AUDIO
 |
Phillip Jensen speaks on Anger as part of a series on emotions in the Christian life, delivered at the Australia Day Convention 2010
|
When I was nine years old, I wrote my first song. My uncle, Simon, taught me three chords on my budget nylon-string guitar, and I put my words to music. Here’s the chorus:
A big strawberry pudding,
A big strawberry pudding,
A big strawberry pudding went splat right into my eye.
Hardly Lennon/McCartney or even Stock/Aitken/Waterman. But, I guess, you’ve got to start somewhere.
My next foray into music was in the church context. In year eight, I brought along my guitar to youth group. I still knew only three chords (and the truth). But each week, as new songs were introduced, I added some other chords to my musical vocabulary so that I could be more useful in the ‘Teens Club’ band.
One of the best ways for a young person to get involved with church music is to get them to jump into the water and start swimming (so to speak).
At my church, kids from Sunday school play a song once or twice a term during the family service. They practice straight after church for the few weeks leading up to their ‘gig’, and lead the congregation in the song in the opening minutes of the service (before they head out to their children’s program). The kids play the drums, piano, bass, sax and flute, as well as the upfront song leading.
They’ve got a long way to go, but it’s giving them a practical on-the-role experience, which provides them with a desire to serve and improve.
Our youth group does a similar thing. During school holidays some of our youth group students combine with their leaders to run the music at our evening church. The regulars in our band appreciate the break, and because it’s our ‘youth band’, the church is usually patient and forgiving when they ‘improvise’.
It is with teenagers like these in mind that Youthworks and Emu Music have launched a new week-long camp to encourage and develop our up-and-coming church musos. ‘TWIST Emerge’ will run from 17-23 January 2010 and is limited to only 60 high-school students.
What steps are you taking to develop the next generation of church musos? How does your church nurture the young musicians and train them to serve well?
Seriously though, thanks for the post Jodie. Training younger musicians is something I am constantly thinking through how to do better. I will probably use the idea of getting them up to do the first song at some stage in the future.
I think that camp sounds like an excellent idea! I hope it goes well.
Simple, John. I reiterate my constructive suggestion: encourage Church musicians to receive the highest quality of training, at tertiary level, in the theory, history and practice of what might be termed 'learned musics' (art-music and its improvisatory brother, jazz). Avoid the cultural trend towards 'dumbing down'; discourage mediocrity and simple-minded popularism. The question should be: 'What music is pleasing to God?', not 'What pleases the majority of pewsitters?'. (Coincidentally, I was involved in music ministry and training some years ago at your own church, where I tried, with some success, to 'raise the bar' of musical standards beyond Hillsong-like rubbish.)
For anybody interested: read Dan Lucarini's book Why I Left ... about the recent Christian music scene for a damning critique of its profane 'contemporary' styles.
Bring back the congregational singing of harmonies; create NEW styles with artistic depth, intelligence and sophistication - as certain ethnic groups have done in the past (think Polynesia, 'gospel', etc.).
Ian, I may be reading you incorrectly, but it seems you are uncomfortable with various forms of contemporary music. All our musical tastes are subjective and diverse. Your post #3 - does "classical" = "art" = the only good music for church in our contemporary world?
Meanwhile, back to how we can engage emerging musicans. Anyone have other ideas?
Regardless, I think that you introduce a false dichotomy between music that 'pleases God' and music that 'pleases the majority of pew sitters'. A huge part of church music is that it needs to be edifying to those present, and that means that the style ought to please those people in some sense. People tend to be less easily edified by music that they find culturally embarrassing or too 'high-brow', etc. It is precisely about serving those gathering with us. Personally I sometimes get bored to death playing the same four chords for church songs that I don't even like at a musical level, but if I am convinced that this serves God's people by helping them to praise God together and edify one another, then it is my pleasure to be bored.
Sorry to say, but you have missed the point entirely: what you call my "false dichotomy" is anything but false. So-called 'contemporary' church-musics (and even its instruments!) inherently carry with them nowadays profane cultural baggage or associations that would surely be displeasing to God - irrespective of the pewsitters' tastes. They lack reverence or soul, so are in no way proscuneo - true worship. Read the Lucarini book.
That's why I advocate the creation of something NEW, excellent, and 'untainted' (in the way that art-music, hymns, etc. are these days perceived to be relatively 'clean', culturally speaking). It can be done!
