Constructing a Christian Philosophy of Church Music

H. N. Orndorff, Jr.

(revised 04-03-11)

We live in an entertainment culture. As former CBS reporter Bernard Goldberg put it, “In the United States of Entertainment there is no greater sin that to bore the audience.” Perhaps that tempts many in the church to think about church music in ways that do not befit the Christian faith.

It is very common to hear the time the church spends singing referred to as “worship” with the tacit implication that the rest of what the church gathers to do is something other than worship. While this faulty categorization of church music distorts the place of music in the church, that does not mean that music is unimportant in the life of the church. Most congregations have decided to spend a significant part of their time together in musical praise of God and mutual exhortation. Often, an hour of church meeting can contain twenty minutes or more of music. Surely an investment of this proportion should not go unexamined.

Far too often, a serious examination of music in the church is simply dismissed before it is begun on the basis that it is just a pointless rehashing of the so-called “worship wars” of the late twentieth century. This leads many to brush aside serious thought on these matters with words like these:

Often these controversies [about church music] have little or nothing to do with theology and doctrine and nearly everything to do with personal taste and preference. Battle lines are drawn not around the entire arena of worship, but only the musical portion of it. One faction wants to sing traditional hymns and gospel songs from a hymnal while another pushes for choruses and contemporary Christian songs projected on a large screen.

While this kind of “preference debate” has no doubt often occurred, the mere fact that is has occurred is not a good reason to avoid a serious consideration of these and related matters. As we are going to see, a serious consideration of church music will have much to do with theology. And conclusions arrived at here will have implications for some very important matters regarding the church.

What guides the people of God in their selection of congregational music? T. David Gordon reminds us that

Up to twenty years ago, the members of hymnal-revision committees ordinarily had a group of six to ten musical, liturgical, literary, and theological criteria that helped them determine which hymns ought to be retained in, deleted from, or added to a new hymnal. In contrast, many circles today have effectively only one criterion for choosing worship music: it must sound contemporary. So now a criterion never before employed by anyone anywhere has become effectively the only criterion employed.

In the last couple of decades the criteria for selection have often taken a turn toward pragmatism. With the goal of attracting people to churches, music has sometimes been selected based on things like a composition’s perceived attractiveness to non-believers, which in turn is seen as connected to the composition’s reflection of some part of culture that is seen as ‘hip.’ Often, little attention is given reasons why a given composition ought or ought not be part of the church’s congregational repertoire. Such evaluations would depend upon some philosophy of church music, and most churches do not have one. Or, at least, they think they do not.

But everyone has a “philosophy” of anything we think about or attempt to do. This is a set of assumptions that underlie our conclusions and actions. This set is a part of our worldview. Such assumptions can be overt and examined, or they can be covert and unexamined. Either way, they will be present, and they will affect us - for good or ill. As Ronald Nash reminds us, “The right eyeglasses can put the world into clearer focus, and the correct worldview can function in much the same way.” Unexamined assumptions lead to action that is in conflict with the Christian faith.

This is a plea to be purposeful about church music by thinking about our assumptions that affect our view of what church music should be. To help us do this we will examine several contrasts that are designed to help us examine, and perhaps develop, our philosophy of church music.

A well-reasoned approach vs. an ad hoc approach

The enemies of a well-reasoned approach to church music are things like fad and whimsy. Fad is an especially powerful force in our culture, and it takes a great deal of effort to combat it successfully. Churches today seem especially prone to following the fashions of the surrounding culture.

Things done at larger churches are often imitated by those at smaller churches. Sometimes this is born of desperation. If First Church of the Thousands, which is located on the other side of town from us, uses program A, surely program A could help our little First Church of Less-than-a-hundred. That, at least, is often the unexamined assumption.

Whimsy is not absent from any of us. We see something that strikes us a “cool” or just different and we think, “Why not give that a try?” Our only “reasons” for such choices are often nothing more than immediate impressions.

But lack of thought is not the only enemy of a well-reasoned approached to church music. Sometimes we have thought about the matter, but only in a superficial or shallow manner. As one experienced church musician commented:

[I]n the past few decades we have witnessed the downward spiral of principle and excellence in much church music whereby musical integrity has been abandoned more often out of ignorance than by intention. Pragmatism, relativism, narcissism, and pop culture have invaded the church subtly masked as stewardship, “progressive” thinking, and cultural relevance. We are generally unaware of their presence. They have taken a toll on church music and worship in the process.

Two Cases of Shallow Thinking

One superficial approach to church music begins with the essential/nonessential distinction. The church ought not compromise or change the essential elements of the Christian faith. From this, many jump to the conclusion that nonessentials are unimportant. These nonessentials are often labeled “opinion” and cast into the category of things-that-don’t-really-matter. There are serious problems with this way of thinking.

Thus when “opinion” is equated with “nonessential” . . . the practical result is that all other doctrines and assertions in the Bible are treated as unimportant matters for which there is no one correct understanding and where agreement or disagreement is irrelevant . . . they are “up for grabs.”

As the writer just quoted also says, “Whether stated or not, ‘nonessential’ by implication is usually equated with ‘unimportant.’” While beauty and other factors in regard to church music may not be “essential” that does not mean they are unimportant.

Another superficial bit of thinking about beauty and church music involves recent discussion and debate in terms of “contemporary” and “traditional.” An article from Leadership, which is not directly concerned with the topic here, does reveal the kind of prejudice that exists in this area. The article recounts how one congregation made changes they hoped would improve the church’s outreach. At one point the author, who was involved with the process, remarks, “We made obvious changes in our worship services, switching from traditional to contemporary music.”

Notice how it is assumed that we all know what these two terms mean, and whatever they mean, “contemporary” is obviously superior to “traditional.” Here are assumptions that cry out for careful examination.

Even a brief examination shows that this whole way of thinking only obscures the problem. As we proceed we are going to find that underlying this debate, which can sometimes be shallow disputes about mere preferences, are some truly significant theological matters.

Consider the matter of “traditional versus contemporary.” From the moment a composition is complete, it is no longer “contemporary.” But why is this important? Traditions need not be all that old, and so can be quite “contemporary.” As one writer put it:

I have to admit that many congregations can easily fall into predictable, rigid patterns, no matter what style of music they use. We all tend to become traditional once we find a style and format that makes us happy and comfortable. We are all just traditional about different things.

The contemporary/traditional dichotomy, while often used, is just as often not well thought-out and not very informative. In fact, it can become deceptive. The very word “tradition” has come to have something of a negative connotation in our culture.

Deep roots go back at least to the Enlightenment when traditions, especially religious traditions, were viewed as the residue of centuries of superstition, ignorance, and authoritarian religion. . . the modern outlook, shaped by head-spinning social changes and the accelerated appearance of ever-advancing technologies in the form of entertainment devices, automobiles, microwaves, etc., is characterized by impatience and almost an addiction to what is new and different.

An antidote to this in the church is the realization that

To dismiss the importance of wise practices and traditions that we have received from generations that have gone before us is a recipe for unstable churches and superficial faith. To alter or dismiss a practice because “it’s merely a tradition” . . . is an invitation to make the church vulnerable to the shifting winds of the surrounding culture and to discard centuries of Christian wisdom. While we often need a better understanding of the meaning and purpose of existing traditions, lack of understanding is no basis for discarding a tradition.

This applies to the music of the church, and the beauty of that music, as well as many other areas.

The Force of Fad

The church, being composed in our time of people from a culture of consumers, is very often a willing victim of ever-changing fads. One writer made this very perceptive comment about fads:

We call our participation in this constant flux a “desire for relevance.” But we are confused on the point, thinking that relevance is a matter of packaging. If we want to market the gospel in an ever-changing world then we have to keep repackaging it.

