Constructing a Christian Philosophy of Church Music

H. N. Orndorff, Jr.

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 helps make us especially susceptible to an over-estimation of the importance of church music. Church music, especially in the way it is often conceived today, should not be at top of the list of important things for the church. But that doesn’t make it unimportant. Most congregations have decided to spend a significant part of their time together in musical pursuits. Often, an hour of church meeting can contain twenty minutes or more of music. Surely an investment of this proportion should not go unexamined.

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 random, irrational, purposeless action. These are surely all things Christians should want to avoid.

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 our philosophy of church music.

A well-reasoned approach vs. 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.

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, particularly beauty in church music, may not be “essential” that does not mean it is 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.

The “traditional” versus “contemporary” terminology is often used in ways that indicate a lack of thought. Even a brief examination shows that this whole way of thinking only obscures the problem. From the moment a composition is complete, it is no longer “contemporary” - so what? 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 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 much as many other areas.

The Force of Fad

The church, being composed 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.”

There is also a commercial side to the slide toward fad 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.’” Sellers of music have a stake in promoting the “new is better” fallacy.

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.”

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”?

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. That has been a serious mistake. Perhaps our seeming 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?

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 “decentered” 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

Is everything 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 even 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! It is worth noting 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 “upbuilding” 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 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. 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.

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 with a view to building 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.

As popular and almost unquestioned as this whole concept of the seeker-centered church has become, it is very hard to see how it could be Biblical. 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.

This concept is a key element of the restoration plea. Alexander Campbell concurs in this, 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?

“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.” Cash gifts are not immoral, 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 most 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 bazaar 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 Church 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 seriously questioned above - 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 with limited content of recent composition - are the best congregational music. Beauty and its place in the worship of God seem to have been forgotten entirely.

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. (A notable example 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 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 her 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.

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.”

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.

Perhaps one reason so many in the church have uncritically accepted music beauty relativism is because they have adopted the 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.”

Congregational singing vs. a show for the congregation

If congregational singing is a way for the church to edify her members and praise God in concert together, it will 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.

This also controls 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 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 singers.

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 goal by faulty means. No amount of misguided sincerity can change the purpose of the first-day assembly of the saints.

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 composed 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.

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 poor criteria such as “it’s popular right now and we like it.”

Long ago, J. W. McGarvey considered this matter and offered these conclusions:

First, and most important of all, its sentiments must be scriptural. There is a hymn in one of our church hymnals which has been sung a great deal, the second stanza of which confidently looks forward to the time when that old boatman familiar in Greek mythology who used to row people across the river Styx, will safely row the Christian across the river of death. Now that is heathenish, but it is in a Christian hymn book. First, then, let me say again, and emphasize it, See to it that the sentiments of every hymn you select to sing in the church are scriptural.

 

Second, a good hymn is good poetry. Those of you who have gone pretty well along in the course of English, ought to know what good poetry is. You have been taught what it is. But it will require on your part a good deal of thought and study in addition to what you get from your professor, in order to give you that fine taste which will enable you to see the fine elements of poetry in a hymn. I do not think that there is one of the hymns that have become permanently popular that is not good poetry. Not only is good poetry essential, but there is a sentiment among uncultivated people that demands it. Some hymns acquire popularity and usefulness for a short time by means of the fine music set to them, even though they are only a jingle of rhymes: but they soon pass away.

 

When, then a hymn is found to contain scripture sentiment and good poetry, in order to be effective as a hymn it must be sung to appropriate music, music that expresses finely the sentiments of the hymn.

McGarvey's points are good ones.  Here is some more elaboration with more recent questions in mind:

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.        In some songs too many syllables are crammed into to few beats, as mentioned earlier.

c.        Some melody/harmony combinations are more beautiful than others.

d.        Some tunes are just “catchier” than others. They are memorable, and make people want to sing them.

e.        Even the pairing of good music and good lyrics that do not fit together well can detract from both.

f.        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.

g.        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 - things like the “cramming” problem. The stanzas of “Our God Is An Awesome God” are hard to sing because they contain so many “beats” with a syllable for each beat. Beyond that, some song writers try to cram three or four syllables into a beat.

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 a 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 with 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 gaps only for breathing.

3.        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 closely resembles 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 relative we will have to recognize that some music is better than others.

Conserving good Christian music from across the ages

There are classics (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.

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 does 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.

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. 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.

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.

Conclusion

This is just a start in 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 - all of which 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.

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 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.