For example: Outside the Church, the marvellous, artful, harmonically and melodically sophisticated bossa nova genre from the 1950s was forged by a handful of talented and knowledgeable Brazilian musicians. It was fresh, unsullied, immensely popular yet high-quality. We need something analogous.
You would, of course, not want profanity in God's house. The stuff I'm railing against carries that burden, alas. Also, by playing it in church, we're not proffering to God the very best fruits of human creativity (such as J. S. Bach's church cantatas) but among the worst. You may try to dismiss that assertion as subjective opinion, but, as a long-time composer myself, I tell you that artistic 'taste' and artistic 'merit' are two entirely distinct animals. (The more expertise one acquires, the more that the latter influences the former.)
Again, read the Lucarini book, which also provides ample proof-texts from Scripture.
'Contemporary' Christian music is like a cancer-ridden camel being sacrificed to God - unclean AND inferior - instead of the very best fatted lamb...
1) 'Unclean'. You make claims that certain genres have 'profane cultural baggage and associations that would surely be displeasing to God'. Please elaborate on 'surely'. It seems to me that the Bible declares all things innately good but profaned by what we do with them. Yet the New Testament does not advocate regarding profaned things as beyond use - far from it! 1 Corinthians 8-10 is about food offered to idols, but Paul does not advocate seeing this food as irreversible contaminated. On the contrary, the only reason not to eat it is where it would cause a brother to stumble. By analogy, I can see no reason why any style of music would be innately 'unclean' for Christian use when food offered to idols (which literally involved the worship of demons!) is OK for Christian consumption.
2) I assume that by speaking of true proskuneo you are alluding to John 4? Interesting the New Testament doesn't associate this term with music, and Jesus certainly isn't talking about music in that instance. The New Testament does not speak of music in the language or 'sacrifice' or 'offering' as you advocate. Neither does it call a church building "God's house". We do not need to view music as an Old Testament sacrifice without blemish.
that does not mean we just do anything - we ought to serve God as well as we can. But I cannot see any reason to place the burden of professional quality music on those who haven't the expertise or the time to pursue it.
3) 'Inferior'. I agree. But a lot of people love such music and are put off by more sophisticated music. The Bible does not advocate putting all our resources into making church music outstanding. This is the age of the gospel, and we should put our resources into proclaiming Christ.
[thanks for the discussion Ian, look forward to hearing your response]
And in church this means that coaching AND discipleship are inextricably connected: a coach of a young muso not only teaches them how to play better, but how to play in a way that serves others rather than drawing attention to themselves. Simply teaching young musos to play is irresponsible: they need to be taught to serve through their playing (an attitude, not just an ability).
At present I am meeting with 2 teenagers at my church for half an hour every few Sundays to teach them how to play various church songs on electric guitar. Another guy is meeting with a teen who wants to play piano at church in the near future. I think that the best way to develop and encourage our young musos is simply to identify some potentials, tell them they should consider it, and then put the time into training them.
ah, because teaching the word of God is much more important than church music?
@Matthew. I'll respond fully when time permits...
The first job I was instructed to do in my ministry training was clean the toilets in the church building. We used a 'no-name' brand of toilet cleaner. Surely, this service I did 'for God' in church didn't exhibit the highest standards possible. I should have used 'toilet duck', or got lessons from a professional cleaner. Apparently, I shouldn't have bothered.
I'm wondering how getting people professionally trained for years on end to play flawless non-contemporary music (which, apparently, is the only God-honouring kind) will make it any easier for churches to avoid 'musicolatry'? I'm also wondering how this could possibly decrease the potential for divisiveness. When "a highly qualified award-winning and well-known professional musician and tertiary educator with over 30 years of professional experience" will (very unprofessionally) use spiteful terms like "anaemic pop/rock junk", "Hillsong-like rubbish" and "profane 'contemporary' styles", what chance have the rest of us contemporary plebs to avoid divisiveness?
Jodie, I couldn't agree more that one of the best ways to get young musicians to improve is to give them lots of live experience. A great deal of what I've learnt has been 'on the fly'. If you're a young musician reading these posts, please DO NOT be fooled into thinking that you need to have a classical education to serve your church congregation well. Johann Sebastian Bach was largely self-taught.
