic Inc. 


> One of the more constant tools that the slaves used to resist the spiritual brutality of slavery was music. In Africa music is not an art form as much as it is a means of communication. It was the same for the descendants of Africa. Quite often the words of a song are meaningless and are used only because of their tonal and rhythmic value. The music of Africa is highly improvisational and a song is rarely sung twice in the same way. The slaves did not lose this improvisational ability when they fused their musical heritage with Western music they found in America.



This section goes on to explain the instruments they used, and from what means they made them while having nothing of their own, and where and how they expressed these songs. Many songs were codes for messages they wanted to get around to other slaves. They used these songs both for worship as well as a secret public notice board, because they were so restricted in what they were allowed to do. There was as much a need to secretly get together for worship as there was need to secretly get together to party. It was their only relief from their subhuman existence as slaves. 

Anyways, with that brief explanation, look carefully at the way Mr. Lester puts the situation. Very expressively put. It appears to be a contradiction at first, a communication tool where words don't always have meaning. But its not. That was exactly the point. The music, where the words had to hide the real intent, and as much veil the message as give it, was something that only they knew about, a message all its own. 

This teaches us something about the impact of music, and the uses of it. It is likely a mistake to take the idea that the African music was not an art form at all, and Mr. Lester doesn't say that either. He just said is was not an art form _as much as_ it was a communication tool. And that, if you consider carefully, is the same for us as well. 

As an aside, in regard to Amazing Grace to House of the Rising Sun, the audio clip was an individualized rendition, not a sing-with style at all. But think about this: isn't it better to sing Am I a Soldier of the Cross to that melody in a minor key? And where do you draw the line? Does the melody only need to be reminiscent of that seedy song to bring in its remembrance to the worship of God? 

I have a rendition of  Am I a Soldier where the melody is built on almost the same chords as Rising Sun, but is a bit different. And I put it together with Amazing Grace, intertwining the verses and the music of each. I go from a minor key setting to a major key setting, and back again. And Rising Sun gets lost in the mix. The music is somewhat utilized, though not the same, and it is put into a different setting. It is both worshipful in impact, as well as expressive of faith and personal and corporate prayer. But it is very far from being included in public worship. It is still, at this stage, an individual expression, performance-wise. 

Why did I do it? Because the music was there to do it with. Both the tunes and the words fit very well together, as well as putting the two songs together to express my personal trials. For me it was a great comfort that I could approach God with my personal struggles through this means as well as my prayers. That was my only motive.

[Edited on 11-10-2005 by JohnV]


----------



## Saiph (Nov 10, 2005)

> Now if He forbade Israel to use anything from Egypt in their worship, we have to assume that their music was included. How much sense does it make that God should preclude the worship of the nations, while at the same time, accepting the tunes to which His Word is sung.



Gospel purity within the ordained structure of tabernacle/temple worship was important before Christ came. What about now ? What is the determining factor for propriety ? Gospel purity remains, but what about form ?

Is putting the words of a Psalm to a secular tune the same thing as dancing around a fire with bones through our noses ?

Do we know what style of music God likes ?


And JohnV, I enjoyed your post. Good point on the juxtaposition of major/minor keys and a song like HOTRS. To me, that song emphasises the grace even more. The melody boasts nothing of our works, and sounds like it is being sung in prison. However, I would like the song to progress towards a major key theme as each verse is sung in succession.



[Edited on 11-10-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## JohnV (Nov 10, 2005)

In reference to tavern songs, there are two things to remember. There is a difference between the art and the vulgar use; and even tavern songs have to have the background of proper music, owing to it its very existence. Taverns were not just places to get drunk. And music was means of escape as much as the liquor was. But that did not necessarily over-ride the more needy side that the people sought, which often the church not only refused to provide for, but often punished its people for. There was a reason why people braved the daring ocean passage to get to the "free" world. For those who stayed behind, taverns were much more than places to get drunk and to insult the nobility and the church through songs. These abuses prevailed, to be sure, but for many it was less heathen than the "church" setting they were forced to endure. 

I'm just saying that a "tavern" song isn't always a bad thing just because it is a tavern song. Look at Londonderry Aire; its gone from a folk song, to a tavern song, to a church psalm, back to a folk song, and, in some places, back to a tavern song. Did you hear Johnny Cash's version of this typically tenor-sung song? Incredible. For me, his last CD catapulted him far above any idea I had of him as a musician, and I was a Johnny Cash fan. After that, is it a tavern song anymore? I just don't see how I could think so. 