Because we live in a consumer and advertisement society, we have been conditioned to assume that what is newer is also better. We are constantly told that if a product is “new” it is also “improved” and therefore we should buy it. But this is a fallacy of logic. The assumption that something is better simply because it is new is improper reasoning. In fact, when you think about it, “new” is a completely relative term. In the history of the church, all music from the last 200 years is very “new.” Also, if you have never heard a particular composition, it is “new to you.”

But we live in a culture which idolizes “newness” by holding that newer is better. Ours is a situation in which “Contemporaneity is a value, or a value system, that prefers what is new to what is old. Contemporaneity views the past as passe, and tends to regard it either with benign disinterest or with outright contempt.”

There is also a commercial side to the slide toward the idol of newness in church music. Those who publish and sell church music have a financial stake in trying to create a demand for new music. As one church musician put this, “The rise of Maranatha! Music in the 70’s/80’s and Integrity’s Hosanna shortly after started this trend of ‘if you’re at all with it, you’ll be singing these songs.’”

Something significant happened in the late twentieth century as the production of new tunes for the church became a big business. As one report paints the picture of this situation:

This is a change from the past, says Greg Scheer, minister of worship at Church of the Servant in Grand Rapids, Mich., and author of a forthcoming book on CCLI and congregational music. He pegs the tipping point to 1990, when CCLI solidified its influence as more churches signed up and its Top 25 song list narrowed what music was played in member churches. This produced a "self-referential world" of CCM, CCLI, and churches.

"All of this stuff is not neutral," said Scheer. "There's a very significant promotional mechanism." The system can tempt songwriters to write songs (or tweak old ones) to appear on CCM billboard charts and then the CCLI website, thus becoming the versions churches pay royalties on.

Sellers of music have a stake in promoting the “new is better” fallacy. In this whole debate, the key matter of beauty is never even mentioned. That is because beauty, and even appropriateness for worship, is not a driving force behind the CCM movement.

The primary problems in CCM stem from the pop philosophy that propels and undergirds it. This philosophy is “consumerism.” In consumerism, value is attributed to music simply because it is purchased. Music that sells is thus music with value and relevance. The idea that something not created to “sell” could be valuable or that something from a different age might have significance for us (other than as a relic) is scoffed at. . . . It is not the sale of music that I am challenging, but the assignment of value and consumerist ideology.

What we should be concerned with here is choosing church music for good reasons versus choosing church music without good reasons. Minds that are being renewed can do better than what has often been done in this area. We need to think through this carefully and “Christianly.”

Part of this careful thinking begins with the realization that our popular (“pop”) culture is not something neutral that the church can just harmlessly appropriate.

Many students of pop culture have suggested that artistically, pop culture is neither beautiful nor ugly; it is banal, trivial, or inconsequential. . . Commercial interests joined forces with mass media . . . to create pop music; it did not exist before. Pop music is a form of music designed to appeal, in some way, to the masses. If there were no mass media, pop music would not and could not really exist. Once it exists, however, it serves commercial purposes. . . For commercial reasons, therefore, pop culture and pop music cannot be either beautiful or ugly; pop music must be easy, and therefore it must be fairly inconsequential.

Interestingly, those who want to “pop” the church seem very willing to admit this. For example, Rick Warren candidly states:

For the first time in history, there exists a universal music style that can be heard in every country of the world. It’s called contemporary pop/reck. The same songs are being played on radios in Nairobi and Tokyo and Moscow. Most TV commercials use the contemporary/rock style. Even country and western has adapted it. This is the primary musical style we’ve chosen to use at Saddleback.

It appears that Warren thinks he can harmlessly adopt the styles and fashions of the kingdoms of this world in the service of the gospel. But is worship inconsequential, trivial, or insignificant? What happens when we attempt to yoke the transcendent message of the Christian faith with the pop style that is intentionally inconsequential? As Gordon says, the lyrics of the song might say, “Holy, Holy, Holy” but what happens to that message when the very form of the music to which it is attached says to our culture, “Ho-hum, Ho-hum, Ho-hum”?

A Biblically Determined View of Beauty vs. a culturally determined demand for “hip”

The ancient Greeks spoke of three categories of values: the true, the good, and the beautiful. Throughout her history the church has defended non-relative views of the true and the good. Truth is an accurate description of reality, and since reality (apart from God’s own being) is ultimately grounded in the creative act and will of God; it is not dependent on a relationship to human persons. Goodness is also grounded in the nature of God, and thus is also unchanging.

But beauty - what about beauty? Isn’t it somehow just “in the eye of the beholder”? (This view is called aesthetic relativism.)

Beauty has been neglected by the church lately. Perhaps we have just been so embattled defending the true and the good that we didn’t have time for beauty. Some seem to be very willing to accept aesthetic relativism completely uncritically because it served their pragmatic agenda to do so. For example, consider Rick Warren, who is undoubtedly the king of the “marketing church” approach which has become so famous in North America. Warren very openly admits his agendum here when he says, “The music you use ‘positions’ your church in your community. It defines who you are.” Thus, Warren needs to select church music with a view to marketing his church. To help sell this idea to his readers, he asserts, “I reject the idea that music styles can be judged as either ‘good’ or ‘bad’ music. Who decides this?” But since Warren is here baldly asserting the truth of aesthetic relativism, we might ask, “Who decided this?” - other than Rick Warren, of course. His only defense is this statement: “The kind of music you like is determined by your background and culture.” There is probably much truth in this last statement. But notice: the question here is not the kind of music people “like” but is instead about whether or not some kinds of music are more beautiful that others, and whether or not this is a fact of some kind, or just a matter of preference.

I assume Rick Warren is not a truth-relativist. I am sure he is not an ethical relativist. But notice how glibly, when it serves his purposes, he asserts aesthetic relativism. This has become a pervasive, and yet often unexamined, attitude in the church. Perhaps our willingness to give up one member of the trinity of values has weakened them all. As we face an almost completely relativistic society with the message of God in scripture, why should we so vehemently oppose ethical relativism if we so complacently adopt aesthetic relativism?

[Note: It is more than a little interesting to see Rick Warren boldly proclaim, “To insist that one particular style of music is sacred is idolatry” in the very section of his book where he is insisting that only pop music can “reach” our culture, and thus it is the only style his church uses, or that your church should use. Few who would take issue with Warren insist that only one style of music is sacred. That is a straw man of Warren’s own creation. What is under consideration here is whether pop music is either beautiful or compatible with the Christian message. It is not as though there is only one other musical style from which to choose!]

Pursuing the Beautiful

The main reason people have often been unwilling to pursue the beautiful is because there are so many opinions about what is beautiful. Our culture is “de-centered” and because this is so, we find it difficult to make value judgements.

There is simply too much to choose between, ranging from products, to beliefs, to lifestyles, so choice becomes almost random. And the sheer weight of all of the information . . . blurs everything so that one idea seems no truer than another. In this video-commercial context, and in this personal mindset, everything begins to seem similar and equal. Judgements becomes not only offensive but, for so many, virtually impossible.

If this is the case with truth, it is much more so in the matter of beauty. Who can really say what is beautiful? Doesn’t even the attempt to judge whether or not, or to what degree, beauty is present seem a bit presumptuous? If many of us disagree, doesn’t this just show that beauty is in the eye of the beholder? Doesn’t the fact that different cultures have different ideas about what is beautiful prove that beauty is relative? This is, at least, the message we get from our culture. But these are not questions that should disturb those who accept the Christian faith.

A main line of attack on truth and goodness has often followed this path: since people disagree, often strenuously, about what is true and what is good, these areas must be mere matters of opinion. It is easy, in the face of debate about anything, to shrug and hide in the idea that things are simply relative. But if we do that, we have given up the basis and content of the Christian faith. If disagreements about what is beautiful prove that beauty does not really exist, then those same disagreements - and they abound - should also prove that truth and goodness do not exist.

