Strangeness of the Month Club
with your host, Kent B. True*

As regular club members have noticed, I sometimes pick articles for our meetings that, in my opinion, have a big bull’s-eye on them. But that is not the case this month. This is a reflection on "the worship controversy" and I think it makes some thoughtful points. And while this might be one of those dead horses that shouldn’t be beaten any more, it is a horse that still seems to have a bit of life left in it. So hold your nose to ward off the odor of rotten horse flesh as we explore . . .

I would rather not have to think about this topic any more, but this article forced me to do so - one last time, I hope. Sometime in the 1990s I first heard rumors of the "worship wars." At one point I found myself engulfed in a local battle of this war. It came suddenly and without warning, and it was very destructive.

This caused me to sit up and take some notice. During this protracted war (which I think has not quite yet ended in some parts) sages urged us all to peace and acceptance. In reality this was really a call for one side to shut up and surrender. In most cases, where that surrender occurred, peace was had. Of course, when one side surrenders, a war is over.

But before we get into this, there is a point about terminology to be made. When people speak of worship wars or controversies, they are almost never talking about preaching style, teaching style, praying style, giving style, or even daily living-as-a-Christian style. They are almost always talking about music style. This gives the impression that many people think worship is to be equated with music. As much as I love music, this is a truncated, impoverished view of worship. It is ironic that one of the first casualties of the worship wars was the very concept of worship. With this little reminder that music is not all of worship (in fact, I doubt that music is required for any kind of worship) we proceed with a discussion of music styles as they relate to worship, especially gathered, corporate worship.

Doug Priest has written an essay in which he draws upon his experiences around the world at churches and as a missionary. He argues that there is a world of difference between the musical styles of, for example, Ethiopians and an up-scale congregation in Los Angles. And yet both are acceptable to God. From this he concludes, "When our focus is on God, exactly how we worship and what style we use becomes irrelevant."

While this is a very artful and thoughtful argument, it leaves a lot of important questions unanswered, especially in the details.

For example, Priest says of the Ethiopians:

Doesn’t the Apostle Paul make it fairly clear in 1 Corinthians 14 that what is done in the assembly of saints needs to be understandable to the participants? Does not the Apostle indicate that it is not sufficient that God understand what is going on in the assembly, but that He also wants everyone present to understand also? So while this is an interesting observation about the mission field and the complexities of working there, it is not really applicable to the "worship controversy."

At one point our missionary friend says:

But this again misses the point. Doing it "like the did in the New Testament" means doing it in a language understandable to those present. Thus, the fact that most people in our culture do not understand first-century languages is irrelevant to the current "worship controversy."

But perhaps these points are not all that important. Priest’s main point seems to be that because there are so many styles, styles do not matter. He urges that "we all understand that our worship is to God, and that it is recognizable and acceptable to him." This is why, according to Priest, that "worship styles" - meaning mostly kinds of music - do not matter.

It is a little surprising then to find our style-relativist missionary saying:

"We did not feel it was right to import a Western hymnody or utilize Western instruments for churches in rural Ethiopia. Our prayer was that the church would remain long after we were gone, and that it would be a church that used indigenous forms rather than ones brought from Europe or America."

If music styles really don’t matter, then why would it not be "right" for Ethiopians to use Western hymnody? How do we know that Ethiopians wouldn’t benefit from Western hymnody if they had a chance to know it? It seems that even a self-proclaimed music style relativist can at some point make a definitive judgment about right and wrong music styles.

The question of musical quality is a matter of aesthetics, the study of beauty. To be a complete music style relativist, one must believe "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" - that beauty in music is relative. I have always found it odd for people to contend that the true is not relative, and the good is not relative, but the beautiful is relative.

Is the tune of "My Baby Does the Hanky-Panky" really just as beautiful as the compositions of Handel or Beethoven? Is all poetry, even that with God as its subject, equally beautiful? And if all music and poetry are not created aesthetically equal, by what revelation can we declare that God cares not about the beauty of our offerings to Him - especially if we have choices but refuse to make an evaluation?

While I don’t have the answer to the "worship controversy" the assumptions of the "it just doesn’t matter what music you use" approach are shaky at best.

Perhaps we are drawn to an unexamined, default assumption of music style relativism in the church because so many of us have adopted the view that the purpose of church music is to entertain people. Since entertainment probably is relative, if we confuse congregational worship with entertainment, it is easy to assume that the beauty of music is "in the ear of the listener." 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?)

This is not offered as a justification for the traditional, whatever that term might mean. But the position of aesthetic relativism needs to be re-examined. Perhaps there have been (or are now) great poets of the Christian faith whose poetry is simply aesthetically superior to others who have tried their hand at lyrics for Christian music. Perhaps some Christian music composers are simply more skilled at composition than some of their fellows. Unless we simply assume that beauty is relative, this is a likely possibility.

So if we are going to use music and lyrics as a means to praise God and speak to one another, is it not important to use beautiful music? Is it not important to use lyrics that beautifully express sound doctrine? Do we not have a duty to pursue beauty in congregational music purposefully and intelligently?

So when we are told, "May we all understand that our worship is to God, and that it is recognizable and acceptable to him" it is important to realize that this is not the whole story. May we also understand that the God we worship is a God of beauty. (See Ps. 27:4 and 50:2.) Perhaps the correct antidote to "personal preferences" is not the music-style-doesn’t-really-matter approach, but rather, a recognition and pursuit of beauty.

And that’s my two-cents on the music - often incorrectly called the "worship" - controversy.

* Kent B. True is allegedly one Harold N. Orndorff, Jr. He is campus minister for the Christian Student Fellowship at Northern Kentucky University, and has taught in the fields of apologetics, philosophy, ethics, and logic at Cincinnati Christian University and Roanoke Bible College. Complain to him if you must at hnoii@hotmail.com.