There is so much to music that remains to be explored, just in the tunes and harmonies that already exist. Kevin is right about suggesting that music hit a high point when churches commissioned its own music, just at the time when music was a highly disciplined art form. We really never need anything more than what we now call Classical music. A lot of modern music is "borrowed" from it, and what isn't still owes almost everything to it. The Great Hymns of Faith are not just recent innovations, even though it has names attached to it, like Fanny Crosby. Many go back, way back, but are redone, rewritten, reinvented, and passed on from generation to generation. Luther's hymns are a good example of recapturing a past tradition of hymns and putting them into contemporary use. 


Well, this is how I feel about music. In a way music is very personal, and in a way it is never merely personal. Both are true to me.


----------



## JohnV (Nov 10, 2005)

> _from Mark_
> I would like the song to progress towards a major key theme as each verse is sung in succession.



That's what I do in my rendition. I do a few verses of Am I a Soldier, and then only one of Amazing Grace, and then slowly turn the emphasis the other way around. It begins with the major emphasis on the minor key and the struggle, and works toward the emphasis on the major key and the solid comfort.


----------



## Saiph (Nov 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> 
> 
> > _from Mark_
> ...



Very cool. Would love to hear it some time.



> We really never need anything more than what we now call Classical music.



Exactly. What can be done today that Bach, Mozart, Paganini, Shostkovich, Prokofiev, etc . . . has not already exhausted ?

We are redeeming music, not inventing it.


----------



## JohnV (Nov 10, 2005)

> Would love to hear it some time.


No you don't. What I say I do, and what my intentions are, and what I try to do, are all different things when I put them all together. I have fun with it, and it helps me say things to God and to myself, but I'm just a twanger.


----------



## Saiph (Nov 10, 2005)

I have often wondered if the most complex Bach partita sounds like a rusty broken music box to the divine ear. Or if the most stunning Rembrant painting looks like one of my kids crayon scribbles hanging on my fridge.


----------



## gwine (Nov 10, 2005)

> I realize that every analogy breaks down eventually, just like a Ford. But you can't really compare driving with an element of worship. And here's the key for those of us who hold to the RPW, God has prescribed singing, just as He also prescribed every other element. Now if He forbade Israel to use anything from Egypt in their worship, we have to assume that their music was included. How much sense does it make that God should preclude the worship of the nations, while at the same time, accepting the tunes to which His Word is sung
> 
> I would also argue that secular music is a worship song. It is sung to whatever gods there may be. I think music has that quality about it. If one sings to His lover, he is worshipping her in some fashion. If this is the case, and it may be a big "if" for you, then wouldn't it follow that the music of the church be completely separate from the nations? In fact, the music that exists today has really been stolen from the church and twisted to its own ends. And I say, why do we want it back? I think the answer is purely subjective. We like the way it sounds or makes us feel. Sorry, but it ain't about us. And, I'm sure you would agree with that.



Yes, I would agree that worship is never about us. I just have difficulty seeing why we should separate the music into church and non-church.



> To me, this isn't an argument about Christian Liberty. Anything touching the corporate worship of the church is God's liberty, not ours. While we have latitude, we do not have liberty, and so we need to ensure that the music we offer God is the purest it can be. This side of heaven, that's pretty difficult. But at the very least, we should know that we shouldn't take music from the world and bring it into the church. The great hymns and tunes of 300-500 years ago were composed under the purview of the church, they were not taken from the world. As Masters suggests, if they do resemble secular music it is because they were reclaimed after having been stolen.
> 
> Now does that mean we have to use music from 300-500 years ago? Can't we use something more recent? Yes. And there are new compositions even now.



And how do you decide what is pure? Because a "Christian composer" wrote it?



> But as has been suggested, the music of worship is under the purview of the church and her officers and so, whatever music we use, we should ensure that it is the purest available. We should not offer God the dregs of this world, but the finest music from regenerate hearts.
> 
> In Christ,
> 
> KC



Well, I'm outside my league, again. We will just have to be friends in the end. 

Thanks for all your comments.


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by alwaysreforming_
> I just heard the song from your link....
> 
> And it doesn't seem like it would lend itself AT ALL to congregational singing.



For me, this is the biggest factor. The vast majority of _good_ contemporary music (especially contemporary Christian, as opposed to retreaded '70s elevator music) is very hard to sing congregationally. It just isn't written for congregational singing. That doesn't make it bad music _per se_, but it does make it bad for worship. That should not surprise us, since most artists perform by themselves, rather than in large groups.