More Than a Hint at the Existence of Beauty

Ray Stevens once proclaimed in song, “Everything is beautiful, in its own way.” His context was intentionally limited. But in the broadest sense, is everything really beautiful in its own way? Clearly not. Elton Trueblood gives the example of a sheep whose skull and brain have been eaten away by maggots as an example of something that clearly is not beautiful - and that is apparently something that happens! Knowing that some things are not beautiful is a clear indication that there is some standard of beauty, no matter how elusive we might think it is.

The good and the beautiful are often interlaced in scripture. Given the place and importance of the good in scripture, this is an indication that, in the mind of God, beauty is important and identifiable.

In Ps. 27:4 the psalmists requests that he may “gaze upon the beauty of the Lord.” Ps. 50:2 informs us that God shines forth from Zion, which is said to be “the perfection of beauty.” Ps. 96:5-6 reveals that beauty is located in the sanctuary of God. Isaiah 3:24 sets forth some things that contrast with beauty, which implies that beauty does exist and can be identified.

Beauty can be found in the creation. James 1:11 speaks of the beauty of a blossom - a beauty which reflects the beauty of the Creator.

Even without a more complete study of the matter, it seems safe to say that beauty, like goodness, is grounded in the very nature of God. It is reflected in His creation. While scripture does not provide us with a textbook on the principles of aesthetics, it does provide some fairly strong indications that, like its sister goodness, beauty is not just “in the eye of the beholder.”

So why the disagreement about what is beautiful? It stems from the same reason that there are disagreements about the true and the good. If these are discovered, not invented, that implies a process of discovery - a learning curve. For the same reasons that we must learn to recognize the true and the good, we must learn to recognize the beautiful.

In the Bible, beauty is linked to God Himself and His creation, and is clearly not just “in the eye of the beholder.” If we are not guided in this by a Christian view of beauty, we will be guided by inferior standards, or even no standards at all!

Not only does the Christian faith point to beauty as being an objective, “out there” quality of the creation, it also implies an obligation creatures made in God’s image have to evaluate our creative products for beauty. As T. David Gordon puts this:

God . . . not only makes, but observes and evaluates what he makes. In Genesis 1, he observed six times that what he had made was “good,” and on the sixth day he observed all that he had made and judged that is was “very good.” The garden into which he placed the first humans was “pleasant to the sight and good for food, “ both of which are expressions of judgment or evaluation. To surrender or abdicate the responsibility to observe and evaluate our creations is to abdicate this aspect of the imago Dei.

It is worth mentioning that nihilists - those who falsely assume there are no values of any kind - pursue randomness in place of art, and thus ugliness instead of beauty. Francis Shaeffer noted where this can go using the example of John Cage, the composer who disparaged even self-expression in music and attempted to create a “composition” that “leaves chance speaking.” He found this very difficult to do, even using techniques like tossing coins to select notes for a composition.

Our perspectives, examined or unexamined, have consequences. The attempt to avoid a philosophy of beauty will show itself, often in very ugly ways.

Edification vs. Entertainment

Music That Edifies

The Greek word sometimes translated as “edification” or “up-building” is a compound of two words: one for “house” and one for “to build.” Paul uses it figuratively of building the church, that is, re-building the image of God in the collection of Christians that make up the church. Because of the connection between truth, goodness, and beauty, it is important that the music we use in the church be the most beautiful we can find.

Beautiful melodies and harmonies combined with sound doctrine put to beautiful poetry will yield musical compositions that are beautiful. This combination will edify the church. This combination is present in a greater degree in some compositions from all eras and is also absent in a greater degree from some compositions from all eras.

Edifying music must express sound doctrine. “To God Be the Glory” is set to a beautiful, congregationally singable tune. But the second stanza which says, “the vilest offender who truly believes, that moment from Jesus a pardon receives” is simply false doctrine and should not be sung by a congregation. The church is not built up by the propagation of false doctrine, nor can the rehearsal of false doctrine rightly be said to be beautiful, let alone truthful.

One important element in edification is education. We need to help people learn good music, and help wean them away from what is currently popular when popular is not good. If there is objective beauty in music, then we should not be pandering to what people like or want. Instead, we should be helping people learn what they ought to like and want in Christian music. The church should not be a follower of pop, to the contrary, we should be leading people away from pop culture in this area when pop strays from beauty - as it sometimes does.

Has the church become a blind follower of “pop” music? It is not realistic to think that this has not occurred. As one author observed:

Remember the expression "elevator music"? The first Muzak was used in elevators for people who, when they went to the big city and got in an elevator for the first time, were a little anxious. So the Muzak people decided that with some pleasant background music, people's anxiety would go down. Before long, elevator music made its way into the dentist's office, then the mall, and now as you put gas in your car. We can't tune out the onslaught of pop music; we hear it as much as five to eight hours a day. People reach a point where nothing but pop music sounds like music.

Earlier in this essay reference was made to an article in Leadership describing a church that “reinvented” itself to reach the community. Another telling remark made by that same author is this:

With a better understanding of our community, we began asking hard questions about our church. I discovered that our church genuinely wanted to reach out, but mostly on the church's own terms. Unknowingly, we were sending signals that said: “We want to reach you, but you'd better like our music, dress how we dress, and already believe how we believe.”

Consider how the phrase “you’d better like our music” obscures the issue here. If “our” music was chosen haphazardly, by whim, or for no good reason at all, then of course, “our” music is unimportant. However, if the church chooses music intentionally and aesthetically, with a view to offering beautiful music to the God whose very being defines beauty, and in an effort to build up the church by singing to one another sound doctrine set to beautiful compositions, then the situation is very different. People who come to the church without a sense of beauty may have things to learn, and part of what they learn will be an appreciation of beauty, in music as well as other areas.

When people who have a distorted sense of goodness first associate with the church, one thing they may have to become accustomed to is what might at first seem to them like a rather hard line on right and wrong. The church should not “adjust” its view or stance on goodness just to be attractive to unbelievers. In the same way, the church should not alter its stance on or striving for beauty in an attempt to impress unbelievers.

Is Church Music for “Seekers”?

One key ingredient in current questions about church music is the attempt to redesign the first-day assembly of the saints as though it is primarily for “seekers.” While this term is not always clearly defined, we will assume it refers to those who are perhaps interested in the Christian faith, but are still unbelievers.

If scripture is our guide in this, then the first-day assembly of the saints must be designed for those who already desire to worship God, not for those who are unsure or unwilling. This doesn’t mean those who are unsure should be unwelcome. But it does mean that their needs may not be the focus. In scripture the first-day gathering is not an assembly of the seekers, but rather, an assembly of the saints. While this assembly should not be shocking or completely unintelligible to a visiting seeker, it is not designed for those who are not Christians.

There is a very profound disconnect at this point between the attitudes of many church people and Christian theology. The attempt to adapt everything the church does to accommodate “seekers” (those who seem to be interested in Christianity but what are not yet Christians) became a nearly unquestioned approach to “doing church” in the 1990s. But as popular as this whole concept of the seeker-centered church has become, it is very hard to see how it could be Biblical. The facts here are not so much unknown as ignored. Consider just a couple of samples of those who have considered this matter theologically.

Millard Erickson reminds us that:

In biblical times the church gathered for worship and instruction. Then it went out to evangelize. In worship, the members of the church focus upon God; in instruction and fellowship, they focus upon themselves and fellow Christians; in evangelism, they turn their attention to non-Christians. . . worship of God will suffer if the gathering of the body becomes oriented primarily to the interactions among Christians, or if the service is aimed exclusively at evangelizing the unbelievers who happen to be present. This was not the pattern of the church in the Book of Acts. Rather, believers gathered to praise God and be edified; then they went forth to reach the lost in the world without.