While I grant that to some extent, I don't see edification as necessarily pleasurable in initial apprehension to all and sundry (at times my proper edification can rather take the form of suitably chastening me; for instance, various penitential and imprecatory psalms seem tailored to that purpose.)
Well now, if the toilet was clean afterwards, then you did the job to the highest possible standards.
You obviously haven't read my posts properly.
1. Nowhere have I upheld only non-contemporary music! Indeed, I've repeatedly advocated the creation of something NEW. Only non-profane musics - those not carrying profane associations - are God honouring. When anything becomes divisive in Church, get rid of it. 'Contemporary' Christian music is certainly that. Better to have no music at all...
2. My terminology is neither unprofessional nor spiteful. You obviously need to get out and read more reviews by professionals, because your response betrays your ignorance.
Well, I'm something of a musical autodidact myself (mainly as a performer). But if young musicians follow your advice, then it can be guaranteed that the status quo of mediocrity and profanity will stand, or, worse still, the 'dumbing down' will continue...
As for J. S. Bach ... he studied the work of Buxtehude, and was trained within his own musical family, thereby gaining a thoroughly "classical education". If you want to serve your church better, get one yourself. You might then realise that music involves a bit more that half-a-dozen or so chords being strummed on a guitar.
PS: out of 'quriosity' I ran the "Live out Loud" promo on this website. What a waste of 2 minutes from my life!!! This brainless crud is utterly indistinguishable from its secular, profane counterparts (so much for Christians being countercultural...). And why is this site advertising / pushing such toxic junk??? If this is your vision of Christian music, brother, then count me out.
Returning to 'musicolatry'
Firstly, thank you for taking the time and care! Your responses are indeed excellent and thought-provoking; I'll address them in the order you present them.
1. 'Uncleanness':
Oh, I totally agree. But I never said "innately", rather "inherently carry with them nowadays" [emphasis added]. Have you heard of ethnodoxology? (If not, just ask my friend Greg Anderson at Moore College.) I was introduced to the concept by one of my former music-students at Sydney Uni, Phil Swan, who went through Moore and Whyciffe Colleges and is now a missionary and Bible-translator in West Papua. Basically, when a tribe is converted, they cease to use traditional tribal musics that connote unChristian practices, replacing it with something else.
After quite some time, perhaps several generations, when the old associations have been forgotten, they might return to using those musics in their churches, since time has 'cleaned' them via amnesia. This has happened in the West with jazz. Originally, "jazz" was a term from the 1920s that (like "Rock'n'Roll") signified fornication, and in the '30s etc. it was automatically associated with brothels, speak-easies and so forth - i.e. profanity. Clearly not what Paul had in mind when he wrote of 'singing hymns and spiritual songs', and who exhorts us to 'flee immorality' and things tainted with it (again: please read the Lucarini book, and also A. Tozer's Whatever Happened to Worship?). Anyway, enough time has passed, and jazz has evolved into a multifaceted genre of many variegated styles, that its old semiotics have been forgotten and buried, and it might now be rehabilitated into the Church. One of the problems with 'contemporary' Christian music is that, currently, it's stylistically indistinguishable from recent profane musics - and will take (a lot of?) time and evolution to break free from its unsavoury roots, thereby reaching a point of neutrality and viability for true worship.
No, Matthew, I'm not just thinking of John 4. My NT lexicons indicate that proskuneo (Thayer, p.548: "to prostrate one's self ...to kiss the hand ... to fall upon the knees and touch the ground with the forehead as an expression of profound reverence ... by kneeling or prostration to do homage or make obeisance ...") is employed in all the Gospels, Acts, 1 Cor, Heb and Rev. It is arguably the main word in the NT for the reverent worship of God. What I'm saying is that 'contemporary' Christian musics and particularly their modes of performance lack reverence. The NT itself might not connect proskuneo directly with music, but we surely do by claiming to use music for the worship of God - even invoking the phrase "worship music". I'm sorry, but it was not my intention to denote music as a sacrifice - it was an analogy - although we do offer it to God. By "God's house" I simply meant that place where we formally worship God - no big deal. However ...