----------



## kceaster (Nov 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> 
> 
> > Now if He forbade Israel to use anything from Egypt in their worship, we have to assume that their music was included. How much sense does it make that God should preclude the worship of the nations, while at the same time, accepting the tunes to which His Word is sung.
> ...



Well, I would say that our worship is even more pure now and that the protection and care we take of it is even more important. All of this is because of Christ. We now enter through the veil that is His body. So it is even more important now that we worship in the purest sense possible.

If care was taken when the shadow reigned, much more care should be taken now that it is lifted. We have more light, and therefore, more responsibility. We have a fuller measure of both Spirit and truth, so I feel that it elevates everything we do in worship.

That shouldn't lead to more of the world in our service. That is going backwards. Since we are ushered in to the very throne room of God, why should we want to take the world or anything in it, with us?



In Christ,

KC


----------



## kceaster (Nov 10, 2005)

*Gerry...*

Thanks for your thoughts as well.

Blessings,

KC


----------



## Saiph (Nov 10, 2005)

> If care was taken when the shadow reigned, much more care should be taken now that it is lifted. We have more light, and therefore, more responsibility. We have a fuller measure of both Spirit and truth, so I feel that it elevates everything we do in worship.
> 
> That shouldn't lead to more of the world in our service. That is going backwards. Since we are ushered in to the very throne room of God, why should we want to take the world or anything in it, with us?



Very true, however, my question is more in line with pagan music of avirtuoso vs. Pop.

Is Mahler ok to emulate, but not Coldplay ?

Some of the most spiritual music I have heard is actually bluegrass . . . .


----------



## kevin.carroll (Nov 10, 2005)

Did you guys know you can actually sing Amazing Grace to the tune of the Gilligan's Island theme? LOL


----------



## ReadBavinck (Nov 10, 2005)

I'm right with you on the bluegrass Mark. While there is some terrible bluegrass cheese, e.g. some gaither gathering stuff; to hear Ralph Stanley sing is amazing. I think some of his music carries the weightiness, reverential quality, and beauty that we seek in worship.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Nov 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> ...



In light of my last post here... (I think the discussion about types of music are nice, but) I would like to move the discussion back more towards objective standards by which to decide out tunes as I asked above. At what point do we acknowledge the cultural element as necessary, and at what point do we say the cultural divide is an excuse to hold to old traditions?


----------



## Saiph (Nov 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by CJ_Chelpka_
> I'm right with you on the bluegrass Mark. While there is some terrible bluegrass cheese, e.g. some gaither gathering stuff; to hear Ralph Stanley sing is amazing. I think some of his music carries the weightiness, reverential quality, and beauty that we seek in worship.


----------



## Saiph (Nov 10, 2005)

> In light of my last post here... (I think the discussion about types of music are nice, but) I would like to move the discussion back more towards objective standards by which to decide out tunes as I asked above. At what point do we acknowledge the cultural element as necessary, and at what point do we say the cultural divide is an excuse to hold to old traditions?



I wonder the same thing. I have no answer. I tend to want to play what is reverent, uncampy, and acessible to the majority of untrained singers in the congregation.


----------



## ReadBavinck (Nov 10, 2005)

These are my thoughts before I state some objective standards. I know, its long. . .

The vocabulary of music is like the vocabulary of English. The note "˜E´ by itself communicates almost nothing. But add a "˜G´ and a "˜B´ and you have a minor chord. Now this chord says a little more than the single note, but put it in a chord progression or add rhythmic figure and you are on your way to something meaningful.

Words are similar. The letter "˜w´ communicates little by itself unless you add something like "˜ish´ to the end. Put the word "˜wish´ in the phrase "œWhen You Wish Upon a Star" and the brain kicks into high gear. Something very meaningful has been communicated.

(Painters, sculptors, and others have their vocabulary as well.)

So my first point is that there is nothing inherent in the basics of a language that can rule it out. 

Secondly, just as different regions have different languages, in the traditional sense), so do they have different musical languages. Now these languages can either glorify God or not. And I would argue that some have an easier time and better ways of doing this than others. 

In metropolitan city in the US has many ways of talking about cars, roads, driving, etc. Where a remote village in a South American Rainforest would not. It would take them more knowledge, experience, and practice to communicate at the same level we do on the subject. (Not that we would want them too.) 

Let´s suppose this did happen. This doesn´t mean that they would have to change their alphabet to communicate about transportation, but words must be added and modified to do this. They may even incorporate words form other languages, as we often do in English, to fit the need.