After reviewing the Biblical teaching, Jack Cottrell draws this conclusion:

First, though unbelievers were welcome to attend church services, the services themselves were not designed specifically to reach out to them. Second, though the services were designed to facilitate the believers’ relationship to God and to one another, it was important that the activities of the assembled Christians present a positive witness to any unbelievers who happened to enter.

Cottrell elaborates on this point in an online posting:

The whole seeker-sensitive concept goes directly against almost all of the NT's teaching about church assemblies and their purpose. . . When you examine everything the NT has to say about church assemblies, there is almost nothing about any believer-to-unbeliever contact. It is all believer-to-believer, believer-to-God, and God-to-believer. This does not mean that we should be insensitive to any unbelievers who are present; indeed, we should seek and welcome as many of them as possible.

This concept is a key element of the church when assembled together. Alexander Campbell makes a similar point, focusing on the Lord’s Supper, when he says:

Among the acts of worship, or the institutions of the Lord, to which the disciples attended in these meetings, the breaking of the loaf was so conspicuous and important, that the churches are said to meet on the first day of the week for this purpose. We are expressly told that the disciples at Troas met for this purpose . . . From the manner in which this meeting of the disciples at Troas is mentioned by the historian, two things are very obvious: - 1st, that it was an established custom or rule for the disciples to meet on the first day of the week. 2nd. That the primary object of their meeting was to break the loaf.

In “breaking the loaf” we commune with God and with fellow believers. If that is to be the primary purpose of the gathered church, everything else we do should reflect that purpose. A focus on “seekers” is simply not part of this equation.

While evangelism can be a by-product of the assembled church (as indicated in I Cor. 14:24), where is there any indication in scripture that the purpose of the assembled church is to “reach” non-Christian people? As popular as the move to focus church gatherings on “seekers” became, it was never in harmony with Biblical teaching.

“Seeker Sensitive” and Faulty Views of Church Music

The assumed need to make the assembly of the saints attractive to seekers is perhaps another underlying reason why the North American church of the twenty-first century has neglected beauty in music.

Christian people who are sincerely concerned about the church in the twenty-first century have often accepted a faulty line of reasoning. That line of reasoning begins with the correct idea that one key function of the church is to take the gospel to people outside the church. But at this point this line of reasoning goes astray, because it then assumes that the way this must be accomplished is by bringing unbelievers into the first-day assembly of the church in order to “reach” them. The natural - and also faulty - corollary of this is that all elements of the first-day assembly of the church must be designed to appeal to unbelievers.

Seekers, who are by definition still unbelievers, coming from a culture of relativism, often have little basis for understanding or appreciating the nature of God and the beauty that stems from that nature. If the rationale for church music is to please those who could be interested in God but do not yet know Him, then the criteria for music selection becomes purely pragmatic. “Good” music, from this faulty perspective, is music that will attract those who are not followers of God. In our commercial culture that is music that is very new and “hip.” It is music that people like at some gut level, regardless of its beauty. It is music that will sell something to a potential consumer.

One writer comments this whole approach:

We cannot simply attempt to fulfill everyone’s wishes in order to draw people in. After all, brothels and methadone clinics meet people’s perceived needs and draw large crowds, but we (presumably) can all agree that the church should not adopt their methods for attracting people. In fact, the church does not serve people well when it simply caters to their desires without challenging them.

Of course, brothels and methadone are techniques that would clearly step over the line of Biblical morality. To improve the point here, substitute “giving away cash prizes.” Cash gifts are not immoral per se, and they would draw crowds and “meet perceived needs.” (After all, don’t most people have a perceived need for money?) But who would contend that this is appropriate? The same kind of point can be made with regard to church music. The mere fact that a certain kind of music might attract people does not prove it is the best thing for the church.

The attempt to impress unbelievers (or even ‘nominal’ believers) is not nearly as innocent as some would have us think. David Wells speaks insightfully of how

those who . . . typically yearn to be seen as contemporary . . . usually make tactical maneuvers to win a hearing for their Christian views; those who see its [modern pagan/gnostic spirituality] underlying worldview will not. Inevitably, those enamored by its contemporaneity will find that with each new tactical repositioning they are drawn irresistibly into the vortex of what they think is merely contemporary but what, in actual fact, also has the power to contaminate their faith.

The “least common denominator” approach that considers what is most popular with many people needs to be replaced by a recognition that musical beauty is important. We live in a culture of “intentional chaos” where some of the most bizarre and even perverted displays of madness are considered “art.” People from this background might have to be taught to appreciate true beauty. The lyrics, melody, harmony and rhythm of music should be evaluated in light of believers gathered to praise God and encourage one another - and ultimately, to reflect the beauty of God’s very nature. That which lacks order also lacks beauty. God cannot be praised by chaos because it is contrary to His very nature, part of which is the beautiful. God is a God of order, not chaos. Those who would come to the faith must learn this, or they will never come to know the living God. To the extent that we try to avoid this in order to “market” the Christian faith to moderns and post-moderns, we do a great disservice both to the Christian faith and those who so desperately need it.

There is an almost sinister side to some who assume that music, as part of the first-day gathering of believers, is merely a tool to “bring in” unbelievers. Because there is a kind of intuitive resistance to this idea in established congregations, some have developed “blueprints” for how to change congregational views on this matter so gradually that people are not aware of what has happened.

An article by Chuck McAlister found in “Rick Warren’s Ministry Toolbox” maps the steps to making such changes. He says, “You must practice extreme patience to help your church make the necessary change to a worship style that will directly impact those who do not know God.” Again, what has not been established - and shown to be a mistake earlier - is that a primary purpose of congregational worship is to “impact those who do not know God.”

McAlister goes on to say:

Gradually increase the number of choruses, gauging the response of your church family as you go. Some will readily embrace this change. Others will gradually come along. Still others will reject this outright -- try to help them see the validity of what you are doing.

Notice all the unfounded assumption here: that choruses - by which is meant short songs, usually of recent composition, with limited content - are the best congregational music. Beauty and its place in the worship of God seem to have been forgotten entirely.

This is, of course, closely connected to the whole purpose of congregational worship. The very strong set of assumptions about this matter (examined above) often distort the thinking of some on this topic. For example, one commentator on the matter begins his consideration with the very sensible statement:

If church leaders try to establish a style of worship based upon their preferences or based upon satisfying congregants' competing preferences, then the church will inevitably be torn apart by the politics of preference.

But this sound advice is then overshadowed by the idea that:

If the leadership is asking the missional questions of "Who is here?" and "Who should be here?" in determining worship styles and practices, then the mission of the church will enable those leaders to unite around gospel goals that are more defensible and uniting than anyone's personal preference. These gospel goals will never undermine the gospel contours of the worship service, but rather will ask how each gospel aspect can be expressed in ways that best minister to those present and those being reached for Christ's glory.

The idea that we must tailor congregational worship to those “who should be here” falls back again into the designed-for-“seekers” idea mentioned earlier in this paper. The fallacy of this idea is clear when we wade through some of the verbiage used in this quote. We are told that “preferences” should not determine how the church worships. This is undoubtedly the case. Then we are told that the gospel should be “expressed” in ways that “minister to” both those present and those not present. But what could this possibly mean if it does not include the idea that the “expression” must take account of something that the “those present and those not present” somehow enjoy, like, or prefer?