The NT does not override the OT obligation for excellence in what we serve up to God in proskuneo. Yes, the public at large these days seem only capable of digesting the musical equivalent of toxic baby-food ('pap music', haha), thanks to the venal music industry, the media, and other forces behind our culture's 'dumbing down' / mindless consumerism, but that doesn't let them off the hook: God must come first; and it's imperative that Christians present ourselves as distinct from 'the world' [John's kosmos]. I 100% agree with the rest of your point here and your #14, though, and - with John Hooton (#7) and Benjamin - concur that 'right attitude' is fundamental if the music we play in church is be be truly proskuneo. But the music has to be as EXCELLENT as we can make it, too.
Time to sign off for the night - 2:38 AM.
Among our pewsitters, there are many disenfranchised classically-trained musicians - dispossessed by the barbarian hoards of dilettante drummers and electric guitarists who foisted the 'contemporary music' drivel on the church in the first place (thereby instigating any divisiveness). Please ENGAGE the talents of these cast-aside musicians! - practically and educatively.
What saddens and angers me greatly is the way things have fractured musico-theologically, i.e.:
Low Church <=> 'contemporary' music;
High Church <=> art-music.
If I value Protestant Reformed Evangelical theology, and prefer fairly informal church-services WITHOUT the 'contemporary' rot among the SydAng communion, where can I go? I want to put an end to this schism.
Finally, I earlier wrote about training "to tertiary level". For those with the talent, brains, motivation and an autodidactic ability, this can be acquired without necessarily enrolling in a university / conservatorium / TAFE. There is a vast amount of information on the internet and in purchasable books pertaining to music theory (harmony, form, instrumentation, etc.) out there in the public square. And there are libraries. So don't cry "elitism!"; there's no excuse... Not to use this is sheer laziness, ignorance, or inverted snobbery.
Yet again, let's heal the divisions by jettisoning the junk and creating something NEW that's wholesome, practical and artistic.
What a smug cop-out and a cheap shot. (Anyway, these verses are about the torah.) However, Benjamin, it seems Tit 3:10 does apply to you (along with Matt 7:3) - as an unrepentant representative of the mob that caused the schism in worship in the first place - not me. Ciao.
I'm the one here trying to solve the problem and heal the rift. You seem to think that everyone, even those with more expertise and knowledge than you, must conform to your naive musical vision or stand accused of being schismatic.
...
Re: #25-26 – Yes, Ethnodoxology is a helpful idea here. I think it supports my point: it is like dealing with food sacrificed to idols. If a certain tribe becomes Christian and decides that a style of music has such unhelpful associations as to be harmful to the consciences/faith of others, then they ought to refrain from that style out of love for their weaker brethren.
But Ian, I think you keep mixing issues of musical quality/style with associations with unhelpful practices. Are ‘secular’, ‘profane’, and ‘toxic junk’ really judgements that this music will be unhelpful to those attending the ‘live out loud’ rally, or is it just that you despise these styles of music? To put it another way, would you be happy for these bands play in a different (less westen) country where these styles aren’t any perceived to have unhelpful connections of to immorality? If you think it is unhelpful to those people then please explain how (I would take some convincing!). Otherwise we are arguing about style and quality, and in such a case criticisms such as ‘profane’ are inappropriate (i.e. category errors), and are insulting to those who like those styles of music.
...
Unless I am convinced that the people I am serving are harmed in some way by a form of music then I can’t see why I should refrain from using it. I see no problem with it being ‘sylistically indistinguishable from recent profane musics’ (#26). Food (or music) sacrificed to idols is not profane: all things have been given by God to enjoy and receive with thanksgiving (1 Cor 8; 1 Tim 4:4). So as far as style goes, I have no problem singing and playing music stylistically indistinguishable from the secular community around us. The difference is we will be using that music to celebrate and proclaim Jesus. (And, on a side-note, having music that corresponds culturally to our local community often makes a church more attractive to outsiders).
Re: #28 – Music doesn’t equal worship, and the NT doesn’t connect it to worship (as you admit), so we shouldn’t feel obligated to view it as such. It doesn’t matter if there is an industry of ‘worship-music’: it is a misnomer. We can’t apply the Bible’s teaching on worship to directly to music just because people label it wrongly! It clouds the issues to discuss music in terms of proskuneo. Realising this takes the weight out of the arguments for making sure that music is ‘sacred’ enough, etc. No music is profane in Christ.