I think the same is true of music. Some cultures (including cultures within periods of time) have expended much time and effort developing ways music can be used to glorify God. As has been mentioned it was certainly a high point when musicians were commissioned to do this.

The Puritans did this with language. Their metaphors, syntax, and plain style can cut me to the core. In the same way we must develop ways of doing communicating musically. This is not to say that we have none. The West is rich with ways to do this. And masters like Old Bach have taught us tons.

Using our own musical language found both within and without the church (and borrowing from others when we need to) we must reflect the character of God in our worship, and our appropriate response to His character. Therefore, worship music must use whatever musical language we have available to point to his beauty, design, and majesty. And it should reflect our proper response of love, fear, assurane, and reverance.

So while there is no single style or more specifically"”no single piece"”which best communicates what we wish in worship, there are certainly degrees to which some ways are better than others. So how do we decide what is appropriate and what is not?

Here is a couple of ideas:

First, I think what Fred says about the ease of congregational singing is valid. It is important that we can sing together what we want to sing together. This rule helps eliminate much of the world´s self-focused style. The importance of congregational singing is one reason Tenth Pres. educates the flock musically"”a great idea. This allows the congregation to do more than they would be able to otherwise. http://www.tenth.org/index.php?id=23

Second, we must, as David Wells has been teaching us, learn about our culture. What motifs are there that we should avoid bringing into our church (e.g. seeking for meaning in randomness)? What stylistic characteristics are inappropriate for the church (e.g. the rhythmic moans of R&B)? What meanings currently reside with certain intervals, rhythmic patterns, phrases, etc. (e.g. "œcartoon" percussion sounds)? How strong are the connections between the music and the artist who composed it? What musically in the culture can point to God´s character and our response to it?


----------



## JohnV (Nov 10, 2005)

I can't answer that beyond the fact that I believe that when culture becomes a definition of music, as opposed to music being a definition of the culture, then music becomes a vehicle for customizing religious beliefs to the culture through the conveyance of music. In other words, conforming modern music from other uses, for the sake of worship, is entirely backwards. To me this defines music as a worldy practice, and worldly endeavour, a worldly art. And it just can't be that. 

One thing the Presuppositionalists have right is that a lot of cultural and epistemological roots lie in the religious persuasions that underlies the cultural and epistemological philosophies. I don't agree with the "no neutrality" idea altogether, but I do agree with this. And music relates that in one form. To "redeem", say, Rock from the world of Rock is counterproductive. The music speaks the message as well as the words. And just to put it to Christian use is neither musical nor redeeming. 

We do not have an objective standard other than to judge the music itself for its message. That requires knowledge of music. Not just modern education in music, but knowledge of the whole of music. It is part of the created order, not part of the fallen nature. The Fall's evil nature makes full use of the impact music has, for its own purposes, but redeeming music is much, much more than simply using the same music for other purposes. 

I agree with Fred that a lot of contemporary Christian music is not sing-with music. The man I learned music from was a congregational organist, something altogether different than a concert organist. The songs not only have to be singable for congregations, but they have to be led properly too. There is a right way and a wrong way. Ability to play the music is not enough. But I would go further than Fred by saying that much of the comtemporary music is also marketable and marketed stuff, not always creative. It echoes or mimics teh culture rather than expresses Biblical impositions upon the culture through music. But it is a very hard thing to put a finger on. There is no real objective measure by which to judge those musicians other than to try to understand their music by their lives, by their practices, by their doctrines. How do you say whether someone is just following the crowd, the culture, or is driving culture with his songs? We don't know until later, generally. But the issue is whether we are bringing the worldly influences into the worship of God, or bringing the gospel, the church influence, out to the world.


----------



## Saiph (Nov 10, 2005)

> It is part of the created order, not part of the fallen nature.



Reminded me of this:



> At A Solemn Music - by John Milton
> 
> Blest pair of Sirens, pledges of Heaven's joy,
> Sphere-born harmonious sisters, Voice and Verse,
> ...



I think you are on to something JV.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Nov 10, 2005)

Well, I think we can all agree, no matter what culture we are in, that the absolutely wrong motive for selecting tunes is, "This is what _I_ like." Unfortunately, that is where most churches are at, even conservative presbyterians... It's that whole homogenous church growth movement influence haunting us. "I want to worship with songs I like, and with people who are like me," whether that is traditional tunes or newer stuff. 