To see just how far astray this kind of thinking (or lack of thinking) can take us, consider how Rick Warren’s ultimate “marketing church” ends up in this regard. Church meetings on the Lord’s Day are designed for (presumably) interested non-Christians. Christians are present, however, so those non-believers present can observe these Christians “worshiping” and be impressed by that. Meetings designed for Christians are held (purposely!) not on the Lord’s Day, but during the “midweek.” Meanwhile, back on the Lord’s Day, congregational singing is minimized because the “unchurched” do not “feel comfortable singing” Christian songs. Instead, the focus is on “performed music.”

Let us now connect all this to the matter of beauty. In the modern church, music has become “practical.” In this context, that means it is always seen as a means to some end in the day-to-day operations of a congregation. This is why ‘church technicians’ often seem to want to make an immediate adjustment to music styles in order to achieve some goal such as getting more people to show up for church gatherings. Montague Brown reminds us that, “. . . beauty is anything but practical. Beauty is to be appreciated for its own sake.” This is even more the case if beauty is grounded, like truth and goodness, in the very nature of God the creator.

Brown points out a parallel in the matter of science. Science is, of course, valuable to secure technology. But is this all there is to science? Is science (as an investigation into the nature of material reality) not also valuable for the sake of better knowing the creation, even if it does not always lead to improved technology? An instrumental view of science sees science as primarily or exclusively a means to technology.

The church seems to have fallen into this purely instrumental (no pun intended!) view of music. It is often seen as just a way to improve the ‘technological structure’ of the church. But if music can be an expression of beauty, this is a poverty-stricken view of church music.

One church musician sums this all up very well when he says:

Another error suggests that we are responsible for producing new means or methods to build the church - that we have to “package” the gospel in postmodern clothing. While men tend to build kingdoms for themselves, it is God who builds his church through the faithful preaching of his Word and the biblical worship of his people. God’s ways are timeless, unchanging, and true. We must meaningfully interact with people immersed in popular culture, yes, but we do not have to take on its character or speak with its trendy musical accents. So often when this is attempted (when we try to sound fashionable), the result is an inferior version at which the world scoffs. In fact, the more different worship music is from popular culture, the clearer the alternative it offers to those seeking depth, peace, truth, and hope in a dark, pagan, and pluralistic consumer age.

But Doesn’t the Bible Somewhere Say . . .?

 1 Cor. 14:23-25

Some try to find a justification for focusing the assembly of the church on unbelievers in 1 Cor. 14:23-25. (As noted above, the poster boy for this effort is Rick Warren in The Purpose-Driven Church.) But careful consideration shows this to be a complete misreading of the Apostle Paul. His statement about the possibility of an unbeliever in the gathering of believers is just that: a possibility. Notice that it is expressed as a hypothetical - “If . . . outsiders or unbelievers enter . . .” Notice also that Paul’s main point is about speaking in tongues. Outsiders would not understand that. An appropriate application of this to church music might be the question of whether or not songs should be sung in the assembly in a language that is foreign - and unexplained or untranslated - to those present. (That is something that has been done, and it can leave people wondering exactly what is going on!)

A very common misapplication of 1 Cor. 14 needs to be abandoned. That misapplication involves assuming that Paul is here instructing the church to design the first-day gatherings for the benefit of the unbeliever. From this comes that faulty conclusion that, since many unbelievers will not understand “Christian terminology” then the church should abandon such language, not just in the poetry of her music, but also in the content of her teaching. When taken anywhere near its conclusion, this line of thinking leaves the church devoid of crucial theological language such as justification, redemption, sanctification, propitiation, predestination - and the list could continue for many pages.

Should the church explain Biblical terminology to her visitors, and even her members? Of course! Should the church abandon Biblical terminology because it sounds strange to untaught modern ears? Only if we want to destroy the Christian faith. As one writer put it

It is now an unexamined assumption in many quarters: the best way to reach people is to be like them. In order to reach our culture, we must embody what the culture defines as acceptable and valuable. We must be as "cool" as we can possibly be while still retaining the gospel. That way, people will see us and not be turned off by us. Maybe they’ll even want to be us.

That unexamined assumption, when examined, is found wanting.

1 Cor. 9:22

Another scripture often cited to justify making church assemblies seeker-oriented is 1 Cor. 9:22, where Paul says, “I have become all things to all people that I might by all means save some.” But an examination of the context shows that this statement by Paul is not applicable to the question at hand. First, Paul is not here talking about church assemblies. He is, rather, talking about his personal missionary work. Also, he is addressing the specific question of whether or not it is appropriate for him to observe Jewish rabbinical law in his mission work. Paul’s “all things to all people” is clearly hyperbolic. It in no way even suggests that Paul would compromise the truth, goodness, or beauty in evangelism, or anything else for that matter.

There is every reason from scripture to believe that the first-day assembly of the church should be designed to edify the church and praise God. While it should not be built around something that would repel unbelievers, such as speaking languages unknown to the community, and should be understandable so that an interested-but-not-yet-Christian person who happens to be present could learn of God, the primary purpose is not for seekers.

Even when we desire to influence seekers toward the Christian faith, it is not at all clear that appealing to the all-pervasive “pop” culture and its musical sounds will help toward that goal. It is, as one writer remarks

like reaching the rich young ruler by throwing money at him. The desire to reach the lost is wonderful, but that doesn't mean the strategy is well-suited to the task. I'm not so sure that accommodation to an individual's consumerist preferences is consistent with the gospel call. The gospel doesn't say, “You've got most things right, you just need to throw some Jesus in there.”

Let Me Entertain You

We live in a culture that uses entertainment to sell products. Think of, for example, the recent history of Coca-Cola jingles. The songs changed as the style of the top forty pop charts changed. The song was always a “hook” to draw customers to a product. The songs were never meant to educate or improve the customer in any significant way. The songs always pandered to the musical whims of customers in order to sell the product.

Misguidedly, the church has often adopted this technique. Church music has sometimes become a kind of entertainment “hook” by which we attempt to entice people to come to assemblies of the church which have been re-designed to appeal to “seekers.” In this situation, it is easy for truth and beauty to take a backseat (if they are even allowed in the car!) to entertainment.

Congregations that have adopted a “let’s entertain people” approach to the church try to put together elaborate bands and hire a professional singer (sometimes called “the music minister”) to make the “show” a good one. Sometimes these shows are quite well done. When a show “number” concludes at one of these services, one is tempted to say, “Elvis has left the building.”

One Roman Catholic visitor commented on this situation after visiting an “evangelical” church, and those comments are very revealing:

Worship means singing along (or more like . . . sitting and listening) to sub-rock songs. Worship means having a band (an actual band, with drums and guitars) playing and a soloist warbling. That’s worship? Or a rock concert for the formerly hip and the non-hip?

A spoof of ‘contemporary worship’ recently appeared online. It portrayed the typical ‘Sunday Show’ church style in a rather humorous parody. (It was done by the production crew of a large congregation where they do what is being parodied in the video clip!) One person who had viewed this spoof commented:

I am a witness that what this video shows is true. The guys singing the “new song that nobody knows” should have added the lyric “the song that nobody can sing along with because it's too complicated so that only the really cool people actually sing to it and the rest of us just stand there.” It's usually too loud to hear if the congregation is singing along anyway.

But there is absolutely no indication from scripture that entertainment has any significant role to play in what goes on when the church meets. David Wells sums this up accurately when he says, “The purpose of worship is clearly to express the greatness of God and not simply to find inward release or, still less, amusement. Worship is theological rather than psychological.” In a culture of amusement, this is very easy to forget.

Charles Colson gives a very telling report about the matter when he says:

When church music directors lead congregations in singing contemporary Christian music, I often listen stoically with teeth clenched. But one Sunday morning, I cracked. We'd been led through endless repetitions of a meaningless ditty called "Draw Me Close to You," which has zero theological content and could just as easily be sung in any nightclub. When I thought it was finally and mercifully over, the music leader beamed. "Let's sing that again, shall we?" he asked. "No!" I shouted, loudly enough to send heads all around me spinning while my wife, Patty, cringed.