I plead guilty - although, in my own mind, the two issues are indeed quite distinct; I failed to adequately separate them in my posts. You are absolutely spot-on that I despise these styles (with precious few exceptions). The rally - Yes I do think it unhelpful to Christians because it doesn't discourage disassociation with the 'truly' secular & profane stuff (sorry about all those negatives!).
Earlier, I wrote about "modes of performance"; this is crucial here. Time and again, I find the loudness (decibel-level) and brashness of the 'contemporary' Christian music to be an obstacle to my worshipping of God in church. And my repeated objections remain ignored. Interestingly, one service I attended had some of the same songs done in a much quieter, less abrasive way - allowing me to engage at least inwardly in proskuneo.
However, even this is not sufficient to let such music 'off the hook', theologically speaking (your #35): Across the whole spectrum of human musical creativity, such Western music is extremely poor quality (ditto Qurious, or whatever they're called). Why don't we do better, since we can? Doesn't God deserve excellence? I guess I labour under the 'burden of expertise'... To answer your question explicitly: on those grounds alone, I cannot advocate 'contemporary' Christian musics' use anywhere, anytime - let alone in church. And NB Paul advocating hymns and spiritual songs; this garbage ain't spiritual, either.
Granted, music itself isn't worship. But as you yourself wrote (#33): "If a particular style puts people off and we refuse to change, then we are failing to serve them with music". I, for one, am put off!
Anyway, in terms of Jodie's article, at least I've proposed some constructive solutions. In a nutshell:
(a) NEW styles, with the proviso that congregations find them singable;
(b) Towards this end, proper grounding in music theory.
I hope that I've attended to all of your points, Matthew.
As former head of missiology at Moore College (i.e. Greg Anderson's predecessor), I wonder if Mike's argumentation involves ethnodoxology, and to what extent his and mine overlap? Maybe you'd like to contact him in Melbourne yourself.
Nice to see you contributing here on SydAngs - takes me back to first year lectures!
Mike Raiter's article in The Briefing was "the slow death of congregational singing" http://www.matthiasmedia.com.au/briefing/library/5175/ and it provoked valuable discussion at http://www.matthiasmedia.com.au/briefing/issues/the_slow_death_of_congregational_singing/. To the extent that church music practices are inhibiting congregational singing I share his concerns, but as the letters show, the causes and effects are debatable (and probably variable between churches and demographics).
As someone half a generation younger, can I suggest that at this point in time the same thing that happened to jazz (cf your comments #25-26) has happened to many pop-rock styles - as they've been around for longer, they've lost their "profane" associations. It seems to me that many writings that bring up the "profane music" concept fail to admit that a music's profanity is highly culturally relative.
Re the value of quality, innovation, and training in the art music tradition, I'm with you (it worked for me!). But you've got to start somewhere, and our valuable tertiary music institutions aren't going to provide the parallel ministry-heart training that Jodie and others are envisaging.
Great to hear from you! As you can see, I'm still something of a hothead... Many thanks for the Raiter references, which I look forward to reading. Do you know the Lucarini book? Believe me, though not flawless it's well worth perusing. To your comments (without rehashing too much of what I wrote earlier):
Agreed. Coincidentally, I was talking to a young bloke at church last night about this - he plays electric guitar in some of our services - who made exactly the same remark. He claimed that he registers no connection whatever between rock'n'roll-influenced 'contemporary' Christian music and the original rock'n'roll. Though I believe him, I find that truly amazing - since the two are often stylistically indistinguishable!
Well that may be changing. Who knows? For instance, I heard whisperings that the Sydney Uni Music Department (or whatever it's called these days) will be introducing next year a unit on Music and Christinaity. Perhaps it's a start.
Cheers; I'll be in touch.
Having now read Mike Raiter's article (and the responses to it), I return to what I said earlier about church-musics' "modes of performance": What is required is music that promotes a reverential response to God, and is itself reverential - not sullied by profanity. Anyhow, whatever it is, if it inhibits a congregant's proskuneo, then discard it pronto. Ditto for any music that suppresses congregational singing (preferably in glorious harmony!) and resembles more a concert up-front rather than an accompaniment to the congregation. Turning down the instrumentalists' (and lead-singers') volume is a great start!
Over and out (for now).
And wouldn't it be even better if we'd mentored our up-and-coming musicians (and PA operators) so well that they were <i>eager</i> to serve the congregation by accompanying their corporate vocal musical worship at an appropriate volume level!
Over and out.