We would all agree that the elders ultimately are responsible for the tunes, adjusting to the appropriate need of the congregation. I'm still wondering how this would work in a multi-cultural church, (i.e. like an inner city church).

Perhaps, because of the major subjective element involved here, we must remain humble, even when the church selects a tune or style, especially when the church down the block differs and we can't justify why they should differ. We should always have a reason for why we worship the way we do, and it must be biblically based. But it would appear, that because of the variation in community expression, bible believing reformed Christians could still end up with different music following the exact same guidelines. 

But, I don't want to end up "post-modern" either when it comes to worship, that anything goes because there is no objective standard to use so we should just stick with preference. God cares how He is worshipped. 

I really would like to work on objective lines transcending cultures. It bothers me that I could go into an African church and it would probably be uncomfortable singing there to drums, but it shouldn't be that way. I suppose understanding other's cultural expressions of reverence would help the awkwardness. 

I don't know.... anyone else struggle with this?


----------



## ReadBavinck (Nov 10, 2005)

Patrick,

I think you're right to say that "understanding other's cultural expressions of reverence would help the awkwardness." Just as understanding another's cultural expressions would help in understanding sermons.

I also agree that this is a struggle. I'm finding it hard to find objective lines that transcend culture when I know so little about so many other cultures.


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> Well, I think we can all agree, no matter what culture we are in, that the absolutely wrong motive for selecting tunes is, "This is what _I_ like." Unfortunately, that is where most churches are at, even conservative presbyterians... It's that whole homogenous church growth movement influence haunting us. "I want to worship with songs I like, and with people who are like me," whether that is traditional tunes or newer stuff.
> 
> We would all agree that the elders ultimately are responsible for the tunes, adjusting to the appropriate need of the congregation. I'm still wondering how this would work in a multi-cultural church, (i.e. like an inner city church).
> ...



Patrick,

It is alright if it bothers you - initially. You should be more concerned that it bothers you that it bothers you. 

We do that all the time with matters of complete adiaphora - food, clothing, colors of houses, etc. Differences in culture are not a bad thing. That is one of the strengths of the gospel, that it brings together what other things divide.

Spoken as an Italian New Yorker who preaches in the Mississippi Delta...


----------



## Robin (Nov 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> Well, I think we can all agree, no matter what culture we are in, that the absolutely wrong motive for selecting tunes is, "This is what _I_ like." Unfortunately, that is where most churches are at, even conservative presbyterians... It's that whole homogenous church growth movement influence haunting us. "I want to worship with songs I like, and with people who are like me," whether that is traditional tunes or newer stuff.
> 
> We would all agree that the elders ultimately are responsible for the tunes, adjusting to the appropriate need of the congregation. I'm still wondering how this would work in a multi-cultural church, (i.e. like an inner city church).
> ...



Patrick, it would be challenging to visit another culture and eat worms (if worms was a staple in their diet.) Of course, it's a struggle to embrace something different than what we're raised with.

Meanwhile, please know, however....there ARE churches that do have appropriate musical expression in worship. It IS possible. Music transcends cultures: for bad or good, btw. There are skilled artisans out there.


There's so much to say....I think a distinction should be made about use of drums. In world-music (all sorts) the use of drums is primarily for war-themes, mourning and worship of false deities. Drum music bypasses intellectual filters and is sensually direct whereas melodic/harmonic features of music must pass through the intellect.

A tipdbit: the cultural music of Africa doesn't always have drums, btw. The best African music (Ladysmith Mombazo)http://www.mambazo.com/disc.html is highly melodic/harmonic choral. A rare beauty! These guys happen to be Chrstians; note the "King of Kings" and "Golgotha" tracks. This is their worship music (a PBS documentary showed the guys in their churches.)

But guess what....though the group has Christians in it, they are NOT a "Christian band." They are fulfilling their God-given calling of being good musicians. The term "soul music" takes on new meaning here.



r.


----------



## Robin (Nov 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> ...



 Fred. A sign that God is calling *one* race together (the human race) for a "new society" of His own. The sense of discomfort is to be expected.



r.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 21, 2005)

I received the book I mentioned above today; looks to be a good addition for anyone to have on the specific subject of the Regulative Principle of Worship applied to the area of Musical Instruments in public worship, even if it is by a Baptist. 
*John Price, Old Light on New Worship Musical Instruments and the Worship of God, a Theological, Historical and Psychological Study*. See link above to an article at Banner of Truth and to the publisher.

[Edited on 11-21-2005 by NaphtaliPress]


----------