I admit I prefer traditional hymns, but even so, I'm convinced that much of the music being written for the church today reflects an unfortunate trend—slipping across the line from worship to entertainment.

One person commented on what Colson says above with this:

While in some cases I would agree with Mr. Colson's evaluation, I would also beg to differ at the same time. The reality in which I would base my disagreement is that Paul plainly instructed us to be all things to all people that we might save a few. So minus the few glaring examples of worship leaders who are truly more interested in entertaining a group of people, if a few churches attract visitors through upbeat, current music and connect people to Jesus, then it was worth it.

This commentator is seriously mistaken about the meaning of the Apostle Paul’s statement, which was examined above. Again, note the assumption that the purpose of church music is to connect people to Jesus, rather than to help those already connected to Jesus worship Him together. But if music is selected only because it is “upbeat and current” then beauty has been cast aside in favor of “attracting people.” In our culture, entertainment is what attracts most people.

Perhaps one reason so many in the church have uncritically accepted music beauty relativism is because they have adopted this view that the purpose of church music is to entertain people. Since entertainment is relative to the person being entertained, if we confuse congregational worship with entertainment, it is easy to assume that the beauty of music is “in the ear of the listener.”

It is important to make a distinction between the enjoyable and the admirable. Enjoyment is subjective - some can enjoy a certain piece of music, while others might not. But that does not prove all music is equal, if there are elements in some music, for example, that ought to be admired, while other music lacks these.

When congregational worship is seen as a kind of show - as it too often is - then the show must go on with the most entertaining music we can find. Is this, perhaps, why applause is now a frequent response from congregations after “performances” of music before the assembled church? In our culture, applause typically means “we liked the performance.” This seemingly innocent gesture perhaps reveals more than many would care to admit. Paul Jones offers this insight:

To “applaud” means, literally, “to give praise to” [ap- + -laud]. In worship, our thoughts and actions are to be directed to the subject and the object of worship – God himself. Jehovah more than merits our praise, so applauding him for his acts or attributes in the context of worship can be reasonably defended. Clapping the hands while singing and shouting to god with joy (Ps. 47:1) are biblical ideas. Actually, it seems that at every positive biblical mention of clapping the hands, this activity is always linked with singing to God in praise. Otherwise, clapping has no biblical place in worship and obviously should not be directed at musicians, preachers, or babies as applause. . .

In our cultural context, applause is the stuff of the theater, the concert stage, the comic routine, and the political speech. With such strong associations for approval of a performance, clapping in worship is at best, inappropriate. At worst, it is idolatrous.

The Sin of Excessive Volume

One problem the frequently rears its ugly head when the church tries to present its music as entertainment is that of excessive sound levels. Part of what many see as a key to being “hip” is high volume for music. This is supposed to make the “concert” somehow more exciting, it seems. One problem with this, covered elsewhere in this paper, is that it tends to make congregational singing irrelevant to impossible. But there is another problem involved also.

The “rock concert” sound level is well-documented to cause hearing loss. (No documentation of this is offered here simply because it is very easy to see this on many hearing-related websites.) When it is difficult to talk to the person next to you or when the sound level causes any discomfort, the human ear is probably being damaged.

This is something the church needs to consider very seriously. If the abuse of tobacco or drugs is morally wrong because it damages the bodies which God gave and which serve as His temple, then excessively loud music is equally wrong. If, in the attempt to present an “entertaining” rock concert style “worship experience” the church is damaging human hearing, then the church has become an enemy of God. Such a body-damaging experience cannot be worshipful - it can only be sinful.

A church leader once commented on a Christian “rock concert” with words to this effect: “the music was very loud, but the kids present were very excited by the message.” But if the music was loud enough to be uncomfortable, the message has been contradicted by the destructive nature of the experience. It is important to ensure that such experiences are never part of the church.

Congregational singing vs. a show for the congregation

Our culture likes musical shows, but is beginning to lose the desire, and even the ability, to sing.

In this day of radio, MTV, and ever more readily available recorded music, singing at home, or anywhere else, has been lost. With a constant barrage of recorded music in houses, care, shopping malls, beaches, picnic areas – there are few places one can escape it – there is little sonic space for singing.

That “more readily available recorded music” is also readily available at church gatherings. Often, before the “band” plays, canned music blares over the church auditorium loudspeakers. When the “worship band” begins to play, often too loudly, the “sonic space” for singing is almost gone for the congregation. Clearly, none of this is designed to encourage individuals to sing to God and to one another when the church meets. Instead, it reflects our culturally-inspired desire to make the “show” a good one. This problem has come up at other times in the history of the church also.

Paul Westermeyer describes what happened when the medieval church developed a speculative musical system. This approach held that musica munda, the ‘music of the spheres’ could be approached only via complex mathematical formulae. This meant that, in the end, “peasants - musical or otherwise - were not able to participate.”

A similar tragedy seems to be overshadowing the church today. But this time, it is not our theory of music that has separated the congregation from singing. It is, rather, our theory of technology. Church music now focuses on digital instrumentation, amplification, and projection. In most cases, the result of all this is the minimizing of congregational singing. The voices of the congregation are usually overshadowed by the technology of modern church musical productions. While the congregation might be invited to sing along with the ‘praise team’ and the ‘praise band’, the voices of the congregation are far too often secondary.

If congregational singing is a way for the church to edify her members and praise God in concert together, it should affect decisions we make about church music.

We should attempt to help the congregation sing some of the best songs - regardless of when they were written - based on the beauty of the music and the beauty and truth of the poetry. The point here is for the congregation to sing, because if we have chosen the songs properly, we will be singing to one another and to God. In other words, we will be joining together to teach and encourage one another, or praise God together, in song.

This is unlikely to happen if the goal is to put on a show or production for the congregation. If this is the case, it doesn’t matter if the congregation sings. What matters is that the show is the best one possible to attract and entertain the audience.

Beyond the question of what is sung is the matter of “lack of sound” at times during congregational gatherings. It is rare indeed to find times of silence when the church gathers today. Even during communion we usually feel compelled to play “background music.” While this is not necessarily a bad idea, the fact that we fear silence seems to be connected to the idea that congregational worship is a “show.” During a show, silence is forbidden; dead air time is dreaded. But during worship, even when we are gathered as the church, silence can be very appropriate. As one observe put it:

Silence is something that many Americans are nervous to experience, particularly in corporate setting. We often do not consider the reflective, spiritual, and restorative values of silence. We would do well to experience it more often in the context of worship.

This should also control what is used for accompaniment. Some instruments or even sound arrangements tend to “cover up” the congregation. If the purpose of church music is primarily for congregational singing, this shouldn’t happen. The highly amplified, performance-oriented “band” which might be great for a good “show” is very unsuitable for congregational singing because the band covers up the voices of the congregation. This yields the situation like many concerts where the audience might be singing along, but the main show is the band and the on-stage performers.

Westermeyer (cited above) pointed out how this problem is not just a modern one, but goes back to the Middle Ages when the complexity of the music surrounding the liturgy tacitly excluded the need of place for congregational singing. Later at the advent of the Reformation, Zwingli argued that texts like Col. 3:16 refer to “silent singing.” Westermeyer then goes on to say:

We are not likely to argue the case for silent singing the way Zwingli . . did it. We are more likely not to argue it at all, but to do it in practice. We practice congregational silent singing every time we set up the leaders of worship as a self-contained unit so that the people and their singing become irrelevant. It can happen with organs and choirs, amplified vocalists and bands, synthesizers and other electronic equipment, in any style or in any place - wherever the sonic environment is made to appear complete without the congregation.

