Church Music

Today I have a topic to think about and you all get front seats to this thought storm; here goes:

As one who was brought up in church, I got involved with worship music somewhere around 8th grade. Since then I have been a part of music teams as they transitioned from "traditional" (whatever that means) music to more "contemporary" (again, that's pretty non-descriptive) music. I've also had the incredible experience of playing a role in re-building a worship music program from the studs. Along with all of that, I've studied for a worship music minor (that I decided to drop my senior year of my undergrad college experience) and have studied theology, philosophy and church history intensely for going on 4 years now.

I preface this post with some of my credentials in order to say that I have probably spent more time thinking about how we as western, American, Evangelical, Protestant, mostly modern Christians worship today than your average Christian.

Qualifying statement: This does NOT in any way make me a better Christian, person, etc. but it does make me more likely to have made some observations that others may not have come across.

While there are several different aspects to our worship which I could comment on, I  don't intend this blog to be an all inclusive thought project, so let me establish some parameters:

1. I want to begin by delineating between what I'll call a "private worship life" and a "corporate worship life". There are many nuances here, but I'm going to use these broad categories in order to remain focused.
2. I have no intention on attacking any practice currently in place. Over against any hard teaching, I only want to flesh out some of my recent observations and reflections, so please try and take this for what its worth and if you don't like it, ignore it.
3. While there are many many ways that Christians have worshiped throughout the life of the Church and stretching back into our Jewish heritage, I will only be speaking of things that are relevant to my western context because that is where I have personal experience. Also, this lets me off the hook for having to do research just to write this blog.

ok, I think that's most of it, pressing on...

Today, I want to assess how we choose which songs to play at church. Now, while I think that there are many issues with how we do church (everything from over-emphasizing Sunday worship to marginalizing congregation participation and beyond, but that's a bit outside the established parameters), I think that if we accept the generally established music utilization in our Sunday gatherings, we ought to give due diligence with what kind of music is played.

Before getting too far in to what songs we choose, I think that it would be good to put some preliminaries out there about our Sunday worship:

1. I think that it is most correct to approach Sunday for what it is; specifically, it is a corporate worship gathering. This means that, against our current culture of hyper-individualism (no citation, sorry), we should spend this time coming close to each other. We often fail on this point and it is evidenced in many ways, some of which are how we tend to sit only with our family and often not right next to anyone else if we can avoid it. By way of example, I remember getting a bizarre look when I sat next to a guy who was not a family member and I didn't leave a space in between us... man-law violated, I know. But we should not shy away from this nearness; we are part of the body of Christ and no hand would try and shy away from its fingers.
2. Closely related to the above, this is specifically NOT individual worship time. My interior life is maintained daily so, I should not feel the need to hijack this time to selfishly serve my lacking spiritual life. We are gathered for each other as much as we are gathered for ourselves...perhaps more. There are many implications of this that I encourage all to think about, but there you have it.
3. As much as our culture has made this a "show" in which only a few men (rarely women) are highlighted an given the stage, we are all to engage which is not the same as saying "we are all to sing along". No, instead, we should feel that the service would not quite be the same if we were gone; that kind of impact. Maybe this happens behind the scenes like in giving the preacher/teacher or band leader feed back, but however it occurs, we ought to feel some ownership of this time.

So, with those preliminaries out there, we turn our attention to the music itself. I think that there are many things to be conscious of, not only as music leaders but also as elders, leaders, worshipers and members of the body who are being asked to sing the words on the screen week in and week out. The qualifiers that I'll list below for songs are not meant to be all-inclusive and they certainly are my opinions, but I think that they transcend music style preferences and volume of music etc. So, to be more pointed, my opinions here have little to do with what kind of music is being played or how its played, but they are focused on the content of the songs. Lets begin:

1. Our music should be theologically sound. While you may be tempted to say "duh", we often don't put songs through the ringer. I think far too often we gauge the value of a song based on the feeling we personally get or the response of the crowd without very much thought given to the truth or context of our words. Without pointing to specific songs (because I do care about offending people and their song preferences), some problems that come to mind are like using the word "lord" without acknowledging that this isn't simply an interchangeable name for "God" or "Jesus", but is instead a title that reflects a relationship that may or may not be real for everyone in the congregation. Another issue may be in using metaphors with no explanation. This is one that happens with hymns often (i.e. what's an Ebenezer? Does everyone in your congregation know that? Is it a good metaphor for our current context?). We ought to be theologically thoughtful.
2. Our music should be corporate in voice. Again, we're discussing corporate worship settings, so I believe we should more or less stay away from songs that are heavy with "I", "me", "my life", etc. to the exclusion of more corporate language like "your church", "the bride", "the kingdom", etc. When we fail to avoid those songs, what happens is that we perpetuate the selfish, hyper-individualization that our culture pushes that prizes our individual comfort over community. This is starkly anti-Christian. Now, I should say that those songs often elicit worship because we connect to them more easily and, as a song writer, I have myself written songs like that, so I think there is value in them. I only want to say that their proper place is in our private lives, not in a larger communal setting. Sadly, this may mean re-vamping most churches musical libraries; but I think it's worth it.
3. Our music should teach. I feel like it is more or less irrefutable that music teaches. This is why everyone was mad at Eminem when I was kid. Ironically, he said in a song "music can alter moods and talk to you..." and here, I have to agree. Music is so much easier to remember than oral, written or rote-memorized teachings. With that in mind, I think that we ought to be careful what kind of things our songs teach. Not just theology, but in building a picture of God, we ought to take care. I believe that our mental picture of God's character is probably the single most important part of our worldview and as such, we ought to be careful what kind of mental picture we are painting. Are we perpetuating the butler God? Are we perpetuating the tamed and cuddly Jesus? Are perpetuating the angry, warrior God? The cosmic vending machine? a deist or heretical picture? I know this can seem like a slippery slope, but we ought to seriously ask these questions of the music that we're asking people to sing.

Those are just three things that I think about when thinking about songs we sing in church. I hope that discussion opens up in the comments section or through different social media venues. Most of all, I hope that this lands in front of church leaders. When I began to first think of myself as a Christian leader, I was terrified for several reasons (among which was not feeling qualified). Since then, I have more confidently come to terms with that role, but the one thing that has not left me was the urgency of the office; that is, the seriousness and eternal implications of what I may teach people. After all, who wants to go swimming with cement shoes...or a mill-stone around the neck...At any rate, I fear that the consequences could be dire if we mislead people with the music we put in their mouths. God will move regardless of our foolishness, but we should still honor the call we've answered.

I'm sorry if I offended. Truly, my goal with this entire blog is simply to better the church and provide space for me to work out my own beliefs and in that context, I thank you for following along. I would only ask, if you were offended, that you ask yourself why. Furthermore, feel free to open it to discussion; often we learn best together.

pax,
The Dread

Arguing God: Worth It?

What follows is one of my Grad school papers, so apologies up front if it comes across as highly academic; it is. :-)

            In theology, it is not uncommon to ask oneself why it is valuable to posit arguments for the existence of God. “Surely God can prove himself if he so chooses”, one might say. Still there is a long legacy of these arguments and it is their perpetuation which merits some attention by modern philosophizing believers.

How Do You Know God?

            In order to discover the value in arguments for God’s existence, it is first helpful to make some observations about how one comes to know of God. First, a distinction must be made in general: all ways that people claim to be able to know that there is a God eventually distil into one of two ways of knowing. Either knowledge of God is learned or else it is directly experienced.

            In regards to learning, we can see that there are many world religions and traditions within them that claim to yield belief in God. In Christianity, specific, there are formal arguments that have been handed down by theologians and philosophers throughout history. One such argument is the teleological argument which claims that there must be a God because all creation seems to be moving toward a designated end. Another is the cosmological argument which points to the idea that there must be a source for nature and that all matter and energy originated somewhere. Arguments such as these have been handed down throughout the years without abandon and seem to be very convincing for some[1].

            The second and arguably more controversial way we know of God is through experience. The trouble with pointing to experience as a way of knowing God is that it is logically irrefutable (that is, no one can say you did not experience what you claim to have indeed experienced) and it is highly subjective (specifically, the individual’s interpretation of perceived experiences play a huge, uncontrollable factor). Thankfully, there are recorded experiences that can be looked to for comparative purposes in order to discern what is normal and what is novel. Still, experience has been one of the main ways that people tend to claim to know God.

 One famous example of this is transmitted through literature to us from famed philosopher, Rene Descartes. In his mediations Descartes essentially proposes that we can know that God exists because we exist; thus, our mere pondering is proof enough[2]. Another well known example comes from the darling of Evangelicals, C.S. Lewis who pointed to our intrinsic awareness of morality as proof of a higher power; namely, God[3]. Both of these examples take the human observation of reality to be quite authoritative and, while one could argue their validity, it is undeniable that the tradition of looking inside oneself for an answer to the question of God’s existence is well established in human thought.

The Worth of an Argument

            In order to proceed and answer the question of whether or not it is a worthy venture to develop arguments that attempt to convince people of God’s existence, we must realize that apologetic reasoning of this kind falls in the category of “learned” means for knowing God. This is so because sophisticated reasons are unlikely to simply fall into a person’s experiential world without being planted there by some means of education. So, when we look at apologetics and question the validity, we need to look at the value of tradition.