Westermeyer then draws this conclusion:

Our danger may actually be closer to the Middle Ages . . . I have never heard anyone among us, other than Quakers, argue for a silent congregation. But I have often witnessed worshiping communities which, if the sounds of the organs or choirs or bands or amplified equipment were removed, would be nearly or totally silent. There are “high art” churches where the congregation is asked not to sing and “contemporary Christian music” churches where things are so complex that the congregations can’t possibly sing.

This doesn’t necessarily imply that those who produce such “shows” have bad motives or are involved in self-aggrandizement. They could be very humbly and sincerely attempting to attract non-Christians. But they are pursuing a good goal by faulty and inappropriate means. No amount of misguided sincerity can change the purpose of the first-day assembly of the saints, and that purpose focuses not on “seekers” but on believers.

Christians want to sing together, and rightly so. As one writer justifiably complained to would-be church music leaders:

Choose songs everyone can sing together, not the ones written mainly for soloists. Personally I don’t care whether a song was written in 1510 or 2010 as long as its words are biblical and its tune is sing-able. If it pulls my stubborn heart closer to the Lord, I don’t care if the song was written by Martin Luther or by the hippest kid in the church youth group.

This is not simply a trivial academic point, but a very serious matter that should give the church pause at the beginning of the twenty-first century. The urge to entertain, to put on a good “show” that will attract unbelievers, necessarily involves the church appealing to “the world” as the world. In Greek philosophy, “the world” (kosmos) was a somewhat neutral term describing, “the world-order, the world-system, the sum total of things preserved by this ordering, the world in the spatial sense, the cosmos, the universe, the earth, and also the inhabitants of the earth, humanity.” However, in the New Testament “the Christian church is warned to maintain its distance over against the world” and “to keep itself free from its [the world’s] seductive power.”

It would be a serious mistake to think that this “seductive power” is not expressed in the music of the world. While this does not imply that every melody or style from outside the community of Christians is evil, it does mean that the church cannot simply adopt anything from the world, including music, without serious moral/theological scrutiny.

The Best Music vs. the Newest Music

If we are trying to do all the things set forth here so far in regard to church music, then it is possible to evaluate music for use in congregational singing. But the mere fact that a song is a recent composition does not necessarily recommend it as superior. On the contrary, recent compositions may require additional scrutiny. 

David Wells analyzed the content of recent Christian music, using as his basis Worship Songs of the Vineyard and Maranatha! Music Praise Chorus Book. He found that this music “lives off the truth of classical spirituality but frequently leaves that truth unstated.” While this music offers praise, “58.9% offer no doctrinal grounds or explanation for the praise” facilitating a “deeply privatized worship” having a texture that is “more therapeutic than moral.” The themes of sin, penitence, the longing for holiness appear in only 3.6%” of this music. These songs reveal “the essentially mystical nature of postmodern piety . . . even though it is a mysticism that is filtered through modern, psychological assumptions.”

Less dire, but still problematic in this area, is the tendency for the church to absorb culture, but at a somewhat slower rate than the rest of society. Feminism was well-entrenched in society when the church “discovered” that is was desirable for the church also. The same can be said of environmentalism. One writer seems to be describing this phenomenon when he speaks of “Christians getting into the manufacture of knock-offs. If something gets popular in the world, the Christians are right there with a competing model made with cheap labor in a Third World factory and using a lot more plastic.” This seems to happen with church music also. The style of music popular a few years ago becomes the almost unquestionable necessity for church music today - often with little regard for its suitability for congregational singing. As one writer observed:

Much of this has come into play through the Contemporary Christian Music movement, which irrespective of taste, cannot be categorically separated from the secular forces and mediocre musical ideals that inform it, no matter how Christianized the text may be.

All this points to a pressing need to be very selective about what music is used by the church. Here are offered some beginnings of suggestions for criteria for evaluation of church music based on what has been developed in this essay. While these are necessarily preliminary, they are an attempt to move beyond the lack of any criteria or the use of poor criteria such as “it’s popular right now and we like it.”

1.        Is the composition beautiful (of tune, harmony, rhythm, and lyrics)? Not all music is equal. Here are some things that come into play:

a.        As mentioned earlier, beautiful lyrics must express sound doctrine. Those who lead the church’s music need to be well-trained in theology. From faulty “pop theology” to serious doctrinal error, false teaching has always pressed itself into the life of the church. What a disaster it would be to allow false teaching to be sung into the mind of the Christian, as has far too often been the case!

b.        Some melody/harmony combinations are more beautiful than others. Beauty - as has been pointed out repeatedly above - is not just “in the ear of the listener.” Beauty is not necessarily found on the pop charts. Beauty must be sought very intentionally, and we may need to train ourselves to recognize it.

c.        Some tunes are just “catchier” than others. They are memorable, and make people want to sing them. While “catchy” must not trump beauty, a good song can be both catchy and beautiful.

d.        Even the pairing of good music and good lyrics that do not fit together well can detract from both. Majestic truths about the person of God set to trite little tunes that suggest fluff would be an example of this problem.

e.        Some songs are overly repetitive, even though otherwise good. This could be called the “Hey Jude” fallacy of music. (Remember how long the “na, na, na” section went on and on?) Even Biblical words can be chanted over and over and become in effect mantras, and no longer praise from the mind - which can never be divorced from true praise to God. One Christianity Today writer has been so candid to admit that the charismatic movement was the source of “repetitive choruses.”

f.        Some lyrics tend toward the trivial, and triviality does not build up the church, nor is it worthy of praise to the Maker of Heaven and Earth. Just because words are lifted (out of context) from the Bible or sound “spiritual” does not necessarily make them worth singing. That’s just not enough to make a good song, no matter how “holy” it sounds. A good Christian song will say something significant, something worth singing. Good lyrics must do more than just state a theme (and restate it, and restate it - as above) - they should develop a theme. Shallowness in lyrics does not build up the church.

2.        Is the composition singable by a group of ordinary people?

a.        Some of the factors just mentioned can make a song not only musically “ugly” but not easily singable. In some songs too many syllables are crammed into to few beats. We have crippled ourselves from the beginning when we start with songs with structures that make them difficult for most people to sing. For example, the stanzas of “Our God Is An Awesome God” are hard to sing because they contain so many syllables for each measure of music. Songs that try to cram three or four syllables into a beat are often too difficult to sing. Far too many “scripture songs” have this problem.

b.        Even more important here is the fact that some beautiful songs are simply not well-suited for ordinary group singing. Handel’s Messiah is beautiful, but it is not singable - by an ordinary congregation, at least.

c.        This is why some songs sound great when performed by a band in the studio for recording, but would never sound good when sung by most congregations. One factor that comes into play here is subtle, but important. Songs written for elaborate accompaniment often have sections with several measures of rest for voices designed to allow the orchestration to make musical transitions. Even when such accompaniment is available to a congregation, it leaves singing “gaps” in songs where the congregation is waiting for the orchestration to finish. During this time the congregation is essence stops participating. Songs in this format can be beautiful and still not as suitable for congregational singing as songs designed with rests primarily for breathing.

3.        Does the composition develop important Biblical ideas? In addition to the mere problem of mindless repetition mentioned above, the church needs to sing lyrics that state and develop important ideas from the Bible. Here is where the constant singing of ‘choruses’ can be very lacking. A chorus can be a good conclusion to the development of ideas in the stanzas of a song. Great songs, in addition to all the things mentioned above, start with an idea that is developed in a significant way as we progress through each stanza, and then concludes in the chorus. Overly simple, stand-alone choruses may state something that is true, but lack of development can leave that truth, in effect, stillborn.