            The passing down of knowledge and culture is essential in the human experience. As foundational as traditions can be, we must also understand that ideas that are rooted in identity are the kinds of ideas that people are willing to die for[4]. Christianity especially is guilty of this charge as it was founded on a martyr and has a lifestyle of martyrdom built into it. So when we ask about logical arguments, we cannot sell short their powerful application.

            Furthermore, it seems to be that if some people will resist belief in God on the grounds that there are logical problems, then it follows that some will embrace theism if said problems do not exist. Therefore, it is reasonable to attempt to dissolve cognitive dissonance for people as a means of transmitting belief in God. This logical truth provides some cause to continue to develop apologetics. Still, it must also be said that arguments for God’s existence do best when they take on an inductive form and when they have an additive effect; that is, it has not been necessarily proven that God exists and it is rare that someone is convinced by only one argument. Finally, a person must be willing to accept the premises necessary for logical arguments to gain ground and if they refuse on principal, then it is pointless to continue any form of argumentation[5].

            One final thing can be said about the value in arguing for God’s existence with non-believers and it is this: It is true that many people are driven away from a theistic stance because of professing believers and not because of Church doctrine. I personally have had long conversations with people in which I try to debunk misconceptions of theism. One such person is a childhood friend of mine whom I will call Todd.

            Todd was raised in a physically and emotionally abusive home by legalistic parents, one of which hailed from an atheistic background and the other from a fundamentalist background. What’s more is Todd’s long experience with his neighbors who are professing Mennonites – supposedly one of the most pious denominations of Christianity. Sadly, Todd not only had witnessed these Mennonites stealing from him but also wild parties and rumored orgies. All of these experiences totaled up a much distorted picture of the Christian God in Todd’s mind. When I decided that it was time for me to leverage my lifelong friendship with Todd against his disbelief it began in the form of me inquiring about his logical reasons for doubting Christianity.

            Not surprisingly, Todd’s biggest hindrances to belief were rooted in the duplicity and perceived inconsistency of the “Christians” in his life. Along with not wanting to associate with hypocrites, Todd struggled with theodicy; after all, if God was good, why was he allowed to be marginalized his whole life? My point in disclosing Todd’s case to the reader is not to merely point to the reality that people have logical issues with theism, but to also relate that I utilized my formal education in arguing on God’s behalf in concert with my own experiences in order to help Todd begin to traverse his swamp of cynicism and jadedness towards theism and Christianity.

            Had it not been for the apologetic arguments for free will and ecclesial doctrines that were settled by much philosophizing, I would have had little to point to during my conversations with Todd. The value of intellectual pursuits in regards to discovering God is immeasurable because of the pay out; namely, the soul of a lost brother or sister. To this end, we must use all means necessary and there are few means as powerful as that of human reasoning.

Concluding Thoughts

            It is part of a Christian’s duty to attempt to spread the Kingdom of God via the good news of Christ’s atoning sacrifice. To do this, we must understand that we will face opposition and it will rarely come in the form of people attempting to discredit our experiences. As previously stated, that is an impassible mountain to traverse because the slopes of it consist of subjective interpretation. Therefore we must be prepared for any and all logical conundrums that might exist for the sake of the gospel of Christ and the mission of the Ecclesia.

            Like the parable of the prodigal son, we must be aware that people who have ran from God, believing that it is reasonable to do so, need guidance to come to the realization of the mess and depravity to which they have run and the logical validity of returning to the Father. Utilizing the traditional arguments of the Church must never take a backseat to the experiences of Christians; instead, we should strive to open the eyes of the unbelieving heart to the reasonableness of God.

References

Baird, F. E. (2011). Rene Descartes: 1596-1650. In From Plato to Derrida (pp. 400-404). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Evans, C. S., & Manis, R. Z. (2009). Classical Arguments for God's Existence. InPhilosophy of religion: Thinking about faith (pp. 96-97). Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic.

Lewis, C. S. (2001). What Lies Behind the Law. In Mere Christianity (pp. 23-25). San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco.

McGrath, A. E. (2010). Science, Religion and Proofs for God's Existence. In Science and religion: An introduction (pp. 61-65). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Moreland, J. P., & Willard, D. (1997). Apologetic Reasoning and the Christian Mind. InLove your God with all your mind: The role of reason in the life of the soul (p. 154). Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress.

---

[1] (McGrath, 2010, pp. 61-65)

[2] (Baird, 2011, pp. 400-404)

[3] (Lewis, 2001, pp. 23-25)

[4] (Moreland & Willard, 1997, p. 154)

[5]  (Evans & Manis, 2009, pp. 96-97)