4.        Notice that things like “rockin”, “cool”, and so forth are not part of the criteria for evaluating church music. Notice also that “it’s popular right now,” “they’re playing it on the Christian radio station” and “it’s on the latest Maranatha or WOW worship CD” don’t come into play when evaluating the quality and suitability of congregational music. Those things would all be very important if we are trying to entertain, but they are unimportant if we are trying to teach the congregation some of the best edifying congregational music from across the ages.

If beauty is something that can transcend our mere preferences, then our approach to church music must take account of that. Rather than simply pandering to people’s varied tastes, the church should set about discovering music ever more beautiful - music more appropriately offered to God because it more accurately expresses the nature of God!

Nothing said here implies that such music will necessarily be older, newer, slower, faster, more popular, or less popular. Even if beauty is based in reality, we still might not be surprised to see that it has “popped up” like wild flowers in a meadow - here and there with different colors and shapes. The point is that though we might reasonably debate which of the flowers is the most beautiful, it should be clear that the flowers are more beautiful than the crabgrass. If the beauty of music is not completely relative we will have to recognize that some music is better than others, and get on with the necessary and important business of evaluation.

Conserving good Christian music from across the ages

There are classics of church music (in the sense of fitting the standards of evaluation here that flow from a proper recognition of beauty) from all time periods.

New classics will be born now and then, and when discovered, they should be added to the list of Christian music to be preserved. But simply because the “recent” is such a small segment of time and the past so extensive, most of the best of Christian music will not be on this year’s top forty of Christian music. As Donald T. Williams states this idea:

Something old and something new: we need both, but the old has a privileged position because it has already been sifted by time. Thus, the wise cling to the best of the old, not to exclude the new, but to nurture it. Like the early Church, we still need both to be healthy—and to please our Lord.

The idea that “the old has a privileged position” will strike those of us from a society which serves the cult of contemporaneity as odd. Many of us need to recognize, and remove, the “new is better” glasses we are wearing that distort everything we see. Clearly, the ideology of “new is better” does not comport well with the Christian faith. That in turn means that

if contemporaneity is inconsistent with Christianity, if its dismissal of the past is inconsistent with what the Scriptures teach, then the question sharpens: not only is it not necessary or preferable for worship song to sound contemporary, it is a positive liability. That is, if a song sounds contemporary, it already has one strike against it, and needs to overcome that strike by being extraordinarily good in every other way.

But there is another, more serious, consideration here. We live in a culture that has been highly influenced by the Christian faith. That influence could be clearly seen, until recently. Many now say that we live in a post-Christian society. This does not mean there are no Christians. It does mean that the Christian faith no longer informs a majority of people in our society, and no longer influences attitudes in our society as much as it once did.

That being the case, we can reasonably expect it to be less likely that recent compositions will be classics for the expression of the Christian faith. The influences of modern, anti-Christian assumptions are not easily overcome by Christian song writers. As mentioned above, they are sometimes adopted by modern Christian songwriters. This doesn’t mean that modern writers will never produce excellent church music, but it could make that result less likely. While we should continue to look for classics of Christian music, we probably will not find them as often in the post-Christian culture of modern America.

One writer summarized this very well when he said:

Traditionalists have never excluded the contemporary; they have always encouraged the best artists of every generation to add to the growing, living tradition of hymnody. It is the contemporaneists who are often exclusive; there are some who exclude almost the entire Christian tradition.

What a tragedy it is when the church and its leaders abandon centuries of a valuable musical legacy because they have adopted an idol of our culture which mindless proclaims that new is better.

Shall We Then “Blend”?

Recent surveys indicate that “blending” church music is the most popular approach now. If “blending” means combining the classics from across the history of the church, then it is a good idea. But often “blending” is simply an attempt to “compromise” on musical styles and satisfy every musical taste. If beauty in music exists, we should not compromise. We should pursue beauty in church music. We should evaluate songs as we encounter them, striving to add the best to our congregation’s repertoire. The age of the composition should not be a factor. From our repertoire we should select for each occasion of congregational singing the songs from our repertoire that fit the occasion, regardless of their relative age. The attempt to mix older and newer compositions in an attempt to “make everybody happy” is a tacit abandonment of the pursuit of beauty in church music. As church music expert Paul S. Jones states this:

When an attempt is made to please everyone by doing a little of this and a little of that, or by trying to select music enjoyed by all, we of necessity degenerate toward the lowest commonality. Yet biblically we are called to give our best in worship, and this requires effort and choice.

One key criterion for this choice, we emphasize again, is beauty. If we focus on preserving the classics - regardless of when they were written - then the congregation can learn songs and build a repertoire that will not be changing too rapidly. It is good for a congregation to know some good songs and know them very well, rather than always trying to learn “the latest thing”which is ever-changing, and changing very quickly. The idea that not constantly learning the latest songs is somehow boring and not “hip” is an idol that is ripe for destruction.

An interview with Keith and Kristyn Getty, writers of songs for use in the church, recently appeared in Christianity Today. The Gettys seem to understand and abide by the thesis of this study. Consider some of their comments:

The radical thing is that in the Old Testament, everybody came together and sang. And in the New Testament, the Jew and the Gentile, the Greek and the Roman, the young and the old all came together and sang together. That's the witness of church history. It's not some kind of food court where everyone chooses their favorite music and goes that direction.

While there's a lot of excellent worship songs, they tend to focus on very small aspects of the Christian faith. . . Modern worship songs tend to have a very thin range of subjects. They also tend to explore subjects in a less deep way than traditional hymnody does.

In response to the question “In a worship service, is there an ideal mix between contemporary worship, modern hymns, and classic hymns?” comes this answer from the Gettys:

I don't think there's an answer. You choose great songs that have great words and sing well. Every word you give people on a Sunday has to count for something. The same thing applies to what is sung—in fact, in some ways even more so.

Finally, they offered this telling comment: “A lot of people go into Christian music with the Bible in one hand and Coldplay [a popular group] in the other: ‘I'm going to slap something from the Bible onto whatever the contemporary style is, and that's the way to relate to contemporary culture . . .’” There a better, a much better, way.

Conclusion

This is only a preliminary exploration of an area that is long over-due for some serious consideration. Beauty is inextricably tied to truth and goodness, and the church cannot and should not ignore it. One area where beauty is especially important is church music. The church can pursue beauty, or one of its rivals. But all those rivals are inferior to beauty.

Historian Paul Johnson makes a telling comment on music in America during the twentieth century. He says, “And all the time pop music was crowding in to envelop the various styles and traditions in the phantasmagoria of commercial music geared to the taste of countless millions of easily manipulated but increasingly affluent young people.” This trend did not end in the last century, nor is it limited to young people. As one author comments on all this:

But better yet to be entirely unconcerned about whether a hymn sounds contemporary. No other generation was so concerned, and there is no good reason for ours to be so. The commercial forces that shape pop culture should not be the arbiters of how we worship God.

Because recordings are now easily digitalized and disseminated, people in our culture are accustomed to what amounts to a musical smorgasbord. We demand an unlimited variety of musical styles, endlessly and immediately updated in a way that instantly satisfies our musical preferences. We have little or no conception that any of these can be aesthetically better than others - we simply want what we like and we like what we want because we want to like it. But as with any smorgasbord, not all the items offered are of equal nutritional value.

In the midst of this aesthetic nihilism the church needs to begin the search for beauty in music. One thing this implies is that people can like music that is not beautiful - and given our culture, probably will - and that part of the calling of the church is help people learn to love beauty, in music and in other areas. People who come to Christ from a culture of truth relativism must sometimes be taught to love and recognize truth. People who come to Christ from a culture of moral relativism must often be taught to love and recognize goodness. In the same way, people who come to Christ from a culture of aesthetic relativism will usually need to be taught to recognize beauty. One place to begin this last task is with an examined, consistent, Biblical view of beauty and its proper application to the music of the church.